Trump and Climate Change: A Disaster in the Making

President Trump at a rally in West Virginia in August. The governor of West Virginia switched his partisan alliance from Democrat to Republican over the issue of the coal industry, which Trump has promised to support by putting coal miners back to work.

One of the most striking differences between the Obama and Trump administrations has been the approach to climate change. The recently released National Security Strategy (NSS) provides stark evidence of this contrast: while Obama’s 2015 report listed “climate change” as a pressing national security threat and mentioned the term twelve times, Trump’s mentioned “climate” only four times, and only then to invoke the “detrimental” effects of an “anti-growth energy agenda” related to climate policy. Though the decision to remove climate change from the list of security threats represents a dramatic reversal from the previous administration, it is in keeping with expectations, given the explicit and repeated promises of Trump’s platform to reduce energy regulations and support a declining domestic coal industry. The policy could prove antithetical to the president’s overall governance approach, however, as it entails substantial short- and long-term consequences which directly oppose his domestic and foreign policy goals.

President Obama was unapologetic in his determination to take substantive action on the climate. In addition to his National Security Strategy, he was instrumental in the Paris Climate Agreement of 2015, both in negotiating its provisions and as the signatory for the U.S. to join in September 2016. In his remarks at the Paris talks, Obama likened the threat of climate change to the problem of terrorism, and later proclaimed that “today, there is no greater threat to our planet than climate change.” President Trump took advantage of this strong language to fire back on the campaign trail, saying, “Even if you’re a believer in global warming, ISIS is a big problem, Russia’s a problem, China’s a problem… the maniac in North Korea is a problem. He actually has nuclear weapons… that’s a problem.” These statements reveal much about Trump’s realist interpretation of security, as well as his policy priority. The most telling detail, however, is the insinuation that global warming is a debatable phenomenon. Though he has since backed down on the claim that global warming is “a hoax” and a “money-making industry,” Trump appears determined to weaken the perceived urgency of the matter, an approach which could hinder future efforts.

Left, President Obama delivering an address at the U.N. Climate Change Conference, December 2015; right, President Trump in announcing his decision to withdraw from the Paris Accords, June 2017.

According to the new NSS, “given future global energy demand, much of the developing world will require fossil fuels, as well as other forms of energy to power their economies and lift their people out of poverty.” Yet with the announcement of withdrawal from the Paris Accords in June and the subsequent announcements of participation by Nicaragua and Syria, the United States will become the only nation in the world not signed on. Not only does this decision isolate and exclude the U.S. from future discussion, but the unification of the rest of international community against such isolationism will make our leadership in energy policy difficult, if not impossible.

Trump’s commitment to building military strength and combatting terrorism, as evidenced by his verbal and budgetary commitments to those issue areas, also contradicts his climate approach. The military and Department of Defense have been unequivocal and aggressive in taking steps to combat climate change, which is perceived by officials as a direct threat to global and national security. Rising sea levels pose a direct threat to American military bases, many of which are at risk of submersion within the next several decades. Meanwhile, increasing temperatures will only add to the already exorbitant costs of maintaining facilities in countries like Syria and Afghanistan; even for such simple functions as air conditioning, the Pentagon spends $20 billion annually and risks lives in the delivery of fuel. The more pressing concern with rising temperatures, however, is the intensification of water scarcity and droughts in already troubled countries, an effect which promises to undermine tenuous state structures and create the circumstances which breed terrorism. Other concerns related to climate change include geopolitical tensions in the Arctic as a result of melting ice; damage to domestic infrastructure, which disrupts transportation and diverts resources from other government spending; and the decline of faith in the U.S., which reneged on an international commitment mere months after making it.

In a report on “Current Readiness of the U.S. Forces” to the Senate Armed Services Committee last week, military leaders identified the Marine Corps Recruit Depot on Parris Island, South Carolina — pictured above — as a “critical vulnerability” due to rising sea levels. There are many such military bases at risk across the United States due to the effects of climate change.

Given these significant consequences, President Trump’s decision to dismiss the threat of climate change could prove counterproductive to his entire agenda, especially those fundamentals — infrastructure, counterterrorism, military power, and economic growth — upon which he has based much of his presidency. Domestic backlash has already begun to take shape, in the form of bipartisan requests for reconsideration from the House and the testimonial of senior military leadership to the Senate. The addition of business leaders and foreign allies to the list of outspoken opponents does not bode well for Trump, whose adherence to an indifferent climate approach may prove his downfall.