The other night I was sitting outside with some friends, admiring the vast infinity of a midnight South Florida sky. My buddy asked me if I thought there was another planet with life out there. To think that we are the only bastion of life in this perpetual sea of darkness and dust was hard to comprehend. Naturally, our instinct is to say ‘of course, something else is out there.’ When we are considering the probability of anything existing in a mass as gigantic as the universe, of course we assume there has got to be some form of life.
I always play devil’s advocate, and argued that if something else was out there, why haven’t we been contacted ever. A more persuasive argument however, is the rarity of a planet sustaining evolution of biological complexity. For starters, for life to exist, the planet needs to be in the right location of a right kind of galaxy. The planet must also orbit a certain distance from a specific star strong enough to sustain life and nourishment. The orbit must be stable. Any planet with life also has to have a nearby moon, plate tectonics, and an atmosphere.
Our planet meets all these requirements perfectly. To think another planet somewhere else can also sustain life is fantastic. But to think of the probability that our earth was created and that me and you live on it, defy all ramifications of possibility.
This finally brings us to the point of my long-winded article. Once we weigh the infinitesimal odds of life existing in outer space, it almost seems sacrilegious that we would destroy our planet. Our current president however, is actively trying to destroy our planet. Do we blame him or the idiots that actually vote for him? That is a bold statement, but check out some of his climate decisions.
A few weeks ago, Trump announced that America will no longer recognize climate change as a national security threat. In 2015, Obama described climate change as “an urgent and growing threat to our national security,” What happened? What provoked the White House to remove this urgent national threat from concern? Nothing.
The US Department of Interior will be auctioning off oil and gas leases for 77 million acres of federal waters within the Gulf of Mexico. This announcement came in October, just a few days after a massive oil pipeline off the coast of Louisiana spilled 672,000 gallons into the Gulf of Mexico.
In August, Trump signed an executive order revoking federal flood risk standards that used climate change rising sea levels. In other words, Trump’s executive order allows buildings to be built in areas where rising sea levels would decimate them in the near future.
By far the most shocking environment decision Trump made was to pull us out of the Paris Climate Agreement. 194 other countries were in it to curb greenhouse gas emissions. NationalGeographic
This is just a few of Trump’s disgusting decisions to harm our beautiful planet. I didn’t mention the NOAA canceling laws that protect whales from fishing nets, or the Interior Secretary suggesting our national parks become smaller to allow more hunting. Anyone who disagrees with my bold statement earlier, that Trump is actively trying to destroy our planet, would have a tough argument to make.
More shocking though, is that almost half of our country agrees with Trump. Half of our country argues that climate change is not happening. They all support Trump’s decisions. We need to examine our justifications for our arguments. For example, I argue climate change is happening because the vast majority of science is in my corner. I have nothing to lose and everything to gain if climate change is accepted. I also worry about my children’s planet.
That humans are causing global warming is the position of the Academies of Science from 80 countries plus many scientific organizations that study climate science. More specifically, around 95% of active climate researchers actively publishing climate papers endorse the consensus position. SkepticalScience
Why would someone doubt climate change? Obviously, wealthy people who own factories fight climate change, because they are the ones that will pay to cleanup. Ironically, those same factory owners are the ones that contribute to republicans, like Donald Trump. But besides people who will have to spend money on the cleanup, why would someone fight to allow pollution to harm our planet? What do they have to lose in a cleaner environment?
This is from a 2016 article,
Fossil fuel millionaires collectively pumped more than $100m into Republican presidential contenders’ efforts last year – in an unprecedented investment by the oil and gas industry in the party’s future.
About one in three dollars donated to Republican hopefuls from mega-rich individuals came from people who owe their fortunes to fossil fuels – and who stand to lose the most in the fight against climate change.
Even more irrefutable evidence that Trump is trying to destroy our planet, are the individuals he chose to head important environmental departments. His choice to head the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration is Barry Meyers. He is the same owner of AccuWeather, a director competitor of the NOAA. He has actually tried to enforce legislation to cripple the agency he now heads.
Scott Pruitt is Trump’s choice to head the Environmental Protection Agency. Ironically, Scott Pruitt has also spent his private career trying to dismantle the agency he now heads. The second position at the EPA goes to Andrew Wheeler, a coal lobbyist. Both Wheeler and Pruitt are climate deniers. PoliticalHaze
Things become a little more clear, when we acknowledge who is giving the republican party money. Of course Donald Trump will bend legislation to whoever is giving him the most money. But what about the majority of republicans who vote to have their children’s planet destroyed? Most republicans aren’t fossil fuel millionaires. Why would they march up and down the street waving signs that climate change is just a hoax?
Could it be a lack of education?
I understand, if someone considers themselves of a particular political party, they will generally agree with the tenants of that party. Since republicans get heavy contributions from the fossil fuel industry, these politicians fight climate change. Hence, republican voters are more inclined to side with the ideology of republican politicians than democratic ones.