According to a March 21 New York Times article, President Donald Trump plans on repealing climate change policies set during the Obama administration. In addition to cutting funding for the Environmental Protection Agency by 31 percent, he has also expressed interest in reviving the coal industry — something that President Obama aimed to diminish. Though 75 percent of Americans support regulating carbon dioxide emissions, the White House and Congress are pursuing actions that would limit such regulations. What do you think of the Trump administration's actions regarding climate change, and what can be done to align these disparate goals?

Prof. Laura Goldin (ENVS)

The Trump administration plans to undo climate change policies set in place to address the realities already felt by the effects of a climate changing in significant part by burning fossil fuel. By what moral or legal code does one president make wholesale decisions which can destroy precious natural resources forever to the loss of generations to come? Furthermore, Trump promises to bring back a wealth of jobs and recharge the dying coal industry...burning natural gas ... although also a fossil fuel, has overtaken coal as a cheaper and cleaner burning alternative. The oil and gas industry and smaller entrepreneurs also have been pursuing alternative energy solutions as the economic future of the industry. A number of states are also taking steps to limit carbon emissions that would effectively prevent new coal plants. Finally, modern coal mining extraction creates limited jobs. Instead it relies on heavy equipment, even removing mountaintops, to leave behind barren wasteland and polluted water. Thanks to our legal and constitutional system, the public has a say in what happens next. We can let our voices be heard now, in our local communities, in our states and in our midterm elections.

Prof.Laura Goldin (ENVS) is a professor of Environmental Studies.

Prof. Charles Chester (ENVS)

Is there a silver lining to President Trump’s EPA budget and executive decision-making? No, there really isn’t; recent verbal emissions from the White House constitute the most disheartening news that the public has heard in a long time — possibly ever, at least from a standing president. But right now, silver linings are not what the environmental community — or anyone who breaths air and drinks water — should be searching out. Rather, we need a strong, determined and well-funded push-back against the harmful budget and know-nothing policies that the Trump Administration is espousing. The good news is that there is a great deal of know-how and experience within the environmental community, and they are out there right now fighting the necessary fight. Moreover, from a legal perspective, there is a good deal of opportunity to avert the tragic consequences of an Eden-for-billionaires world. But success in this push-back is not going to be easy; it will require persistent support for rational policies in our words, our actions, and our philanthropy—whether it’s at the scale of $10 or of $1 million.

Prof.Charles Chester (ENVS) is a professor of Environmental Studies.

Benedikt Reynolds ’19

There will be consequences. Consider tobacco: without the rules and regulations, the age restrictions and the taxes and the research that caused the stigma, where would we be today? The Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) main priority is to protect human and animal health. Subsequently, that means looking at solutions for global warming. Unfortunately, without the rules and regulations, the research, the stigma, the EPA, we’re moving further from those solutions. However, America’s consumers are the decision makers. If company X isn’t working out for you because they don’t recycle, switch to a company that does. Company X will have to catch up, otherwise they could go out of business. It’s change from the bottom up! So, whenever you’re considering a purchase, please look for companies that promise fair trade, organic and recycled products. Make sure their products aren’t trends but are timeless and are meant to be used for years to come. It’s something that you can start immediately and that everyone can participate in. Your money is your vote, and with every purchase, you can vote for protecting the environment.

Benedikt Reynolds ’19 is a member of the Senate Sustainability Committee.

Maddox Kay ’19

President Trump’s new climate change policies represent a traditionally conservative view on the environment, yet do little to balance the budget or stimulate the economy. According to White House data, in 2016 the Environmental Protection Agency’s budget represented 0.25 percent of the national budget — a drop in the bucket. Trump is not cutting funding to pinch pennies, but to make a point. This is a line item in a long list of actions Trump has undertaken not in the interest of sound policy, but in the interest of ideological consistency. We see this in his push for coal as well. Coal is a dying energy source being pushed out by natural gas and renewables, and injecting the coal industry with cash will only stave off its decline. As these policies contradict most Americans’ views on carbon emissions and climate change, voters must make climate change an issue in the 2018 midterm elections. All 435 seats in the House and 34 seats in the Senate will be up for grabs, and the outcome will determine whether Trump’s policies are a speed bump or the new norm.

Maddox Kay ’19 is a staff writer for the Justice. He is also majoring in Sociology with a double minor in Legal Studies and Spanish.