Trump Drops Climate Change from List of National Security Threat

Posted: January 4th, 2023

Trump Drops Climate Change from List of National Security Threat

Student’s Name

Institutional Affiliation

Trump Drops Climate Change from List of National Security Threat

Background Information

Various countries strive to develop environmental strategies with the objective of combating climate change, but as other countries strive to develop their structures, the Americans seem to be heading towards the wrong direction. President Trump does not seem to recognize climate change as one of the major threats to national security, and consequently developed a National Security Strategy (NSS) that only considers the issue as one that requires slight attention. His decision develops much criticism from stakeholders who feel that the decision puts the country at risk of suffering the adverse effects of climate change and global warming. Trump should not change the policy because environmental experts feel that the decision is wrong, it implies that the U.S. might not participate in talks on climate change, shows that the President’s unwavering nature on withdrawing from the Paris Agreement, and because other national leaders support the policy due to its merits for Americans.

Developing the National Security Strategy

President Donald Trump argued in December 2017 that the real threat to America’s security is not climate change, but the laws and regulations that get in the way of America’s energy and economic dominance. The President formulated his initial National Security Strategy, in which he deviated from the Obama plan in not acknowledging climate degeneration as a major security concern (Borger, 2017; Chemnick, 2017). Trump facilitated the development of a National Security Strategy with the help of H.R. McMaster who is the national security advisor and other influential political personnel in the White House (Chemnick, 2017). George Banks had earlier created similar interests at a climate convention in Bonn, Germany where the White House energy adviser demonstrated how America could utilize its unrelenting engagement in the UN climate processes to develop a sustainable domestic energy plan (Chemnick, 2017). The stance by the Trump administration depicts a sharp deviation from the NSS developed under Obama, which put climate change among the major threats facing the country and created consensus on handling global warming as a national security concern.  

Some scholars regard the remarks by the President as aimed at strengthening the economy. Trump in his speech demonstrated how adjusting the tax and trade policies, as well as embracing industrial deregulation would boost America’s economy. The leader of state insisted that national security and wealth go hand in hand (Gohd, 2017). The President in his speech that largely touched on international competition over cooperation said that “Economic richness, enlargement, and strength at home are completely important for American supremacy and influence globally” (Chemnick, 2017). Trump said during his launching of the National Security Strategy that any country that gives away its wealth for security will lose both, appearing to refer to the renowned comments by Benjamin Franklin about liberty (Gabbatis, 2017). The President mentioned in the document that reach to local sources of clean, inexpensive, and consistent energy supports a successful, safe, and strong America for many years to come (Chemnick, 2017). The strategy document further stated that the American administration is committed to countering an anti-development plan is harmful to the country’s economic and energy security desires. The developers of the National Security Strategy provide several reasons to support the document (Chow, 2017). The President and his team believe that the plan would make America a global leader in lowering conventional pollution, as well as GHGs (greenhouse gases), while developing the economy.

Position

Many environmental experts and individual stakeholders already feel that the decision by Trump to drop climate change from one of the real threats to national security could have fatal outcomes. Sherri Goodman, who serves as a member in the Center for Climate and Security’s Advisory Board, feels that the President’s dismissal of climate change was misinformed and could affect America’s competitive advantage (Chemnick, 2017). Goodman believes that the tools of statecraft include both energy and climate plans, and to disregard one that affects the country most is not the correct way to deal with the issue. Goodman refers to the claims by the President as wishful thinking because much needs to happen to expand the non-fossil-fuels energy industries that are no match to the Chinese firms (Chemnick, 2017). The Board member feels that the U.S. is giving away its economic leadership by not exploiting some of the immense economic and clean energy chances that are right in front of Americans. Furthermore, other critics refer to the National Security Strategy as a political approach than a policy improvement, and some experts are already questioning its significance, bearing in mind that the President does not pay much attention to climate change (Whieldon, 2017). The criticisms facing the President’s plan requires adequate insight into the matter to decide whether the country is heading towards the right direction or not.Several other criticisms emerge regarding the National Security Strategy that Trump hopes will increase America’s use of renewable energy and the economy. David Titley who served as a Rear Administrator thinks that the National Security Strategy will not stop the ice at the Arctic region from melting. Titley implies that the ice will continue to melt at an alarming rate, and the national security administrators understand that they need to deal with the matter as they handle other threats from security change (Chemnick, 2017). Titley who now works for the Pennsylvania State University as an environmentalist expert the impacts of climate change in America and in other countries is a matter of concern for the national security leadership, and will continue to cause much devastation in future even if such issues do not receive much attention in the NSS (Chemnick, 2017). Andrew Holland who serves as a senior representative for energy and climate at the American Security Project believes that the military has set adequate measures to prepare for climate change and asserts that the NSS would not destruct its course. Holland terms the NSS as a as a political deal composed by the White House to run the country the as it wishes (Chemnick, 2017). Holland urges the government to realize that climate change exists, it is happening, and the state must come up with a suitable plan to prepare and mitigate its effects.

Furthermore, the co-leader of the  Center for Climate and Security, Francesco Femia, thinks that the omissions by Trump on climate would give a message to the entire world that America might not participate in talks on global warming, especially now when Trump is still in power (Chemnick, 2017). Several conventions were held in December 2017 at The Hague and at the United Nations headquarters in New York to discuss how the UN Security Council might include climate change into its work plan (Chow, 2017). America has a permanent seat on the Council but did not attend any of these meetings. Femia thinks that the President’s approach sets a bad precedent and could have some repercussions for the allies and partners of America. The disapprovals by various specialists suggest that the policy change may not yield good results for America.

Also, the President’s speech showed his perceptions had changed little from the remarks he made on June 1, 2017 at Rose Garden, in which Trump declared that America would withdraw from the Paris Agreement. He criticized past leaders for accepting to put the energy sector under key and lock, and for surrendering America’s autonomy to unknown bureaucrats in faraway places (Chemnick, 2017). Unfortunately, the thoughts of withdrawing from the Paris Agreement that might have led the President to alter the National Security Strategy may have fatal environmental repercussions on the U.S. Nearly half a decade ago at least 190 countries ratified the Paris Agreement, which is a universal plan to address climate change (Sumaila et al., 2019). The plan offers the world a plan for avoiding adverse effects of climate change by lowering global warming to below 2^oC and reducing the level even further to 1.5^oC. Failing to honor the Paris Agreement could deny America some of the benefits that come with following the pact (Sumaila et al., 2019). For example, America could miss on the tens of millions of jobs that the Paris Agreement hopes to create by 2030. Trump and his administration must reconsider the thought about withdrawing from the Paris Agreement if the country wants to develop effective strategies to combat climate change.

Joe Biden may gain more support in the November presidential elections if he puts more emphasis on his plan to tackle climate change. The former Vice President announced at the beginning of July a new strategy to spend nearly $2 trillion over the first term of his service to significantly improve the use of clean and safe energy in key areas such as the building, electricity, and transportation sector (Glueck & Friedman, 2020). Biden in one of the recent campaigns denounced the President’s handling of the Covid-19 pandemic and climate change arguing that preparing for climate change is one of the most vital investments America can make for the long-term health benefits and liveliness of both the physical health and safety of Americans and for the economy (Glueck & Friedman, 2020). Biden criticized the President by saying all that comes to his head when he thinks about climate change is ‘hoax’ while what Biden thinks about is more jobs (Glueck & Friedman, 2020). The plan by Biden is one of his competitive advantages against Trump, and his planners believe that proper investment and planning in the area will make him triumphant in the coming elections.

Conclusion

The recent policy change by Trump seeking to create a new NSS that does not consider climate change as a major concern to the national security does not mean well to the country’s preparedness to combat the adverse effects of climate change. The President and his team think that the plan would improve the country’s domestic production and use of clean and reliable renewable forms of energy as well as improve the country’s economy. Nonetheless, the claims do not seem to receive adequate support from stakeholders who feel that the leadership provides considerable loopholes that could affect the America’s preparedness in combating climate change. The criticism implies that Trump and his team should review the NSS and include climate change among one of the major threats to national security. The U.S. may not put up with the present and future effects of climate change if it does not give the area the attention it deserves as Obama did during his administration.

References

Borger, J. (2017). Trump drops climate change from U.S. national security strategy. Retrieved

            from https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2017/dec/18/trump-drop-climate-change-

            national-security-strategy

Chemnick, J. (2017). Trump drops climate threats from National Security Strategy. Retrieved

            from https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/trump-drops-climate-threats-from-

            national-security-strategy/

Chow, L. (2017). Trump to drop climate change as national security threat. Retrieved from

https://www.ecowatch.com/trump-climate-change-national-security-2518369455.html

Gabbatis, J. (2017). Donald Trump to drop climate change from list of national security threats.

            Retrieved from https://www.independent.co.uk/environment/donald-trump-climate-

            change-national-secuirty-security-threats-global-warming-environment-clean-coal-

            a8116326.html

Glueck, K., & Friedman, L. (2020). Biden announces $2 trillion climate plan. Retrieved from

Gohd, C. (2017). Donald Trump is dropping climate change from a list of security threats.

            Retrieved from https://futurism.com/donald-trump-dropping-climate-change-list-security-

            threats

Sumaila, R., et al., 2019). Benefits of the Paris Agreement to ocean life, economies, and people.

            Science Advances, 5(2), doi: 10.1126/sciadv.aau3855

Whieldon, E. (2017). Trump drops climate change from list of national security threats.

            Retrieved from https://www.spglobal.com/marketintelligence/en/news-

            insights/trending/bhudhnfqpsmcsbvqlhltqg2