Has climate change been “Trumped”? Yes. And we will experience a major setback in preserving and maintaining a quality environment for future generations. While a vast majority of scientific research suggests that human activities are, and have been, contributing to climate change, the Trump administration seems to have taken a different stance. Especially in regards to the president’s Cabinet appointees who remain on the fence about climate change. Particularly, the candidate to head the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), Attorney General of Oklahoma Scott Pruitt. Pruitt is currently involved in a lawsuit against the EPA over the Clean Air Act established by former President Barack Obama. Pruitt believes that EPA regulations impede a state’s right to govern itself and stated before a Senate subcommittee in 2016 that “when the EPA exceeds the constraints placed upon the agency by Congress, the relationship is thrown out of balance and the rule of law and state sovereignty is affected adversely.”
In 2006, the American Association for the Advancement of Science released an official position on climate change which stated that “the scientific evidence is clear: global climate change caused by human activities is occurring now, and it’s a growing threat to society.” Yet, despite the overwhelming evidence published by environmental scientists and statements released by multiple scientific organizations, Pruitt remains skeptical.
Individuals like Pruitt maintain that they want something to be “proven” or argue that the science is not “settled.” Unfortunately, Pruitt and others that use these kinds of arguments do not understand science. Science never “proves” anything nor is it ever “settled.” Blackburn professor of biology Dr. Edward Zalisko noted that “science is not certain” and that he does not “know what it means for something in science to be ‘settled.’ Science is tentative. There are degrees of confidence.” Meaning that science offers explanations that are supported by evidence. As more evidence is collected that supports an explanation, the more confident scientists are in regard to that explanation. And that explanations remain subject to change in light of new evidence. Zalisko also added that “on issues with global or great human or environmental impact, we often face a dilemma. At what point are we confident enough to act cautiously, especially when inaction is action?” While Pruitt would rather wait to be convinced beyond a shadow of a doubt — which will never happen — the research on climate change has generated enough confidence for the scientific community to call for action.
To make matters worse, Trump’s candidate for Secretary of State, Rex Tillerson, is also a CEO for ExxonMobil and would represent the U.S. in climate change negotiations. Beyond the obvious conflict of interest, this has brought about speculations that the U.S. will withdraw from the Paris Act; an agreement between many countries, including China, to actively reduce greenhouse gas emissions. In light of Pruitt’s misunderstanding of science and Tillerson’s paycheck that relies on the harvesting of fossil fuels, future generations will look back and say that we got it wrong. Whether we actively or passively supported the current administration, climate change has been “Trumped” for at least the next four years.