The scientific evidence for humans accelerating climate change through the emission of greenhouse gases is strong (Wu, Lu, Zhou, Chen, and Xu, 2016; Norris, Allen, Evan, Zelinka, O’dell, and Klein, 2016). The impacts of climate change include the observable increase in rate of ice caps melting, rising ocean levels, stronger tropical storms, and more extreme weather events in general. While only a decade ago the U.S. had bipartisan support for the recognition of the human impact on climate change, more recently the Republican Party has demonstrated a willingness to deny climate change and contradict the scientific consensus on the issue, culminating in President Trump positing that climate change is a Chinese conspiracy designed to harm the U.S. and advance the Chinese economy (Zurcher, 2017). Explored in this paper is the impact that the Trump presidency is having on the politics of climate change on both domestic and international levels.
Under the positivist approach, information about the objective world can be collected and analyzed for accuracy through the scientific method. As mentioned above, there is a scientific consensus on the acceleration of climate change, observable through greenhouse emission content, temperature changes, and ocean levels. Climate change has also had discernible economic impacts (Deschênes and Greenstone, 2007). The Trump administration has now adopted the general position that there is climate change, but that such change is natural and not largely impacted by the actions of humans. Such a position contradicts the scientific consensus.
Under the interpretative approach, all information must be interpreted, thus requiring the application of subjective perspectives. This is the approach that best explains the position taken by the Trump administration, particularly because it takes an alternative position on the presentation of facts presented by the scientific community. Interpretative approaches tend to be reflective, in that they entail deep reflection of one’s biases and assumptions: “Reflexive research entails interpretation and reflection” (D’Silva, Smith, Della, Potter, Rajack-Talley, and Best, 2016: p. 96). However, this is not always the case. The first position taken by Trump on climate change, namely that climate change is a hoax perpetrated by the Chinese, is a rationalist position in that it attempts to rationalize why a particular state actor might want to disseminate information about human-caused climate change. However, as a major contributor to climate change and a state dependent (currently) on fossil fuels for energy, it is not a rational position for China to fabricate such a hoax. Similarly, it is difficult to explain, rationally, why the scientific community would bolster such a hoax, especially since the majority of the scientific community has no interests in China. The more recent position of the Trump administration is that climate change may be occurring, but primarily naturally and that it will likely reverse itself (Zurcher, 2017). This position is highly interpretative and relies on loose, subjective assumptions about climate change. Many may argue that such an approach is best explained as an attempt by the Trump administration to avoid the policy implications of human-caused climate change, such as energy reform.
Under the critical approach, instead of the development of objective knowledge (of which there is none), social scientists should seek to improve society through the advancements of arguments that favor society, such as the reduction of exploitation. Critical approaches tend to rely on ideological positions (e.g., Marxism) that explain power dynamics between populations. Some scholars recognize that there are “multiple ways in which, even in a politically decolonised age, variously colonial and imperial ideas permeate the ways in which the contemporary world is understood and represented, even in critical thought” (Sabaratnam, 2011: p. 802). Colonialism has clearly had historical impacts on the formation of the structures in many societies, but may also have long-term cultural and social norm impacts. The Trump administration’s staunch position on resisting efforts to combat climate change is not itself reflective of a critical approach, but can certainly be interpreted through a critical approach. Specifically, the U.S. has served both a colonial and decolonial role at different parts of its history. As one of the major world powers, the U.S. is highly influential on international politics and multilateral agreements. Yet, with the rejection of climate change science, the Trump administration appears to be economically motivated, even at the risk of many populations worldwide. Such a failure to agree with the international consensus on climate change, as evinced by the U.S’s departure from the Paris Climate Agreement, suggests that the Trump administration will continue to use its power for its own economic interests, even to the detriment of other populations.
Nevertheless, the world will continue to combat climate change without the U.S. In fact, because of the Trump administration’s persistence in rejecting the human factors for climate change and the administration’s reluctance to work with international bodies in general, the U.S.’s soft power has dropped from first in the world to fourth (USC Center on Public Diplomacy, 2018). This represents an international shift on the politics of climate change. Even though the U.S. currently is not among the international leaders in progressing cooperation to combat climate change, the U.S. has simply been replaced with the UK, France, Germany, and others. With the U.S. dropping in soft power because of the Trump administration, its impacts on the international politics of climate change are moderate. The U.S. is a major contributor to climate change and can serve as a leader in green energy. Therefore, while the U.S. is an important actor in climate change, its influence as an international leader has declined.
Domestically, the Trump administration has had profound impacts on the politics of climate change. Political leaders and academics have a responsibility to be genuine, including in the positions they take on scientific findings. As Chomsky explains, “As for academics, I do not see why their responsibilities as moral agents should differ in principle from the responsibilities of others; in particular, others who also enjoy a degree of privilege and power, and therefore have the responsibilities that are conferred by those advantages” (Chomsky, 2001: p.1). For political leaders in the Trump administration, the rejection of human factors of climate change strongly reflects a moral failure. For scientific positions, the best approach tends to be to rely on the scientific method to generate information. While there is some room for interpretation, the rejection of climate change data in favor of an interpretation that runs contrary to virtually all discovered trends in climate change suggests either an unhealthy level of skepticism about scientific research or a rejection of certain objective truths to advance a political and economic position. The result of the Trump administration on the politics of climate change has been the propagation of a skeptical position that promotes inaction. Recent climate change reports not only bolster the existing climate change evidence, but also provide evidence for the possibility of disaster caused by such climate change. The Trump administration calls such reports alarmist, which further advances unfounded skepticism about climate change. The Trump administration has advanced the position that there is an overreaction to climate change, which has shifted how many people in the U.S. (but not internationally) view climate change. Many now ignore the data. While it is important for political bodies not to overreact to inferences and predictions, the metaphorical fire has already started. It is time to pull the alarm.
- Chomsky, N. and Borofsky, R. 2001. Intellectuals and the responsibilities of public life. Public Anthropology.
- D’Silva, M.U., Smith, S.E., Della, L.J., Potter, D.A., Rajack-Talley, T.A. and Best, L., 2016. Reflexivity and Positionality in Researching African-American Communities: Lessons from the Field. Intercultural Communication Studies, 25(1), 94-109.
- Deschênes, O. and Greenstone, M., 2007. The economic impacts of climate change: evidence from agricultural output and random fluctuations in weather. American Economic Review, 97(1), pp.354-385.
- Norris, J.R., Allen, R.J., Evan, A.T., Zelinka, M.D., O’dell, C.W. and Klein, S.A., 2016. Evidence for climate change in the satellite cloud record. Nature, 536(7614), pp.72-75.
- Sabaratnam, M., 2011. IR in dialogue… but can we change the subjects? A typology of decolonising strategies for the study of world politics. Millennium, 39(3), pp.781-803.
- USC Center on Public Diplomacy. 2018. Soft Power 2018. Retrieved from: https://softpower30.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/07/The-Soft-Power-30-Report-2018.pdf
- Wu, X., Lu, Y., Zhou, S., Chen, L. and Xu, B., 2016. Impact of climate change on human infectious diseases: Empirical evidence and human adaptation. Environment international, 86, pp.14-23.
- Zurcher, A. 2017. Does Trump still think climate change is a hoax? BBC News. Retrieved from: https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-40128034
