President Trump's decision to withdraw the nation from the Paris Agreement on climate change drew concerns for the National Park System and speculation that more wildfires will flare up in Great Smoky Mountains National Park/NPS file photo
President Trump's decision to withdraw the United States from the Paris climate change accord is drawing criticism from park advocates and businesses tied to national parks, as well as pledges to reduce carbon footprints and praise for states that are focused on renewable energy.
“It’s another setback, essentially. It’s just another indication of the lack of commitment towards addressing climate changes," Kristen Brengel, the vice president for government affairs for the National Parks Conservation Association, said Friday. "Parks are the places where people can actually see the visible impacts of climate change. In many of the policy decisions that have been made up until this point, we’re basically pulling back on proactively addressing carbon and promoting dirty energy sources like coal. Not moving forward with the Paris agreement is just another indicator for our lack of commitment for addressing climate change.”
At Vail Resorts, Inc., which manages the Grand Teton Lodge Company that manages properties in Grand Teton National Park as well as a portfolio of ski resorts, Chairman and CEO Rob Katz said the president's decision wouldn't sway the corporation from working to reduce its carbon footprint.
"We are deeply saddened by the decision to withdraw from the Paris Agreement. As a global company, Vail Resorts believes we have a unique responsibility to protect the incredible natural landscapes and environment that surround our mountain resorts and those across our planet.," he said in a release. "Climate change is a global challenge that requires global cooperation, and it is disheartening to see the United States pull away from working with the other 194 countries that were part of the Agreement. Vail Resorts will redouble our efforts to find significant ways to minimize our carbon footprint through reducing our energy use to help address one of the most serious challenges facing our worldwide community."
At the Appalachian Trail Conservancy, President and CEO Ron Tipton took heart in that "10 of the 14 states that are home to the A.T. have set aggressive renewable energy portfolio goals and others are expected to find the need to take action in the absence of federal leadership. The ATC will continue to develop solid climate change related policy with our recently hired director of Federal and Legislative Policy."
Mr. Tipton cast a dim outlook for how continued climate change would impact the trail that stretches from Maine to Georgia and is used not only by long-distance thru-hikers but by section hikers and those out for a weekend meander or day hike.
"In the coming years visitors will likely have to cope with higher temperatures, dried-up streams and more forest fires similar to the devastating fires in Great Smoky Mountains National Park in 2016," he wrote in a letter to A.T. supporters. "For now, water availability isn’t a vital problem, but if those supplies dry up, it will present an entirely different and punishing challenge for those seeking to enjoy the A.T. During the 2007-2008 drought, portions of the Trail in North Carolina had to be closed — was that an unusual event or a harbinger of the future?"
Back at NPCA, Ms. Brengel said it was good to see that the National Park Service's web pages on climate change remained intact and that the agency was continuing its work to address climate change.
“But this constant pursuit by the administration to look for ways to defund climate research and reduce regulations that protect our air, it’s an extremely disappointing direction to head in and it will have dire consequences," she added. “No one should be proud that we’re pulling out of the Paris Agreement. This is disappointing and disheartening. It’s definitely a sad day for parks.”
Comments
I don't have to explain why the models have been "so wrong" because that is not a true statement. If you knew anything about the science behind them you would understand that. I have nothing more to say about this.
Grizz... Your patience so far has been remarkable. You are in good company and are far from the first. From now on, just set your phasers to IGNORE.
Grizz, when a rocket blows up on launch you don't have to be a rocket scientist to know something went wrong. I have repeatedly posted examples of the AGW predictions being wrong. Your inability to explain why just demonstrates that your ideology trumps your education.
As world leaders, namely in the European Union, attack President Trump for pulling out of the Paris Climate Agreement which would have saddled Americans with billions upon billions of dollars in debt and economic losses, a new bombshell report that analyzed Global Average Surface Temperature (GAST) data produced by NASA, the NOAA and HADLEY proves the President was right on target with his refusal to be a part of the new initiative.
According to the report, which has been peer reviewed by administrators, scientists and researchers from the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), The Massachusetts Institute of Technology (M.I.T.), and several of America's leading universities, the data is completely bunk:
The report link: https://thsresearch.files.wordpress.com/2017/05/ef-gast-data-research-re...
As I've tried to write here before, the current argument over the theory of global warming reminds me of the battle between supporters of geologic plate tectonics and continental drift back in the late 1950s and early 1960s. Good science takes time, careful inquiry, and a lot of thought.
The problem we face right now is that unlike plate tectonics, a changing climate can have much more profound effects upon humans and all other life on this planet. The researchers cited in comments above are playing out their role in this scientific investigation just as skeptical geologists did back in the fight over plate tectonics. The only thing certain at this point in time so we're all going to find out someday whether or not our planet is slowly becoming a sauna bath.
But facing that possibility, wouldn't be wise to err on the side of caution?
No it wouldn't. 1) Because the social and economic costs could be enourmous and 2) Because there is no evidence that on a net basis the world would be worse off warmer.
There is no evidence on a net basis that the world would be better off richer, because the social and environmental costs could be enormous. For a completely different opinion of the threats future generations may face, don't miss:
http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2017/07/climate-change-earth-too-ho...