By Steven Cohen, Ph.D., Director of the M.S. in Sustainability Management program, School of Professional Studies
I enjoy science fiction movies and books. Luke Skywalker, Princess Leia, and Yoda are great characters. But while I hope the Force is with me, I know it is fiction and I know that Wookies don’t really exist. Scientific fact is reality, and science fiction will always be fantasy. Nevertheless, the ideologues running the EPA can’t seem to distinguish scientific fact from fantasy. They are disregarding scientific findings and dismantling scientific capacity. Even worse, they don’t seem to understand the Clean Air Act that they are required to implement. Nearly fifteen years ago, my colleague Alison Miller and I published a status report on climate policy in the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists, where we detailed the origins of greenhouse gas regulation under the Clean Air Act. Way back then, we noted that:
“In October 1999, a coalition of 19 nonprofit organizations petitioned the EPA to regulate greenhouse gases emitted by new motor vehicles under the Clean Air Act. The environmental groups claimed that these gases contribute to climate change, endangering public health and welfare, and, therefore, ought to be regulated as air pollutants. During the George W. Bush administration, the EPA rejected the view that the Clean Air Act required the EPA to address climate change, and a group of 13 environmental organizations and 15 states, territories, and municipalities filed legal challenges (Environmental Defense Fund, 2011). In 2007, in its landmark decision Massachusetts v. EPA, the US Supreme Court found that the EPA has the authority—and, in fact, the obligation—to regulate greenhouse gases and instructed the agency to ascertain whether greenhouse gas emissions endanger public health and welfare.
In December 2009, the EPA formally declared that carbon dioxide and five other greenhouse gases are indeed pollutants that threaten public health and welfare. Under the Obama administration, the agency moved ahead with regulation, despite harsh criticism from conservatives in Congress. In May 2010, the agency issued the nation’s first regulations for greenhouse gases: rules for passenger vehicles, which required fuel economy of 35.5 miles per gallon to be phased in by 2016 (Environmental Defense Fund, 2011). The EPA also released a “tailoring” rule, the first regulation of greenhouse gases emitted from large stationary sources, primarily coal-fired power plants, refineries, and large factories. Later last year, the EPA released its fuel economy standards for medium- and heavy-duty trucks, also to be phased in over a number of years “(Environmental Defense Fund, 2011).”
Climate science is settled science, except for the people who oversee this country’s climate policy. When we were first using mathematical models to predict the impact of global warming, the climate issue was difficult to communicate in a political system where all politics is local, and most issues are immediate. Climate was different than locally sourced and experienced air, toxic, and water pollution, since it could not be seen or smelled. It had the problem of being created everywhere on the globe, with its impact in the future. Oh, for those good old days. Today, we’ve learned that the climate models of 2000 have proven to be accurate. If anything, they understated the impact of global warming. Today, the source of the climate problem remains global, but we have started to see the impact of climate change as it accelerates the number and intensity of extreme weather events. Those poor children in Texas were victims of catastrophic flooding, leaving locals to say that “they had never seen a flood like that around here." That is because a flood of that intensity and speed had never happened before. Something has changed, and that something is the result of a warmer climate. Incredibly, some of the people running EPA are getting ready to withdraw EPA’s fifteen-year-old greenhouse gas endangerment finding and have the nerve to tell the American people that climate change does not endanger their health and welfare. According to Lisa Friedman of the New York Times:
“The Trump administration has drafted a plan to repeal a fundamental scientific finding that gives the United States government its authority to regulate greenhouse-gas emissions and fight climate change, according to two people familiar with the plan. The proposed Environmental Protection Agency rule rescinds a 2009 declaration known as the “endangerment finding,” which scientifically established that greenhouse gases like carbon dioxide and methane endanger human lives… If the Trump administration is able to repeal the endangerment finding, it would not only erase all current limits on greenhouse gas pollution from cars, factories, power plants and other sources. It would prevent future administrations from trying to tackle climate change, with lasting implications… In calling to repeal the endangerment finding, the draft E.P.A. rule does not appear to focus on the science or try to make the case that fossil fuels aren’t warming the planet. Instead, it argues that the E.P.A. overstepped its legal authority under the Clean Air Act by making a broad finding that greenhouse gas emissions endanger the public welfare.”
The amount of death and destruction from extreme weather events is not solely caused by climate change. Some of it is due to development patterns that place people in harm’s way. Where in earlier times there were no people living in the pathways of destruction from some storms, today, we find homes and communities in places that were once unpopulated being swept away by the sheer force of nature. Some of the destruction is due to our arrogance in thinking that we can live close to forests, rivers, and oceans, where earlier we would build at a distance from potential natural hazards. Some of those campers in Texas were sleeping in bunks built on land once designated as a floodplain. No one thought there was any danger, but tragically, they were wrong.
As greenhouse gases warm the planet, more and more people are suffering health and economic damage from extreme weather events and changes in climate. Defining away that danger is ridiculous. Of course, the Project 2025 ideologues are a little craftier than their predecessors; they are not questioning climate science and claiming that climate change is not taking place, they are saying that the EPA does not have the authority to protect the public from planet-wide danger, only specific threats in very narrow circumstances. That is complete and utter nonsense. It is built on a lack of understanding of environmental protection and the federal reorganization that established the EPA in 1970.
The environment is an interconnected system of physical and biological relationships, coupled with a built environment built by humans. The danger caused by the floods in Texas was the result of natural forces and human decision-making. Environmental danger requires that we understand earth systems science, ecological science, environmental science, and social science. Danger is both narrowly focused and system-wide. As noted above in Massachusetts v. EPA, the US Supreme Court determined that the EPA had the obligation to regulate greenhouse gases. While the Trump Administration promotes fossil fuels and is doing everything it can to diminish the growth of renewable energy, other parts of the world are doing the opposite. Or at a minimum, these other nations are pursuing an “all of the above” energy strategy. Only the United States seems to be determined to ignore climate change and discourage the development of a renewable energy economy.
The idea that climate change does not endanger people or the planet is science fiction. Perhaps it would be better to call it fiction about science, or maybe we should call it as it is: a dangerous lie. This is an administration governed by the whim and the scientific illiteracy of the president. He does not like the way that windmills disturb the vista of a natural landscape. Fair enough, he is not alone. But climate change requires that we decarbonize our energy system. Perhaps someday, better technologies will replace wind and solar farms. But right now, that’s the technology we have. Over the weekend, President Trump advised Scotland and all of Europe to stop building windmills. Perhaps he should visit Texas, where over 28% of their electricity comes from wind power. In Scotland, nearly all their electricity comes from non-fossil fuel sources, and they even export renewable energy. Assuming you don’t understand or care about climate science, you probably care about the cost of energy. Renewable energy is becoming more reliable and less expensive than fossil fuels. It can help power economic growth while reducing greenhouse gas pollution. The Trump Administration’s complete disregard of the climate crisis becomes increasingly visible throughout the United States government. Fortunately, cities, states, private companies, and foreign governments recognize the danger of climate change. This Administration is an outlier, and their view of climate science is pure fiction. Perhaps they are counting on a science fiction hero to save us from global warming. In the words of Princess Leia: “Help me, Obi-Wan Kenobi, you are my only hope…."
Views and opinions expressed here are those of the authors, and do not necessarily reflect the official position of Columbia School of Professional Studies or Columbia University.
About the Program
The Columbia University M.S. in Sustainability Management program offered by the School of Professional Studies in partnership with the Climate School provides students cutting-edge policy and management tools they can use to help public and private organizations and governments address environmental impacts and risks, pollution control, and remediation to achieve sustainability. The program is customized for working professionals and is offered as both a full- and part-time course of study.
