The US will no longer fight global warming

The main provisions of the plan to combat global warming, developed by the Obama administration, are canceled. The corresponding order on March 28 was signed by Donald Trump. The US rejects environmental initiatives and removes restrictions on the release of gases from coal-fired power plants. This news was spread by the world's leading mass media, accompanied by commentaries of mostly critical nature. Will America kill with its own smoke, and at the same time the whole world? What are the consequences of this decision?

Threat to mankind

During the campaign, Trump's slogan of the return to America of its former greatness had several components, including energy and industry. National production should develop, which will entail an increase in employment, GDP growth and other positive economic effects. For all this to work, energy is needed. Everyone in the world, and not only Americans, but also Russians know that industrialization is accompanied by changes in the landscape, in particular, the emergence of many chadyaschih pipes. For a long time it was thought that nothing could be done about this. In the 60s and even 70s many western megacities were choking with smoke, and in some cities it was possible to breathe a clean air through a special mask for money. But not only in the pollution of the atmosphere was the problem. Some studies have proved, and at first glance, irrefutable, that the main threat to mankind is caused by greenhouse gases. They allegedly do not allow infrared rays to reflect off the earth's surface, and this will ultimately lead to global warming. Glaciers and icebergs will melt, the ocean will rise and flood entire continents. The end of the world will come. And the struggle for ecology began.

The Kyoto Protocol and the Paris Agreement

In the face of imminent danger, leading industrial powers introduced voluntary self-restraints, undertaking obligations to reduce emissions of gases that create a greenhouse effect. For the first time this happened in the Japanese city of Kyoto in late 1997. The US promised to reduce the number of harmful fumes by 7%, the European Union - by 8%, and other countries also agreed to various conditions. Many States joined the Protocol, and this process continued until 1999. China and several developing countries did not promise anything. Russia and Ukraine have accepted the condition not to increase their emissions above the 1990 level. Further development of environmental initiatives was the Paris Agreement 2015-2016. Unlike the Kyoto Protocol, which regulated the entry of a number of harmful substances into the atmosphere, it focused on carbon dioxide. It was the Paris Agreement that Donald Trump promised to cancel.

"War with coal"

Mining was traditionally one of the most important components of the American national economy. The thermal power stations were eager to eat, and with the introduction of the plans for the development of "green" energy by Obama, this sector of industry began to experience difficulties. Particularly unpopular environmental measures of the previous administration have so far remained in the "republican" states, and large businessmen, whose business was based on the use of hydrocarbon fuels, that is, gas, oil and coal, repeatedly appealed to the courts with lawsuits against laws restricting their activities. At the same time, objectively, industrial production in the United States was declining, and in the PRC, for example, it was growing, which gave Trump reason to call climate change "the invention of the Chinese," and very beneficial for them. The new president promised to stop "fighting with coal" and now he did it.

Responsible for the environment

Trump commissioned the management of the Environmental Protection Agency Scott Pruitt, the 48-year-old Attorney General of Oklahoma, known for repeatedly criticizing the theory of global warming. He believes that Obama's environmental initiatives are an illegal attempt by federal bureaucrats to seize the entire US energy industry. In turn, representatives of the Democratic Party accuse Pruitt of defending the corporate interests of large oil and gas and coal businesses. Which of them is more right, time will tell. There are also among the democrats Senator J. Inhof, who believes that excessive environmental control strengthens bureaucratic oppression for business, creates conditions for additional red tape, and the agency itself is only a convenient budget "feeder", and nothing more.

Arguments of Trump

The very fact that world industrial activity can create a certain impact on the environment, President Trump is not denied, but he repeatedly expressed the idea of the possibility of maintaining good ecology while increasing industrial production. The creation of new jobs is a priority task, as is the reduction of import fuel dependence. The Paris agreement is unprofitable for the US, as it limits the opportunities for energy production and general industrial growth. The main problem is the requirement to abandon fossil fuels in order to reduce carbon dioxide emissions into the atmosphere. Trump had already been accused of ignoring scientific facts. Does the president really deny the results of the research?

Criticism of theory

The "greenhouse" hypothesis, for all its obviousness, is not without its weak points. Perhaps Albert Gore, who never had any professional knowledge in the field of climatology, but who had the rare ability to convince his listeners of the existence of a universal danger, can be considered the most famous adherent. At the same time, in this case, exact sciences are more important than emotional impulses.

Mankind really can cause significant harm to nature, rendering it technogenic impact on it, but carbon dioxide is not the most destructive factor. In addition, there are other sources of this substance, quite natural, and it is impossible to exclude them, unfortunately, no international convention. For example, it is estimated that the eruption in the Philippines of the Pinatubo Volcano (1991) led to the release of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere in an amount exceeding the consequences of human activity throughout its history. But there are many volcanoes, and they all erupt from time to time.

Why carbon dioxide?

There is no doubt that Donald Trump attracted another flurry of criticism, compared to which all previous accusations, including in an alleged connection with Russia, may fade. By giving green light to the increase in the extraction and use of coal at TPPs, it encroaches on one of the cornerstones of the American way of life in recent decades - environmental safety. At the same time, many dubious elements of economic intensification, including the use of genetically modified organisms and chemical agrarian drugs, banned in many countries, have been resolved in the country from the point of view of European environmentalists.

What is Trump's risk?

Representatives of environmental organizations have already spoken against the US president. In the opinion of billionaire activist Tom Steyer, Trump commits a crime against American values and threatens the health, prosperity and security of every citizen of the country. Trip Van Noppen, the president of another group of environmentalists, called Earthjustice, is going to sue the head of state. Protests, perhaps, will expand, and an important factor contributing to their calming, can only become real economic success combined with an acceptable level of environmental safety. Will it work for Trump? Time will tell.