An op-ed by Brooke Moore, LiKEN Research Assistant
July 4, 2017
The below critiques delve into various proposals that stood out to me amongst other sections of the Heritage Foundation’s Blueprint for Balance. I specifically selected the first two proposals, as they highlight a desire for US politics to become more isolationist by halting support for international organizations and projects. The last two proposals highlight a regression in society away from environmental protection for the wrong reasons. When reading these proposals I felt that the Heritage Foundation had manipulated these proposals to hide the positive and necessary aspects of environmental protection; the Blueprint instead focused on trivial and not always factual results of environmental protection.
-
Eliminate Funding for the Paris Climate Change Agreement – Page 117
The Paris Agreement was an outcome of the 2015 United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change Conference of Parties. This agreement was novel in that it was one of the most collaborative, far-reaching and environmentally revolutionary agreements to this date. The Heritage Foundation described the Paris Climate Change Agreement as an issue, as it planned to “initiate transformational change towards low-carbon and climate-resilient development” (Heritage 2017, 117). Curious as to how such an initiative could be understood as negative, I highlight below some issues this agreement strives to tackle.
One of the main objectives of this agreement is to utilize new technology, funding and an “enhanced capacity building framework” in order to aid developing nations – the most vulnerable communities – to meet their goals (UNFCCC 2016). The agreement furthermore calls for political transparency and accountability. This means that governments and businesses will be required to abide by protocols and regulations that are in place to protect citizens, workers and the environment (UNFCCC 2016). This is important as it reduces the economic advantage for those who choose to use dirty and unsustainable production methods and increases it for those who do otherwise. Lastly, another example of what the agreement strives to accomplish is both mitigation and adaptation. This involves converting to renewable energy sources, exploring sustainable food options such as Genetically Modified Organisms and working preventative measures into political action. The Paris Agreement was a historical step that was necessary. If a superpower like the US chooses to eliminate funding and back out of the agreement, we’re refusing to act upon our moral obligations. The US is one of the largest contributors to pollution and climate change and yet by implementing this proposal (which it seems very likely Trump will do) we refuse to take responsibility for our actions.
-
End Funding for the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change – Page 119
The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) is an international body at the forefront of assessing the impacts of climate change. The IPCC provides governments and the public with reliable, factual science. Climate Change is one of the leading issues of our time and to ignore it is not only selfish to ecosystems, but future generations and ourselves. The IPCC helps bridge the gap between understanding climate change and developing this knowledge into an ecological consciousness that strives to make a difference. The IPCC is composed of three different groups each responsible for diverging research, assessment and tasks (IPCC 2017). To provide an understanding on how important the IPCC is, I describe the role that IPCC’s Working Group II plays.
I chose Group II because it highlights not only the environmental need to reduce climate change, but also the anthropological need. Working Group II assesses the vulnerability of both socio-economic communities and natural systems and both negative and positive consequences of climate change (IPCC 2017). Group II additionally assesses how these respective communities and systems can adapt in order to diminish adverse effects (IPCC 2017). This is merely one component of what Group II does let alone what the entire IPCC is responsible for. By cutting funding for the IPCC we diminish their ability to conduct this research and provide solutions for communities in need. Their research highlights not only moral and intrinsic incentives to save the environment, but also economic, social and political benefits.
-
Eliminate Funding for the Global Environment Facility – Page 118
The Global Environment Facility (GEF) works with 183 countries and 18 agencies – including NGOs and several UN agencies – internationally. The GEF is one of the most far-reaching organizations attempting to make a difference in terms of climate change. This agency effectively has the ability to inspire environmental protection plans that create change on a global scale, which is imperative as issues like pollution are not confined to specific boundaries or state lines. The GEF provides necessary research, information, plans and facilities for countries and communities willing to make a difference. Furthermore, the GEF focuses on different issues pertaining to climate change, particularly problems caused by climate change. These problems include drought and food scarcity. The GEF focuses on finding solutions to these problems and making them accessible to communities in need. By cutting funding we are prolonging, if not halting, this process, leaving society with no current or future solutions in the case of climate-induced disaster.
-
Prohibit Any Agency from Regulating Greenhouse Gas Emissions – Page 146
In the description for this proposal the Heritage Foundation supported their desire to prohibit regulations with the following statement:
“Restricting opportunities for Americans to use such an abundant, affordable energy source will only bring economic pain to households and businesses – with no climate or environmental benefit to show for it” (Heritage Foundation 2017, 146).
However, there are distinct climate and environmental benefits to show, thanks to the superfluous amount of research proving the negative impact of fossil fuels. Additional research proves that the burning of these fuels emit greenhouse gases that are harmful to human health causing issues such as severe asthma. Moreover, the regulation of greenhouse gas emissions is not prohibiting households and businesses to completely discard fossil fuel energy. Instead, these regulations often incentivize businesses to adapt more energy efficient machinery that often times allows them to save both money and energy. In terms of households, one of the reasons these energy systems are so cheap is due to government subsidies (as there are often incentives for politicians to back these fossil fuel companies), and corrupt international politics. Many repercussions will occur if the regulation of greenhouse gasses is prohibited. Some of these include an increased amount of pollution that will lead to both increased health problems for certain socio-economic communities and depleted resources for future generations. Although these are just two examples chosen from a plethora of possible outcomes they nevertheless demonstrate the dire effects this proposal could cause.
As the last segment of my blog series ends, I hope that I’ve brought attention to the issues this Blueprint brings forth. I realize that this Blueprint is not the Trump administration’s actual proposed budget, but many of the proposals I discussed are very real, potential outcomes we as a society need to consider. How many of us had even heard of the Heritage Foundation’s Blueprint or took the time to read it? This year is the most involved I have been with economic, political, social and environmental issues. It’s not too late to educate ourselves and make a difference. Governments will continue to lack transparency and accountability until we take action. This action begins with us utilizing our intellect and our passion to become aware and create change. So read Trump’s skinny budget, stay up to date with legislations and bills. It’s never too late to make a difference and we have the moral and intrinsic responsibilities to do so!
References in order of appearance
Heritage Foundation. “Blueprint for Balance – A Federal Budget for 2017.” Heritage Foundation, 2017, thf-reports.s3.amazonaws.com/2016/BlueprintforBalance.pdf.
UNFCCC. “Science: why is there a need to act?” UNFCCC, 2016, http://bigpicture.unfccc.int/.
IPCC. “Working Groups/ Task Force.” Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, 2017, www.ipcc.ch/working_groups/working_groups.shtml.
Global Environment Facility. “About Us.” The Gef, 2016, www.thegef.org/about-us.
