The Paris Agreement on Climate Change was adopted in December, 2015 with a goal of limiting  “the increase in the global average temperature to well below 2°C above pre-industrial levels” and pursue efforts “to limit the temperature increase to 1.5°C above pre-industrial levels.” More recently the UN has stressed the desirability of staying below 1.5^oC through the end of the century due to a better knowledge of extreme weather impacts.  But, the UN has not established any critera for determining when we have passed the 1.5^oC threshold. As the global monthly average temperatures was 1.52^oC above the established per-industrial level for a full year by January 2024, and since each of the last nine months has set a global record for being the warmest in history, it would appear that the 1.5^oC threshold has already been passed, just nine years after it was established.

If the world continues with currently planned emissions we will cross the 2^oC threshold before 2050, not the end of the century.

Fossil fuels have raised the standard of living for societies since the industrial revolution and continue to do so.  Fossil fuels provide 80% or our global energy.  They are cheap and readily available in most locations, making it difficult to transition to cleaner forms of energy.  Even the United States is today extracting more oil than any nation in history, and has issued enough long-term leases on Federal lands on coastal regions to ensure that it will continue to do so. Meanwhile temperatures are increasing, extreme weather events are becoming more frequent, wide-spread and violent. We are rapidly leaving behind the possibility of mitigation and facing an future where adaptation is our only option – if we continue on our current course.

Two recent surveys by the Pew Research Center show that 46% of Americans believe that human activity is the primary reason why the Earth is warming, while 26% say warming is mostly caused by natural patterns in the environment.  And another 14% deny that our climate is changing.  On another question 37% of Americans responding to the surveys said that addressing climate change should be a top priority for the President and Congress, while 34% felt that it was important, but a lower priority.  Overall these numbers offer little support for the idea that we can effectively address climate change by voluntary, individual action.

As other surveys shown near universal belief of a changing climate, and the role of mankind among Democrats, while Republicans tend to believe the opposite, who we vote for might well be more important than what we drive.

While substantial progress has been made in reducing the pollution of our lands and inland waters, we have largely neglected the emission of greenhouse gases into the atmosphere. The science of carbon dioxide as a greenhouse gas dates to the 1850’s, but it was not until the 1950’s that scientists began warning about global warming (the cause) and climate change (the effect).  Science in the 1950’s and 60’s lacked the essential tools to observe, analyze and model global conditions;  primarily satellites to observe; computers to analyze, model and communicate. By the 1980’s climate change science had gain the support of the vast majority of scientists.

In 1988 the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) was formed by the World Meteorological Organization and the United Nations Environmental Programme, with the objective of “providing governments at all levels with scientific information that they can use to develop climate policies”.  The IPCC currently has 195 member nations, with thousands of people contributing to the work of the IPCC.  The IPCC does not conduct any research, rather it relies on volunteer scientists to review published scientific papers and prepare several several categories of reports.  The largest reports are the “Assessment Reports” which have been on eight-year cycles, with each Assessment producing four reports, three from “working groups” covering the physical science of climate change, the impacts of climate change and to adapt to them, and was of reducing greenhouse gas emissions, and a final synthesis report which draws of the 3 working group reports to produce one comprehensive overview.  The synthesis report from the current cycle (AR6) is just being released.

The full volume “AR6” Synthesis Report is not available at the time of this writing, but the “Summary for Policymakers” which presents 21 “statements of fact” drawn from the three Working Group reports, along with an assessment of confidence; and organized into 3 sections. Selected “statements of facts” follow:

A. Current Status and Trends

A.1 Human activities, principally through emissions of greenhouse gases, have unequivocally caused global warming, with global surface temperature reaching 1.1°C above 1850–1900 in 2011–2020. Global greenhouse gas emissions have continued to increase, with unequal historical and ongoing contributions arising from unsustainable energy use, land use and land–use change, lifestyles and patterns of consumption and production across regions, between and within countries, and among individuals (high
confidence).

A.2 Widespread and rapid changes in the atmosphere, ocean, cryosphere and biosphere have occurred. Human–caused climate change is already affecting many weather and climate extremes in every region across the globe. This has led to widespread adverse impacts and related losses and damages to nature and people (high confidence). Vulnerable communities who have historically contributed the least to current climate change are disproportionately affected (high confidence). 

A.3 Adaptation planning and implementation has progressed across all sectors and regions, with documented benefits and varying effectiveness. Despite progress, adaptation gaps exist, and will continue to grow at current rates of implementation. Hard and soft limits to adaptation have been reached in some ecosystems and regions. Maladaptation is happening in some sectors and regions. Current global financial flows for adaptation are insufficient for, and constrain implementation of, adaptation options, especially in developing countries (high confidence).

A.4 Policies and laws addressing mitigation have consistently expanded since AR5. Global GHG emissions in 2030 implied by nationally determined contributions (NDCs)* announced by October 2021 make it likely that warming will exceed 1.5°C during the 21st century and make it harder to limit warming below 2°C. There are gaps between projected emissions from implemented policies and those from NDCs and finance flows fall short of the levels needed to meet climate goals across all sectors and regions. (high confidence)  *[NDC – Nationally Determined Contribution, the  emission reductions voluntarily pledged by individual nations].

B. Future Climate Change, Risks, and Long–Term Responses

B.1 Continued greenhouse gas emissions will lead to increasing global warming, with the best estimate of reaching 1.5°C in the near term in considered scenarios and modelled pathways. Every increment of global warming will intensify multiple and concurrent hazards (high confidence). Deep, rapid, and sustained reductions in greenhouse gas emissions would lead to a discernible slowdown in global warming within around two  decades, and also to discernible changes in atmospheric composition within a few years (high confidence).

B.2 For any given future warming level, many climate–related risks are higher than assessed in AR5, and projected long–term impacts are up to multiple times higher than currently observed (high confidence). Risks and projected adverse impacts and related losses and damages from climate change escalate with every increment of global warming (very high confidence). Climatic and non–climatic risks will increasingly interact, creating compound and cascading risks that are more complex and difficult to manage (high confidence).

B.3 Some future changes are unavoidable and/or irreversible but can be limited by deep, rapid and sustained global greenhouse gas emissions reduction. The likelihood of abrupt and/or irreversible changes increases with higher global warming levels. Similarly, the probability of low–likelihood outcomes associated with potentially very large adverse impacts increases with higher global warming levels. (high confidence)

B.7 If warming exceeds a specified level such as 1.5°C, it could gradually be reduced again by achieving and sustaining net negative global CO2 emissions. This would require additional deployment of carbon dioxide removal, compared to pathways without overshoot, leading to greater feasibility and sustainability concerns. Overshoot entails adverse impacts, some irreversible, and additional risks for human and natural systems, all growing with the magnitude and duration of overshoot. (high confidence)

C. Responses in the Near Term

C.1 Climate change is a threat to human well–being and planetary health (very high confidence). There is a rapidly closing window of opportunity to secure a liveable and sustainable future for all (very high confidence). Climate resilient development integrates adaptation and mitigation to advance sustainable development for all, and is enabled by increased international cooperation including improved access to adequate financial resources, particularly for vulnerable regions, sectors and groups, and inclusive
governance and coordinated policies (high confidence). The choices and actions implemented in this decade will have impacts now and for thousands of years (high confidence).

C.2 Deep, rapid and sustained mitigation and accelerated implementation of adaptation actions in this decade would reduce projected losses and damages for humans and ecosystems (very high confidence), and deliver many co–benefits, especially for air quality and health (high confidence). Delayed mitigation and adaptation action would lock–in high–emissions infrastructure, raise risks of stranded assets and cost–escalation, reduce feasibility, and increase losses and damages (high confidence). Near–term actions involve high up–front investments and potentially disruptive changes that can be lessened by a range of enabling policies (high confidence).

C.3 Rapid and far–reaching transitions across all sectors and systems are necessary to achieve deep and sustained emissions reductions and secure a liveable and sustainable future for all. These system transitions involve a significant upscaling of a wide portfolio of mitigation and adaptation options. Feasible, effective, and low–cost options for mitigation and adaptation are already available, with differences across systems and regions. (high confidence)

C.6 Effective climate action is enabled by political commitment, well–aligned multilevel governance, institutional frameworks, laws, policies and strategies and enhanced access to finance and technology. Clear goals, coordination across multiple policy domains, and inclusive governance processes facilitate effective climate action. Regulatory and economic instruments can support deep emissions reductions and climate resilience if scaled up and applied widely. Climate resilient development benefits from drawing on diverse knowledge. (high confidence)

All of the above, and excluded “statements of fact”, are followed by supporting information in the report and together with the full report when published will provide a comprehensive, and up to date description of our climate change status and scientific knowledge.  Prepared by a global assembly of scientists, 6636 review comments from agencies of 47 national governments Assessment Report 6 was a major international undertaking. Its’ words should be heeded by all appropriate parties.

________________________

”If we don’t do the right thing now, our children and grandchildren will have to face serious global problems”, Dr. Carl Sagan, a brilliant astrophysicist and “explainer of science” addressing the U.S Senate Subcommittee on Toxic Substances and Environmental Oversight, December 11, 1985.

Alaska – Tundra Fire, April 21, 2022

Is the health of our planet any better this Earth Day than it was on Earth Day 2021,  are we doing more to protect it?  By any standard the answer to both questions is a resounding no. 

Where do we stand?  This past year witnessed increasingly violent storms, unprecedented flooding, heat waves,  wildfires and drought on every continent, with the exception of Antarctica. But even East Antarctica experienced an unprecedented heat wave last month (Autumn in the Southern Hemisphere) with temperatures measured up to 70^oF above normal for several days, accompanied by exceptional snowfall and rain; conditions previously thought impossible.  We are in the midst of a major extinction of the plant and animal species upon which we depend.  Climate driven migration is introducing species to new physical locations (we call them invasive) where they displace native species and may introduce exotic disease throughout our ecosystems.

Where are we headed?  The United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC)¹ recently released several reports from 3 Working Groups that will be the basis for a major report to its 145 member governments due in September.  The Working Group documents² provide a comprehensive review of the Earth’s health and it’s ecosystems, with an emphasis on our rapidly changing climates

Working Group I focuses on the physical science of climate change. Its report was prepared by 234 authors from 65 countries who assessed 14,000 scientific publications and received 78, 000+ comments on their initial draft.  Their findings are a sobering evaluation of where we are this Earth Day:

“Recent changes in the climate are widespread, rapid, and
intensifying, and unprecedented in thousands of years.”

“Unless there are immediate, rapid, and large-scale reductions in greenhouse gas emissions, limiting warming to1.5°C will be beyond reach.”

 “It is indisputable that human activities are causing climate change, making extreme climate events, including heat waves, heavy rainfall, and droughts, more frequent and severe.”

“Climate change is already affecting every region on Earth, in multiple ways.”

“The changes we experience will increase with further warming.” 

“There’s no going back from some changes in the climate system. However, some changes could be slowed and others could be stopped by limiting warming.” 

“To limit global warming, strong, rapid, and sustained reductions in CO2, methane, and other greenhouse gases are necessary. This would not only reduce the consequences of climate change but also improve air quality.”

The 278 authors of Working Group III (options for mitigating climate change) reviewed over 18,000 scientific papers and provided added clarity and specificity; giving us new deadlines, mainly:

“In the scenarios we assessed, limiting warming to around 1.5°C (2.7°F) requires global greenhouse gas emissions to peak before 2025 at the latest, and be reduced by 43% by 2030; at the same time, methane would also need to be reduced by about a third. Even if we do this, it is almost inevitable that we will temporarily exceed this temperature threshold but could return to below it by the end of the century.”

“The global temperature will stabilise when carbon dioxide emissions reach net zero. For 1.5°C (2.7°F), this means achieving net zero carbon dioxide emissions globally in the early 2050s; for 2°C (3.6°F), it is in the early 2070s.”  

“This assessment shows that limiting warming to around 2°C (3.6°F) still requires global greenhouse gas emissions to peak before 2025 at the latest, and be reduced by a quarter by 2030.”

For many years the science has been warning us about where we are headed unless we reduce our greenhouse gas emissions.  We have, and many still do, denied the science, and have pushed any action down the road.  We have now reached the point where we must take drastic, immediate action to reverse our greenhouse gas emissions in the next three years.  We have already warmed the planet by 1.1^oC making the 1.5^oC goal precariously close.

Global reversal of greenhouse gas emissions in 3 years would be a herculean task under any circumstance and in today’s world seems highly improbable.  Politics always takes priority over science;  personal short-term interests always seem to have priority over long-term societal interests; and, we will not endure inconvenience for benefits we will not see.  But if we do not take drastic action in the next 3 years future generations will soon see a planet becoming increasingly uninhabitable and a climate beyond control.  It is now or never.

________________

1.) The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), a body of the United Nations, is charged with assessing and documenting climate change science and providing guidance documentation to its 145 member governments.  A major product of the IPCC is a series of periodic “Assessment Reports”, historically produced at 6 – 7 year intervals, with each report emphasizing knowledge developed since the last report.  The IPCC does not conduct any research, rather it reviews and synthesizes published research.  Three “working groups” (WGI –  science of climate change; WGII – adaptation and vulnerabilities; and WGIII – mitigation)  prepare the reports that serve as the basis for the final Assessment Synthesis. Each Assessment is major, multi-year international project involving volunteer scientists from numerous countries. Assessment Report #6 is currently in preparation with the final working group reports having been approved this month, and a final Synthesis Report due in September. 

2.)  More information about the IPCC can be found at https://www.ipcc.ch,  the multiple documents produced by each working group can also be downloaded at this site. 

On April 22nd and 23rd President Biden will observe the first Earth Day of his new administration by hosting a virtual conference on climate change with over 80 global leaders.  He is expected to commit the U.S. to halving it greenhouse gas emissions by 2030, based on the 2005 level.  During the conference Biden may also agree to resume U.S  financial contribution of the U.S.; committed under the Paris Accord, to address climate change in underdeveloped nations.  The original commitment was for $3 billion, but President Trump issued an Executive Order halting the payments with $2 billion still owed.

During his first three months in office President Biden has made climate change and the environment hallmarks of his administration and a focus of each of his department leaders, a vast change from the previous administration.  Indeed, initial efforts to overturn environmental actions of the Trump administration began on the day President Biden was inaugurated when he signed the order to rejoin the Paris Accord.  Thus the official theme for this Earth Day of “Restore Our Earth” seems most appropriate.

President Biden will face a number of challenges in implementing his environmental and climate change programs.  Not the least of these being the understandable loss of global creditably.  The Kyoto Treaty, widely hailed as the most significant environmental treaty,  was negotiated under the Clinton administration, but rejected by President G.W. Bush.  The Paris Accord, essentially an extension of Kyoto, was negotiated and ratified under the Obama administration with President  Obama assuring the over 200 signatory nations that actions taken by his administration would be binding on succeeding administrations.  Never-the-less, President Trump officially withdrew from the Paris Accord, the only nation to have done so.

Secondly, the U.S. is far from united in terms of environmental and climate change regulation.  The current cornerstone Biden’s environmental and climate change actions is his infrastructure proposal, which Senate Republican Leader McConnell has vowed to oppose.  With Senate majority of only one, all Democrats, including those from fossil fuel producing states must vote for the finished bill, which current seems highly doubtful.  Also, a group of House Republicans recently introduced legislation requiring renegotiation of the entire Paris Accord and denouncing plans for global involvement by the U.S.  History tells us that control of at least one chamber of Congress is likely to change hands as a result of the 2022 mid-term elections.  If the Republicans gain control of either the House or Senate, the odds for passing any environmental or climate change legislation during the last two years of the Biden administration would be nil.

There is also an internal conflict  between Biden’s infrastructure plan, and his climate and environmental proposals.  If his $2.3 trillion infrastructure plan is implemented, it’s broad scope will require a substantial increase in the production of steel, concrete and other materials, resulting in an increased consumption of fossil fuels.  You cannot rebuild a power grid, extend broadband, install wind and solar generation and build an electrical vehicle infrastructure without consuming vast amounts of materials and energy, which currently means relying on fossil fuels.  Yes, in the long run such a program should vastly reduce U.S. greenhouse emissions, but during construction and transition to green power it would seem enviable that emissions would increase.  A temporary spike in emissions should not be used as justification to delay, but with a program of such wide scale the ability of the U.S. to concurrently cut it’s emissions in half from the 2005 base appears questionable.

On Earth  Day we are encouraged perform some action, such as picking up trash, planting a tree, or education.  While worthwhile, the the most signification action would be to make an Earth Day commitment  to becoming politically involved, especially in the U.S.  If you support a clean environment, pollution-free water and air, and stable ecosystems; and are concerned about a changing climate, your greatest impact will be political, supporting Democratic governance at local, state and national levels.  Regrettably, the U.S. no longer has two strong political parties, but rather has one party and one personality cult which has shown no interest or ability in actually governing and is committed to opposing science.  Hopefully this situation is temporary, and we will once again have a viable two-party system, but in the meantime the only choice is to govern or obstruct.  A changing climate and the environment require governance.

___________________

The introductory graphic: courtesy of  earthday.org.

The Earth Day philosophy was much deeper and broader. It was to be a day of education and the start of a movement toward a more sustainable life style and new, earth-friendly economy.The founder of Earth Day, U.S. Senator Gaylord Nelson of Wisconsin,  had become greatly concerned about pollution. He claimed that on the flight home from visiting the Santa Barbara oil spill he conceived a plan for a National Teach-In day to educate students about pollution hazards. A few days later,  he met Dennis Hayes a young activist with similar ideas and hired him to organize an Earth Day. Hayes had a much broader vision for the day, and working with a small staff combined activism with Senator Nelson’s education into an agenda that was widely adopted.  Senator Nelson choose Wednesday, April 22nd (with no idea that it would become an annual event) primarily because it was the middle of the week and most college students, his target audience, would be on campus.

In 1970, the news media was full of photos of polluted waters, burning rivers, and oiled sea-birds. The concept of Earth Day struck a responsive cord, and soon spread far beyond college campuses. Local organizations, individuals, schools and teachers soon adapted the guides and other materials form Dennis Hayes office to their local issues, resulting in countless, unique community events, with most incorporating both education and activism. It is commonly estimated that over 10% of Americans participated in Earth Day, 1970.

At the time, few understood the words “environment” and “ecology”.  The official Earth Day logo and flag, shown above, merges the letters “e” and “o” to symbolize the union of earth and organisms (the physical and biological components of ecosystems), while the alternating green and white bars represent a clean earth and air.   The common catch-phrase, or slogan used by many was “there is no away” in counter-point to the “lets just throw it away” philosophy. Earth Day, 1970, obviously greatly exceeded expectations, resulting in a significantly expanded public awareness of the environmental concerns, and for many an introduction to activism, be it recycling or political involvement. The event also resulted in far more environmental legislation than any other time in our history.

Perhaps the most significant outcome of Earth Day, 1970 was a universal awareness that we are all inhabitants on a common planet, impacted by the actions of others just as our actions impact others:  the “common good”.

Where do we stand 50 years later, on Earth Day 2020? We are facing two global crises, both with dire consequences. Climate change, which has been with us the longest, has been addressed globally with the signing of the Paris Agreement of 2015 at the 21st meeting of the “Conference of the Parties”,  with the 191 signatories each pledging specific reductions of CO2 emissions. To date, few if any of the signing nations have met their pledged target, and the United States is scheduled to officially withdraw from the Agreement on November 4th 2020, one day after the Presidential election.

The second crises is the global Covid-19 pandemic, currently impacting nations on every continent, except Antarctica. With little, or no, coordination individual nations are pursuing their own course of action, with varying degrees of success.  In the United States, a lack of Federal leadership has forced state Governors to assume the task of protecting their citizens. Some states coordinate with their neighbors, others do not.

While there may be a number of connections between climate change and the pandemic, the most significant may well be the failure to act for the “common good”, both on a national basis and increasingly on the individual level; a characteristic  of rising nationalism. When faced with an increasingly hostile climate and a pandemic with no cure it would seem logical that we would all benefit policies and actions supporting the “common good”; instead we are increasingly faced with  “me first” political policies and individual actions. The pandemic has clearly demonstrated that good leadership means working for and equally benefiting all citizens. Unfortunately too many national/regional and local leaders have not met that standard.

Most Earth Day 2020 events have been cancelled due to Covid-19. Where, and when,  possible we could perhaps best demonstrate the Earth Day objectives of activism and education by becoming politically active. For example, in the United States our upcoming Presidential election will probably be the most consequential in our history. Our environmental laws and regulations have been decimated, science is under attack and the very existence of our free press is threatened. Truth has been replaced by “alternate facts” – which seem to vary on an hourly basis. This election is probably be our last opportunity to protect our environment, reduce greenhouse gas emissions, and likely preserve our democratic form of government.  We can best honor the 50th Earth Day working for, and voting for, leadership at the local, state and national government that will reverse the environmentally damaging policies of the current administration,  support science and “facts”, and work for the common good. Fortunately it is still every individuals choice, lets preserve it while we can.

Earth Day 2019 has passed  with little more inconvenience,  at least to the citizens of my area, than a few newspaper advertisements acknowledging  the day or extolling the greenness of sponsoring oil companies .  No doubt some schoolchildren were liberated from their classes long enough to plant a few flowers in front of their school, an event not considered newsworthy.

Have we become so complacent that, like the fabled frog sitting in a pot of heating water, we are sitting in our own, man-made cauldron of a steadily warming planet and increasing environmental derogation?

This Earth Day also marked the third anniversary of the the opening of the Paris Climate Agreement for signatures of the participating nations. One hundred, ninety-five nations have signed the Paris Agreement and 185 have since taken the final step of formal ratification. While it has always been recognized that the voluntarily pledged emission reductions are insufficient to meet  the Agreement goal of holding global warming to less than 1.5^oC many countries are failing to meet their pledges.  Additionally, President Trump has declared that the United States will not participate in the Agreement and is officially withdrawing. This can hardly be an incentive for other countries.to additionally reduce their emissions.

In my opinion the major success of the Paris Agreement was that virtually all nations came together, agreed to cooperatively address a common problem, and actually produced an agreement that they all could sign.  While the agreed upon actions were acknowledged as insufficient to meet their agreed upon goal, the Paris Agreement, per se, must be considered a major, historic, success. Regrettably we have since seen a rising political tide of nationalistic isolationism, exemplified by such actions as the election of Donald Trump as President of the United States and Brexit. 

 Denying science and building walls will not slow global warming.  In real life frogs jump out of warming water, will we have enough common sense to do likewise?

This Earth Day seemed to be more devoid of “traditional” Earth Day activities such as volunteer groups cleaning streams and parks, tree planting, educational and recreational  activities that were the hallmark of earlier Earth Days.  Or, if such activities did occur, they did not appear to have been widely covered by the press.  As they do every named day politicians issued statements; either boasting of their elimination of “job-killing” regulations while still protecting the air and water or’ in what seems to be a sorry excuse for non-action, calling for the resignation of the current leaders of environmental agencies.

In the U.S. President Trump has appointed, and the Republican Senate confirmed, a series of zealots to head government Departments and Agencies.  Virtually all  appointees for natural resource, scientific, an environmental agencies have a history of calling for the elimination, or substantially reducing the scope, of the agency or department that they now head.   And, they are being quite efficient in doing so – inflecting damage that cannot be readily undone, and in some cases can never be reversed. The U.S. elimination of emission and mileage standards and the aggressive promotion of fossil fuels extraction from public lands and offshore areas will have long-lasting, and global, impacts.  The degrading of science and the damage to our education system will weaken our scientific and technological capabilities for at least a generation.  Perhaps one of the most consequential actions of the Trump administration is the continuing dismantling of government science conducted by Agencies, Institutes and Laboratories.  Even if the reductions in funding and personnel were to be reversed tomorrow, much has been lost, long-term studies have been interrupted which at best will result in data gaps, and the expertise gained through experience has been lost.  Most significantly, all research organizations, be they “projects”, “laboratories”, “institutes”, or “agencies” develop a so-called “institutional memory”; knowledge that is passed from scientist to scientist, generation to generation and that cannot be duplicated. Science is no long primarily an individual endeavor, but is now most often a collaborative venture incorporating lesson from the past.

The withdrawal of the U.S. from the Paris Agreement is perhaps the most egregious of the Trump administration’s actions.  While the Paris Accord emission targets were largely political targets, rather than scientifically determined, the Agreement represents the first time that the virtually all of Earths nations have agreed to collectively address a common problem.  Withdrawal, for strictly political reasons,  of the world’s richest country and largest emitter of greenhouse gases is a national disgrace, and sadly a reflection of the Trump Administration’s values.  No wonder that we no longer honor Earth Day.

__________________________

1.)  Kevin Kalhoefer, “How broadcast TV networks covered climate change in 2017“, Media Matters for America, Feb. 12, 2018.

President Trump’s decision should not have been a surprise since he started dismantling emission regulations in March.  However, rather than just announcing his decision, he essentially turned the occasion into a celebratory campaign style rally portraying his action as saving America from a bunch of devious, scheming foreigners who had taken advantage of the U.S.  As a Marine Corps band played light jazz in the background Trump made a number of dubious claims about the cost of the Paris Accord to the U.S. (“trillions of dollars”) and lost jobs, he seem totally unaware of the the fact the the Accord is strictly voluntary, with absolutely no binding obligations on the U.S.,  The total cost to the U.S. could have been reduced to zero, without resorting to withdrawal.

President Trumps belligerent outburst was an insult to our friends an allies around the world, and should have been an embarrassment to all Americans. During his speech the President asked “”At what point does America get demeaned?”.  The answer to that question is on a sunny June 1st, 2017, in the White House Rose Garden.  It was also the time that the U.S. voluntarily withdrew from a leadership role in the most significant global accord of our time.  

It can be argued that for the sake of the planet, U.S. withdrawal from the Paris Accord might very well be a positive.  The Trump administration is steadily rolling back environmental regulations and programs so a meaningful Federal government contribution was probably a mute question.  However, by staying in the agreement, the Administration would have retained a “place at the table” where it could have done a fair amount of damage.

It would be a mistake to assume that the actions of the Trump administration will terminate efforts within the U.S. to curtail greenhouse emissions.  To the contrary, the withdrawal from the Paris Accord may well stimulate ongoing efforts at the state, local and business levels.  There are at least 5 multi-state CO2 cap and trade exchanges in which over 30 states, and several Canadian provinces participate; as well as a transportation, clean energy and climate initiative in which Northeastern and mid-Atlantic states participate.  A number of cities have a wide ranging climate initiatives, with such major cites as New York and Boston, both of which suffered from Hurricane Sandy perhaps being the most aggressive.  Actions by business have been gaining momentum as individual business are starting to include possible climate change impacts in their long range planning.  Additionally large shareholders, such as pension funds and investment banks, are businesses to incorporate climate change in their business operations.  One recent example occurred at last weeks Exxon Mobile shareholders meeting at which the shareholders voted to require Exxon Mobile report potential impacts climate change on the company and its assets. It would not be surprising for a number of states, primarily those with Democratic governors, cities and business to increase their climate change programs in response to President Trump’s withdrawal. Thus the near-term impact of U,S, withdrawal upon progress toward the Paris Accord goal may not be that great.  The longer term impact will be decided by future U.S. elections.

It is too late to stop the movement to clean energy,  The regulations that Trump detests, and has largely overturned, have gained a momentum that will carry into the future.  Wind and solar energy are increasingly competitive with fossil fuels.  By in large, Consumers have become sensitized to the value of energy efficiency, and many will seek out energy efficient appliances, in spite of Trump’s termination of the Energy Star program.  Solar energy alone, now employs more workers than the entire coal industry.  There can be no question that the future belongs to clean energy, and that while considerable progress is has been made, there is great potential for future innovation.  The opportunities for economic, and job, growth in clean energy are far greater than in the expansion of fossil fuels.  The anticipation of emission regulations has stimulated much of our progress to date. While President Trump’s removal of those will not stop that progress, the removal of the regulatory stimulus, the elimination of Federal energy and environmental science research and innovation, and the dismantling of the nation’s educational system can have only a negative impact on the nation’s economy and job growth, contrary to President Trump’s justification for today’s announcement. 

The major impact of the U.S. withdrawal from the Paris Accord will be on the status of the U.S. in the global community.  Combined with last weeks disastrous European visit by President Trump, the result of today’s action probably may well mark the beginning of the end of U.S. leadership in the free world.  And, when you include the transfer of confidential information, that did not belong to the U.S., by President Trump to Russian authorities it would be reasonable to assume that there will be major distrust issues when the U.S. seeks international trade,or other, agreements, and cooperation in fighting terrorism, drug trafficking, immigration and other concerns.

President Trump defended his decision as a “reassertion of America’s sovereignty”, while it may prove to be an assertion of American isolationism.

One  year ago, representatives of 168 nations met at the U.N. headquarters in New York for the ceremony opening the Paris Climate Change Agreement for ratification.  It was a day of optimism and celebration.  Earth Day 2017 finds little justification for either celebration or optimism. 

Earth Day was first celebrated in 1970, at a time when the public was rapidly becoming sensitive to environmental concerns, especially water and air pollution. Climate change was not a major issue.  At the time, the atmospheric CO2 level was 325 ppm, on April 20th of this year it was 409.76 ppm, an astonishing increase of 26%.

Of great concern is that not only the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere is increasing, the rate of increase continues to grow.  Earth Day 2017 marks the first Earth Day that we have firmly crossed the 400 ppm mark, a level of atmospheric CO2 that may never again be seen by our species.

On this Earth Day we are seeing increasing indications that future releases of methane, a potent but relatively short-lived, greenhouse gas have been underestimated.  And we now have a far better knowledge of the melting of ice shelves and glaciers that we did a year ago.  We now know that the ice is melting not only from the top down, but from the bottom up and internally due to warming ocean waters.  Grounded ice shelves act as a barrier, preventing inland glaciers from flowing into to the ocean,  As the bottom of the ice shelves melt and they become free-floating and the barrier to glacial movement is removed.   Consequently it is now generally felt that the predicted sea level targets in the Paris Agreement may be significantly underestimated.

Overshadowing all else is the major political upheaval in the United States resulting from the election of Donald Trump as President and a Republican majority in the Senate.   With control of the Senate Trump has been able to fill the upper echelons of government with personnel dedicated to dismantling our government while enriching the ultra-wealthy.  Exactly how much they can accomplish has yet to be determined, but they can do significant "damage".  Actions already taken by President Trump's use of presidential powers have made it impossible to for the United States to come even close to meeting its commitment to the Paris Agreement.  At best our level of emissions will remain at the 2016 level.  Actions announced by the administration, but not yet implemented, would drastically reduce government regulatory and science capabilities.  Reduction of these capabilities will require legislative and/or budgetary action by Congress and would undoubtedly result in a number of lawsuits which will delay implementation. 

On a personal note, I have just returned from participating the Washington D.C. March for Science.  It was discouraging to realize that in some instances we have lost what we rallied for on Earth Day 1970 and that the two signature pieces of legislation attributed to that Earth Day, the Clean Air Act and the Clean Water Act, are now the top two environmental laws targeted for dismantling.  In spite of a cold, rainy day I strongly suspect that the pre-march prediction of 75,000 participants was greatly exceeded.  I am optimistic that the energy and enthusiasm exhibited at today's march, at the March for Women, and that I anticipate for next Saturdays People's March for Climate, will be maintained and result in a far greater political awareness and involvement.  It is our only hope.

The date for the March was announced earlier today – April 22, Earth Day. The People’s Climate March is planned for April 29th in Washington.

For those who cannot make it to Washington, a Twitter list of Marches in sister cities is now available. Check this list to find a March near you. 

_______________________________________

On the day of President Trump’s inauguration (January 20) the White House website was drastically altered, including the deletion of all information regarding climate change.  A discussion thread was started on Reddit regarding this deletion.  Buried deep in that discussion thread was the comment that: “There needs to be a Scientists’ March on Washington” followed by several comments of support.  Consequently, a Facebook page was started yesterday, as an unlocked group, with 9 followers.  As of this writing the site now has almost 400,000 followers, and the Facebook privacy setting has been changed to “secret” to ensure that it would be safe for Federal, and other, scientists to freely discuss the issue.  Concurrently a public Facebook page was opened and a website is under development.

An organization for the march seems to be coming together remarkably rapidly, aided by a large number of volunteers.  A date for the March in Washington has not yet been established, but the organizers hope to be able to announce it within a few days.  Considering just the number of City and Federal (National Park Service) permits that are needed for such an event in addition to all of the logistic and support details, this has to be a colossal undertaking.  Obviously the date, and other details, cannot be announced until the necessary permits are in hand.

In addition to the Washington march the organizers are encouraging, and will  attempt to coordinate and support, marches in other  U.S. and International cities.

This post will be revised and updated as additional information becomes available.