2020 ELECTION SERIES: THE DAY AFTER: A CROSSROADS FOR CLIMATE CHANGE
BY MARCUS DUBOIS KING
The apocalyptic Hollywood movie “The Day After Tomorrow,” released with great fanfare in 2004, depicted a disruption in the circulation of currents due to climate change-induced temperature changes in the North Atlantic Ocean that were so monumental as to usher in a period of catastrophic global cooling and extreme weather events. Although the movie identified real and troubling trends, these impacts were certainly exaggerated. Just like the movie, however, the events that will unfold on November 4, the day after the U.S. presidential election, will have real-world stakes for our planet that could not be higher.
Make no mistake about it. Climate change is an existential and growing crisis not only on a global level but also in many parts of America. In California alone, wildfires, heatwaves, and storms are all connected to climate change and they are steadily getting worse. In mid-August, the thermometer at the aptly named Furnace Creek Visitor Center displayed what was potentially the hottest temperature ever recorded on Earth: 130 degrees. The southern United States this year has seen 25 tropical storms with abnormally warm winds, while the average for a single season since 2005 is 12.
While the wildfires continue to burn, in less than a month the U.S. presidential election will bring us to a crossroads in climate change leadership that will have unprecedented national and international implications. The election represents a crossroads for national and global climate change leadership. Two very distinct climate change futures are possible.
In a visit to Florida following a hurricane, Democratic presidential candidate and former U.S. Vice President Joe Biden recounted a briefing he received from the Joint Chiefs of Staff that identified global warming as the greatest threat to our national security in part because it will eventually displace millions of people due to impacts such as sea level rise creating significant security challenges. This assessment has been consistent.
All of these decisions by the Trump administration to ignore the climate crisis must be seen in the context of an attack on science.
Under the Trump administration, General Mark Milley, the current chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, observed in congressional testimony before the House Armed Services Committee that climate change is probably going to result in destabilization, due to factors such as with resource depletion, water scarcity, and increases in diseases. He noted that there are a lot of second and third order effects that will have an impact on U.S. national security.
On the contrary, President Donald Trump has failed to grasp the security implications of climate change, calling it a hoax. In the United States, his administration has incentivized fossil fuel exploration and production while rolling back environmental regulations and incentives for clean technology manufacturers. Early in his administration, President Trump directed his Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to rescind the Obama-era Clean Power Plan that would have required states to move away from coal-based power plants.
This is just one of nearly 80 separate regulations targeted or eliminated on his watch. These include requirements to reduce methane emissions, one of the most potent greenhouse gases and mandates to factor carbon emissions into federal decision-making. While the Trump administration refuses to take action now to mitigate climate change, many of the worst impacts of climate change are already baked in for the foreseeable future. Unfortunately, even if industrial emissions were reduced to Stone Age levels tomorrow, it would take considerable time for the impacts of climate change to begin to wane.
All of these decisions to ignore the climate crisis must be seen in the context of an attack on science. President Trump flew to California after many weeks of silence about the forest fires in the western United States. When President Trump was (politely) confronted by California Governor Gavin Newsom and other state officials, he would only attribute the fires to poor forest management and not climate change. He explained that he did not think “science knows what is actually happening.” However, the science that climate change is behind the increased droughts and heatwaves that precipitated the fires is unequivocal. As disappointing as it is, Trump's reaction should not be surprising as it was not the first or the last time that he has refused to put any stock in scientific findings with tragic results.
This skepticism extends to the international level. On November 4, 2019, the Trump administration gave a formal notice of intention to withdraw from the Paris Agreement. To be valid, this notice must be received by the secretariat of the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) exactly 12 months ahead of time. So, the effective withdrawal date will be the day after the 2020 U.S. presidential election of November 3. This day will either be remembered as the first day of a lame duck presidency period where little policy action will be taken by the outgoing Trump administration or as an inflection point when the global community’s efforts to mitigate climate change officially went off the track due to the absence of the United States.
The international community’s efforts to reduce greenhouse emissions rely on U.S. leadership in two ways. First, the United States is the world’s second-largest emitter of greenhouse gases, responsible for 15 percent of global emissions in 2018. Just as importantly, U.S. commitments provide an example for other large greenhouse gas emitting countries like China and India as they set their targets under the Paris Agreement. Jake Schmidt, managing director of international programs at the Natural Resources Defense Council observed that when the United States started making promises on climate change emissions reductions, it helped bring China and other big producers of greenhouse gasses to the table.
On the issue of climate, the connection between local climate conditions and international policy failure could not be clearer.
If elected, the Biden/Harris campaign has a plan to realign national climate policy, provide much needed economic stimulus and set the United States back on course to be a leader in negotiating a global response to address the climate crisis.
Domestically, the Biden plan labeled “Clean Energy Revolution and Environmental Justice” would commit the U.S. economy to net-zero emissions by 2050. It envisions $1.7 trillion in direct government spending on clean energy, as well as new laws to tax carbon. In a shift from current policy, it promises to reinstate executive action to reduce methane emissions. He would adopt stricter fuel-economy standards, and nationwide energy efficiency standards. Finally, the plan would also place a moratorium on any new drilling for fossil fuels and prohibit fracking on public lands.
The Pacific Council has undertaken an initiative that urges citizens to be local voters in the 2020 presidential election with an eye toward global issues. At the Council, a “local-to-global” opportunity means connecting local experiences to global policy and action. On the issue of climate, the connection between local climate conditions and international policy failure could not be clearer.
Rather than a policy of isolation, Joe Biden has made three pledges in regard to foreign policy on climate change. First, that his administration will reenter the Paris Agreement on day one of his presidency and begin a diplomatic push to make its emissions targets more ambitious. Second, it would propose new trade policies that would put tariffs on products from other countries with high carbon content. Third, it would bar U.S. foreign aid and financing for coal-fired power plants overseas and provide debt relief for countries implementing green policies. These measures would be crucial steps toward the enormous task of restoring U.S. leadership on an issue that affects American communities while regaining credibility on the world stage.
____________________
Marcus DuBois King, PhD, is a Pacific Council member, the John O. Rankin Associate Professor of International Affairs at George Washington University, and a Senior Fellow at the Center for Climate and Security.
The views and opinions expressed here are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the official policy or position of the Pacific Council.
