viernes, 25 de noviembre de 2016

Trump’s energy policies are cause for concern

The belief in human-driven global warming should not be incompatible with political ideology. However, this is the case in the U.S., where increasing polarization has converted global warming – a fundamental threat to the human race - into a political, rather than a scientific issue. As a politically conservative geologist I am convinced that global warming is being significantly generated by the emission of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere through the use of fossil fuels, particularly coal and petroleum.  To me, it seems illogical that this event should be treated as an article of faith, rejected by most Republicans and accepted by most Democrats. It simply does not make sense.
The evidence for global warming as a product of human activity is overwhelming, see: . In this report we read: “97 percent or more of actively publishing climate scientists agree [that] climate-warming trends over the past century are extremely likely due to human activities. In addition, most of the leading scientific organizations worldwide have issued public statements endorsing this position”. Among the multiple scientific organizations subscribing to this position is the one representing my profession, the Geological Society of America: “The Geological Society of America (GSA) concurs with assessments by the National Academies of Science (2005), the National Research Council (2006), and the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC, 2007) that global climate has warmed and that human activities (mainly greenhousegas emissions) account for most of the warming since the middle 1900s".  

Such an overwhelming scientific consensus has led to a geopolitical consensus, reached by 197 nations in Paris last December 2015, in which these nations essentially agreed to make all necessary efforts to limit global warming to no more than two degrees Celsius above the existing average temperature and to accomplish a transition from a high to a low carbon economy. As of today 103 of the 197 countries have ratified this agreement, including the United States. A gigantic international effort has been put in motion to try to reach this important goal.  Failure to accomplish it will result into significant meteorological disasters involving floods, droughts, desertification and decimation of animal and vegetal species. The situation we are witnessing today, if unchecked, will lead to major disturbances of the planet’s climate resulting in natural catastrophes and could even lead to war among governments with conflicting views on the issue.
The victory of Donald Trump in the recent U.S. presidential elections could introduce such major changes in the posture of the United States government in relation to this issue that they could seriously threaten the integrity of the Paris Agreement. In a summary of Mr. Trump’s first 100 days in power, see: we read that he would "cancel the Paris climate agreement and stop all payments of U.S. tax dollars to U.N. global warming programs."  The elected president is also reported as saying that he would keep promoting the exploitation of coal, the intensive use of fracking to generate shale oil and shale gas and allow the utilization of federal lands for oil and gas drilling. He has also promised to ask TransCanada to renew its permit application for the Keystone XL pipeline.
A more detailed list of his announced policies, made with the assistance of Harold  Hamm, who might be his choice for  Secretary of Energy, include the following statements,  see: :

  • "Rescind all the job-destroying Obama executive actions including the Climate Action Plan..."
  • "We're going to save the coal industry, we're going to save that coal industry, believe me, we're going to save it, I love those people, these are great people -- and they love that job."
  • "I'm going to ask TransCanada to renew its permit application for the Keystone Pipeline." 
  • "We're going to lift moratoriums on energy production in federal areas."
  • "We're going to revoke policies that impose unwarranted restrictions on new drilling technologies."
  • "We're going to cancel the Paris Climate Agreement and stop all payments of U.S. tax dollars to U.N. global warming programs."
In addition to Mr. Trump’s announcements, The Republican Party Energy platform states:
  •  Coal is “an abundant, clean, affordable, reliable domestic energy resource," adding, "Those who mine it and their families should be protected from the Democratic Party’s radical anti-coal agenda."
  • "Keeping energy in the earth will keep jobs out of reach of those who need them most."
  • "We support the development of all forms of energy that are marketable in a free economy without subsidies, including coal, oil, natural gas, nuclear power, and hydropower." 
  • "We encourage the cost-effective development of renewable energy sources -- wind, solar, biomass, biofuel, geothermal, and tidal energy -- by private capital."
Not all these stated policies are negative. Promoting the production of light oil from shales can have a positive impact on the environment, if such production displaces heavier, more contaminating oil being currently produced in Canada, Russia and Venezuela. The Republican Party platform does not exclude the development of cleaner forms of energy, although they make it clear that such promotion will have to come exclusively from the private sector.
However, Mr. Trump’s purpose of abandoning the global agreement reached in Paris by practically all nations in the planet has to be seen as a major threat to humanity. The Paris agreement has been designed to convert the current high carbon model into a low carbon model and Mr. Trump’s policies would greatly endanger this objective.  
In the recent Marrakesh Climate Change conference, held to reaffirm the purposes of the Paris agreement, the policies announced by Donald Trump came as a major shock. In that conference, the countries expressed the hope that Trump would reconsider his announced intentions regarding such a fundamental global project. Others were less optimistic. Michael Brune, Sierra Club’s Director, said: Donald Trump has the unflattering distinction of being the only head of state in the entire world to reject the scientific consensus that humans are driving climate change”.
Disregarding the Paris agreement could cause a major political crisis in the world and could lead to universal condemnation for the United States. It would be unthinkable that the United States could  emerged as the main saboteur of an agreement reached by practically all countries of earth  to protect the environment.
In recent days, Mr. Trump has somewhat retreated from his original position and now says: “I have an open mind about global warming and now feel there is some linkage between global warming and human activity”.

Let us hope that the great humanistic tradition of this country prevails over selfish, nationalistic interests. 

22 comentarios:

Roberto Carlos dijo...

I cannot believe that you Mr. Coronel of all people would fall for the 97% number. That number is as phony as a three dollar bill. It is based on a "do you believe in global warming" online survey in 2009 conducted by the U of Illinois in which 160 "scientists" responded most of which were not even climatologists.
If you were really a scientist you would have to be very skeptical of anything in which 97% of "scientists" agree other than the earth is round.
I cannot believe that you Mr. Coronel of all people would not realize that the IPCC is a UN organization -just like you favorite FAO, do you trust FAO?- absolutely political in nature, that reflects the overall agenda of the United Nations to punish/diminish the US in any way they can. They are already demanding reparations from the US for having damaged the climate.
I cannot believe that a scientist like yourself did not research on how the "computer models" have completely missed the catastrophic predictions they have made, Manhattan was supposed to be underwater in 2012, the North Carolina and Florida coasts also underwater by 2015, the Himalayan glaciers would be gone in 15 years, food supply would decrease -well it actually did in Venezuela- and milk would cost 12 dollars a gallon and gas 9 dollars a gallon by 2015.
I cannot believe that a scientist like yourself would not consider the other side of the coin, would there be any benefits to mankind from an increase of 1 degree in overall temperature?
I cannot believe that a "scientist" like yourself would not consider the costs of the proposed "solutions". Do you realize that the even the "Paris accords" recognize that all their proposed huge disruptions to the global economy would not achieve any meaningful reduction in temperature? It is a completely political document not worth the paper is printed on.
Do you realize Mr. Coronel that the people that are for it are the same leftist that keep pushing for dialog in Venezuela, the Pope, Obama, Kerry, the Clintons, the Castros, Evo, Maduro. How could you want to be on their side on this?

I think you fell for it "line hook and sinker" because 97% of the "scientists" are in agreement and you are a "scientist" no?

Anónimo dijo...

I cannot believe that you Mr Roberto Carlos could not see your own blindness regarding this.
It doesn't matter if climate change is human induced or not to accept that it is happenning.
It does not matter that institutions that are corrupt or ideologically different than you (or me) believe it is an issue.
Would you deny that childhood hunger is a problem just because FAO believes it as well?
It does not matter that some models (not backed by the majority) are too alarmist and non realistic.
The real point here is, if we do agree that the earth is warming ( we do) and that warming is causing some very alarming changes (clearly visible on satellite imagery), should we do SOMETHING to slow it down or reverse it?
I'm sure that Maduro, Evo and Fidel Castro are against pedophilia.
Does that mean we should not pass any laws against it because we don't want to be in the same as those idiots?
Really? Is that our compass?
The Paris accords are not meant to roll back temperature change, they are meant to slow it down.
I for one believe it is a worthy cause that should not be tainted by cheap ideology.

Anónimo dijo...

Trump es el presidente de los Estados Unidos y lo mas importante, va con todo contra Fidel Castro y Maduro. La invasion cubana en Venezuela tiene los días contados. Con la otra candidata Maduro seguiría el juego que tiene con Shannon.

Ya solo por eso hay que apoyarlo.

Anónimo dijo...


Recuerdas el hijo del innombrable del que nunca se sabe nada?

Aqui esta, esta en la nomina de la petrolera y nunca en su vida ha trabajado.

Hay cien mil parasitos mas.

Anónimo dijo...

Trump sin duda es el presidente de USA. Pero por favor informate mejor antes de soñar con pajaritos.
A Trump le importa un bledo Cuba o Venezuela.
Es mas, durante la campaña apoyo las acciones de Putin en Syria destinadas a dejar a Assad en el poder.
Si Marco Rubio fuera el Presidente te daria la razon, pero si estas esperando un a Mano de hierro en Vzla hubieramos tenido mas chance con Hillary que bombardeo a Lybia y queria poner un "no fly zone" sobre Syria.
Hillary tiene muchos problemas, pero usar el poder economico y militar de USA para cambiar un regimen extranjero es su pan de todos los dias.
Los unicos paises extranjero que le importan a Trump son China y Mejico.

Anónimo dijo...

Bueno, esa es tu opinion y la respeto. No voy a escribir aqui argumentaciones de si esto o aquello. Pero lo que va a hacer o no Trump en materia de politica exterior aun esta por verse, amigo. Yo trabajo en torno a lo que el mismo ha informado, punto. No a base de "me parece que" o "de repente hace esto" como los tipicos managers de tribuna.

Trump ha dejado claro muchas veces que no se va a transar con Castro y yo en eso le creo. Por eso vote por el y asi como yo muchos. El tipo no es tonto, sabe que tiene una base electoral que le respaldo por ciertas razones. Y un self-made man como el presidente Trump, que aspira pasar a la historia, querra por necesidad un segundo mandato. Saca la cuenta.

Sledge dijo...

What many people need to understand, including the author of this blog, is that the USA ain't Venezuela or Nicaragua. Or Mozambique. Or even Belgium.

Trump will be tamed in the USA. The Congress ruless. And we, the voters, do no like Trump, we kick his ass out faster than peo in chinchorro.

Presidents here do not do whatever they want. That's one of the reasons the USA is the USA.

Anónimo dijo...

Pero senor mio, mire yo naci en USA, soy ciudadano estadounidense por nacimiento y soy orgulloso hablante de dos idiomas. Probablemente Ud. es ciudadano estadounidense. Como yo lo soy. Mi voto vale lo que valio el suyo.

Si su candidata no gano, lo siento mucho, pero asi es la democracia.

A mi me parece grandioso que Trump haya ganado, ya tuvimos dos periodos de gobierno de los democratas y la alternancia en el poder es clave.

No entiendo su frase sobre nosotros los votantes. Gano Trump, en buena lid. Y yo estoy muy contento por eso y lo celebro diariamente.

Asi que vaya a despotricar de la democracia de otro pais, no del mio.

david1952000 dijo...

There is no realistic way to make fossil fuels clean. All of these climate agreements are just ineffective band-aids. The world must find other ways to make power and phase fossil fuels out as it converts. There is no magic way out of this mess by passing laws.

Anónimo dijo...

Bueno, no sé si la conexión rusa, de la cual se ha estado hablando mucho, podrá influir para que Trump se abstenga de cambiar la torpe política de Obama frente a Cuba y, por ende, frente a su colonia venezolana. Hay expertos que están pidiendo reconteo de votos en tres estados, entre ellos Pennsylvania, y también así lo ha hecho la candidata verde y se sospecha de hackers rusos en esto. También de intervención rusa en el framing de la campaña electoral, en favor de Trump. Probablemente nada con una base suficientemente seria, pero no deja de llamar la atención que el candidato que decía que las elecciones estaban "rigged" sea ahora acusado de eso precisamente.

Trump, por otra parte, es un aislacionista y quitando los otros factores, no se si es más bien una ilusión pensar que va a intervenir en esta tragedia nuestra. Quien vive de ilusiones muere de desencanto.

En cuanto al cambio climático, Trump va a favorecer los intereses de factores que no creen en el cambio, o no les interesa que haya una política seria y eficaz frente a este problema, tal vez el más importante en este siglo.

And last but not least, pronostico un Impeachment en el futuro de Trump. Los republicanos que se favorecieron con su triunfo chucuto por Colegios Electorales, pero triunfo al fin pues ese es el sistema en USA(1), lo pueden cocinar si se les empieza a ir de las manos.

(1) Trump 46.6% votos, 62,139,188. Clinton 48.0%, votos 63,964,956. Ninguno de los dos candidatos alcanzó el 50% del voto popular. Clinto aventajó en más de 800 mil votyos a Trump.

Gustavo dijo...

Con la excepción de Roberto Carlos y de quien le siguió en su comentario,nadie más ha comentado sobre el tema de mi entrega, sino sobre generalidades sobre Trump.
A Roberto Carlos le respondo que toda la evidencia de los últimos 20 año apunta a la generación de gases nocivos debido a la actividad humana, particularmente el uso de combustibles fósiles. Eso es incontrovertible. Roberto Carlos rebate esta evidencia con ingredientes políticos, precisamente lo que yo he notado con tristeza. Yo soy un viejo geólogo, no soy un científico en toda la regla. Pero me apoyo en las sociedades científicas que me merecen credibilidad mayor a la que me merece Roberto Carlos.
Carlos degrada el tema, poniéndolo en un plan de chismes. Votar por Trumpo, amigo Carlos, no le da licencia para otorgarle infalibilidad a Trump. Es es la tragedia que enfrentamos: la irracionalidad basada en la ideología.

Anónimo dijo...

Epa. Yo hice referencia al tema de su comentario entree"generalidades". Es que con ese señor todo se relaciona. Justo antes de su comentario

Anónimo dijo...

Añado. El señor Carlos le tiene inquina

Anónimo dijo...

Esas "generalidades" son tan banales que pueden rekacionarse con Trump, Putin, Cuba y nosotros. Una pelusa
Y lo dice alguien que comparte su inquietud por el problema del clima

Gustavo dijo...

Carlos me tiene inquina, no se por qué. Porque se puede diferir sin tenerse inquina. La verdad es que estoy en desventaja porque él me conoce a mí pero yo no lo conozco a él. He tenido que polemizar mucho con fantasmas y no es fácil.

Anónimo dijo...

Este Roberto Carlos, como el cantante, quiere tener un millon de amigos (o no?). Gustavo Coronel no pertenece a su lista. Pongamos un poco de humor a al tema del tocayo del brasileño.

Anónimo dijo...

Trump es un retroceso en el tiempo cuando el tiempo apremia!

O sea devastacion y daños por CO2 acidificacion de Oceanos y fuente de pesca! Y todo lo que resulta de esto, como aumento Global de la Temperatura por centenios y hasta milenios, o hasta un Planeta para siempre tipo VENUS!

Pero creame, entre razones de suicidio Global de estos locos Republicanos ignorantes o a sabiendas, es cosa que el tiempo, ina vez dirá!

Trump no es un genio, aunque se lo crea! Es lo peligroso de una mente vieja, encerrada en una burbuja de facilidad aparente de los millones de dolares! Y cree en soplar y hacer botellas para salvarse de sus deudas!

Lo que si es obvio es que uña y sucio, van juntos y hay muchos políticos montandose en el tren de Trump-Tramp, de la desidia y falso lujo y construcción de una USA mejor!

Recuerden, dejen el motor de sus autos prendidos en su garage, e intenten no morirse! Asi es nuestra Atmosfera! Tiene limites!

Suerte a todos y Trump!

Yo creo en que todos tenemos unsitio y lugar en este Mundo! PERO PARECE QUE EL DICHO QUE TRUMP NI DEBIERA NI HABER NACIDO (Y mal parido hijo de perra), COMO QUE VA A SER VERDAD MUY PRONTO!

Anónimo dijo...

Se cree por meros números y de recursos probables que sirven de fuente enegética por "quemado(consumo de oxigeno-17% en la atmosfera)" y no-renovables, que es suficiente para hacer daños graves al planeta mas ayá de el deshielo parcial o total de Antartica y Polo Norte. Sino de problemas climáticos mas graves!

Adicionalmente el problema de el decrecimiento de la fuente de fertilizantes quimicos vs. orgánicos mas difíciles de desarrollar en corto tiempo!

Bueno ignorancia y haciendo cosas ciegamente con todo un Mundo, de el cual parece que no les importa realmente lo que hacen!

Anónimo dijo...

Por mera analogia:

Lo que no es su garage con el motor de su caro prendido y todo encerrado, tampoco hay beneficio con volver la atmosfera un garage de su carro!

Perdon por decir aya en vez de alla!

Bueno, adios a las dos caras de la moneda! Es una metra y esfera de lo que estamos hablando!

Anónimo dijo...

Solo una maldicion o que los Venezolanos sufrieron un colapso mental grupal mal basados en su forma de pensar, puede explicar lo que se a vuelto Venezuela, en comparacion con otros paises Latinos que no han sucumbido al maleficio !

Anónimo dijo...

Parte de el maleficio parece que tiene que ver con YVR (Vancouver , Canada) y YVR siglas aeronaves Venezuela!

El Avila (Cerro de Caracas) y tierra de Havila (Eden la Bibla)...!


Anónimo dijo...

As a humble regional geologist and stratigrapher, I have studied the effect of eustatic cycles on sedimentation for many years in many locations around the world. Detailed biostratigraphy world wide shows same aged cycles to be present over a large portion of the planet.
Detailed studies of sequence stratigraphy (brought to prominence by P. Vail, R. Mitchum and J. Sangree at Exxon in the 1970'0s) shows the larger scale cycles (10's to 100's of millions of years) to be related to related to continental break and gathering of the continents. Cycles of 100 Ka to 5 Ma to be related to glacial cycles. 20-40 Ka cycles related to Milankovich orbital cycles. Most of the eustatic rises and falls are related to increases and decreases of the ice captured in the ice caps, and the resultant increase and decrease of water available to fill the oceanic basins.

Studies of the varves in DSDP cores in the Cariaco basin in the Pleistocene to recent indicate an even higher order of cyclicity which can be correlated to oceanic and solar forcings which affect climate. Well before man existed.

Climate driven cycles have occurred for a large part of earth's history, and the effects can be observed in a wide variety of manifestations and scales worldwide:, sediments, ice cores, stalagtites-stalagmites, tree rings, carbon isotopes etc.

When I first read one of the early summaries of the IPPC reports in the early 1990's, the one thing that really struck me was, that the report was geared to identify and "fix" man's effect on global warming as a result of anthropogenic CO2 emissions. It occurred to me at the time, that before you try to fix something, you have to know what is wrong. It has always appeared to me that a step was missing in the scientific process. The missing step was " what are the processes which cause global warming and what effect does each process have on the earth's temperature?" This step never happened. The IPPC went straight from Hypothesis to Conclusions, “CO2 warms the world---Man generates some of it--How do we eliminate manmade CO2.

There are many processes which affect the earth's temperature, and we still are not at the stage to even identify which contributing factors are important or their scale and magnitude.
At the same time, global warming and cooling is not a recent phenomena. The earth has heated and cooled for at least the last billion years, so this is nothing new to the geologic community.

I believe that before nations of the world spend multiple tens of trillions of dollars to correct something, which will significantly change the world's economic landscape and affect billions of people; the first effort should be made to identify the cause of whatever they are trying to fix then determine whether it can or needs to be fixed.
In any scientific study, the analysis has to be done first before you can reach any conclusions, not after yu have reached your conclusions. This is poor science. But on top of that, the recommendation to spend trillions of dollars to fix a problem based on poor science is criminal.

This isn't the first time that corrupt "science" has been used to impose public policy. Take the example of lysenkoism on agriculture in Russia and China, and the subsequence massive death by starvation of millions, because science was manipulated by corrupt scientists and politicians.

My point is before I would agree/disagree with either side of this argument, It is prudent to examine the rigorous science and application of the scientific method, where from my point of view, has been extremely flawed and manipulated.

If you were still an exploration manager: Would you drill this 10 Trillion Dollar well, if you found out that your geologists had arrived at their conclusions first, and then made their analysis match their conclusions and recommendations?

Link to IPPC history :

John Reistroffer