The big news this afternoon was that President Trump decided to pull the U.S. out of the Paris Agreement on climate change. Here are a few thoughts:
1) This is an unfortunate abdication of American world leadership
Although exact percentages vary, one fact is certain--a majority of world scientists believe global warming and climate change are primarily the result of carbon emissions and human activity. And, contrary to many denial narratives about "global cooling" as the previous concern of scientists, climate change is not a new concern that simply arose in the 1990's. Rather, it has been a concern of scientists
going all the way back to the 1960's, and warming was actually a
bigger concern than "cooling" during this time period.
Even most oil and gas companies today publicly state their belief that climate change is real. BP, Shell, Exxon-Mobile, and Chevron have all expressed support for reducing greenhouse emissions.
One survey of oil and gas business professionals found that 74% of these professionals were at least "somewhat sure" that global warming is happening (58% were at least "very sure" or "extremely sure.") Furthermore, 57% of those individuals believed this warming is being caused by human actions, and 75% stated that humans could take steps to reduce global warming. Keep in mind, this is from oil and gas professionals, those who have a financial interest in denying human-caused climate change.
The bottom line is that mainline science concurs that this is a problem and that there are steps humans can take to reduce the problem. This is evidenced by the willingness of 195 nations to sign the Paris Agreement. If climate change was actually scientifically debatable, you would not have seen this kind of overwhelming support. So while climate change deniers often charge that this whole push is merely
a plot by socialists to increase government control, the scientific consensus begs to differ.
Now, is it possible that the current science on climate change
could be wrong? Sure. That's why science always runs tests to try disproving prevailing theories. However, up to this point, the scientific evidence lines up with current theories. As such, our nation's policies should heed the best available science and not deny it.
That's why Trump's decision is a failure of global leadership. If the science is correct, climate change does pose a risk to humans, particularly to humans in poor countries. It's clear the rest of the world recognizes this (indeed the U.S. has the
highest percent of climate change deniers of any country in the world). As long as the science holds, it's inevitable that other countries, like China, will step up and continue to lead in this area. If the U.S. backs down, other countries will rise up and become leaders in technology innovation and energy independence.
2. For Christians, our concern should go beyond the truth or falsehood of climate change
For sake of argument, let's say that in 20 years scientists learn that climate change is not actually a human-induced phenomenon. Even if that is the case, Christians should still advocate for cleaner energy for a variety of reasons. First, there is no debate that fuels like oil, gas, and coal are polluters. Even "cleaner" versions of these fossil fuels still produce pollution. And the bottom line is that pollution is harmful. From a public health standpoint, we should attempt to reduce pollution as much as possible. No one wants to be breathing smog or drinking dirty water.
Additionally, Christians have a
biblical commitment to creation. In
Genesis 2, God places humanity in the Garden and gives them the command to "work it and
take care of it." Yes, creation is for our enjoyment and use, but we are also to be good stewards of the good gifts God has given us. Furthermore, throughout the Bible, creation repeatedly has a voice in God's story and continues to come up as something God cares for but gets harmed by sin:
"God said to Adam...“Cursed is the ground because of you;
through painful toil you will eat food from it
all the days of your life." (Gen. 3:17)
"For the creation waits in eager expectation for the children of God to be revealed. For the creation was subjected to frustration, not by its own choice, but by the will of the one who subjected it, in hope that the creation itself will be liberated from its bondage to decay and brought into the freedom and glory of the children of God. We know that the whole creation has been groaning as in the pains of childbirth right up to the present time." (Romans 8:19-22)
"Let the heavens be glad, and let the earth rejoice;
Let the sea roar, and all it contains; Let the field exult, and all that is in it.
Then all the trees of the forest will sing for joy before the Lord, for He is coming,
For He is coming to judge the earth." (Ps. 96:11-13)
"But ask the animals, and they will teach you, or the birds of the air, and they will tell you; or speak to the earth, and it will teach you, or let the fish of the sea inform you. Which of all these does not know that the hand of the LORD has done this? In his hand is the life of every creature and the breath of all mankind." (Job 12:7-10)
There are many other such verses. For instance, many places in the Bible reiterate the point that the earth is "the Lord's" and that it does not simply belong to humanity. Passages like Exo. 19:5-6, Lev. 25:23, and Ps. 50:9-12 all caution humans about their use of natural resources because ultimately it is God who created and owns the land, the beasts, and the fields.
With such a biblical narrative, Christians should be among the first people to advocate and push for more renewable and sustainable forms of energy that not only improve
our health, but also the health and well-being of God's good
creation.
3. Market forces will trump Trump
While many environmentalists are lamenting Trump's decision, the truth is things aren't that bleak. The reality is the economy, public opinion, and market forces will continue to push us toward cleaner energy regardless of Trump's actions. Sure, Trump may slow things down a bit, but we are at the point where fossil fuels are not likely to make a strong comeback. Even with low oil prices, renewable energy has continued to boom. And it's not just because of tax subsidies.
Like any new technology, the cost of production and operation for renewable energy sources has dropped significantly in the past 5 years. Solar, in particular, has become much cheaper to produce, even to the point where
India recently scrapped plans for new coal power plants in favor of solar power.
Here in the U.S., many large corporations are
demanding renewable and sustainable power sources. For instance, in the traditional coal country of Kentucky, companies like Ford, Wal-Mart, and Toyota have all expressed plans to reduce their emissions and have demanded cleaner energy. Toyota has even gone so far as to build their own sources of clean energy when the Kentucky energy grid failed to offer enough clean energy. Likewise, most American consumers want cleaner, more sustainable energy if offered the choice. Even
entire American cities have signaled they'll ignore Trump and continue to abide by the Paris Climate Accords.
Furthermore, for all the talk politicians have done over the years of needing to be "energy independent," it's worth noting that one of the best ways to do this is to switch to renewable and sustainable forms of power. There is no shortage of sun or wind in our country, and unlike oil prices, wind and sun are actually more reliable over the long run.
This means that even if coal, oil, and gas industries get a bump from Trump, the long-term outlook is still not great. With the forces of the free-market moving towards cleaner power, Trump will not be able to save many of these jobs, which brings me to my final point.
4. Jobs are an important piece, but we must expand our thinking about jobs
Trump's main pitch in this area has been that environmental regulations and support for clean energy have strangled oil, gas, and coal industries and have put people out of work. This is certainly partly true (although as pointed out above, market forces have had as much, if not more, of an impact than environmental regulations). One of Trump's main reasons for pulling out of the Paris Agreement was that the concessions in the agreement were "bad for jobs" in America.
One of the mistakes environmental advocates make (and that Hillary Clinton made in her campaign) is not taking seriously enough the struggles of families who rely on work in fossil fuel industries. Living here in Texas, I've gotten to know a number of individuals who work or have worked in oil fields, offshore oil rigs, and coal plants. They are good people and don't hate the environment or anything. However, they also need the income that comes from these jobs. As such, the necessary move to renewable energy is a real threat to their livelihoods and their financial security.
So, yes jobs are an important issue. However, we must also look at the whole picture. For the reasons stated above, we need to be making the switch to cleaner energy. Just because there are costs to an action does not mean we avoid that action. For instance, the government's crackdown on tobacco companies over the years certainly hurt those businesses and cost people jobs, but this was a move that needed to be made to promote the public's health. Likewise, there are equally good reasons to pursue an agenda to combat climate change and pollution. The challenge is how to do this while minimizing the damage and pain to real life families caught in the crossfire.
No one can really dispute that renewable energy is what will be used in the future. The only question is
when the switch will be complete. Just like automated elevators, "horseless carriages," and automation in factories, technology will continue moving forward and changing the job landscape. Our task is not to oppose these inevitable changes, but to embrace them and change with them.
So we do need to talk about protecting jobs, but we need to do so in a way that neither Republicans or Democrats have done. Republicans typically just try to protect "dirty energy" jobs, while Democrats inhumanely try to put an end to those industries in favor of cleaner industries while real workers get lost in the mess. What we
should be doing is supporting efforts to offer education, job training, and job opportunities for those in oil and coal industries. As clean power takes off, this will inevitably create new job opportunities both in the energy sector and elsewhere. We need to take advantage of this and help people move into new jobs. Just as we talk about moving to "sustainable energy," we need to do more to move
people into more "sustainable" jobs. This should be a bipartisan effort.
Until clean energy advocates find meaningful ways to help those currently working in coal and oil, there will continue to be opposition to climate change initiatives, and rightfully so.
----------------------------------------------------
In summary, yes it was unfortunate that Trump bailed on the Paris Agreement (particularly when the U.S. had the option to
modify the conditions without jumping out completely), but it's not the end of the world. The world and the U.S. will continue moving in a direction that will reduce greenhouse gases, but as we do so we must all come together from both sides of the aisle and talk about how to make these transitions as smooth as possible for
everyone involved.
