In an executive order titled “Unleashing America’s Energy” on his first day back in office, President Donald Trump declared that America would be free of the Green New Deal and all of its “burdensome and ideologically motivated regulations.” With the path we are on, America might soon be free of its home planet, too.
According to the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), 2024 was the warmest year recorded on Earth in modern history. This time last year, so was 2023. It seems that at such a pivotal moment in our planet’s life, we are purposely turning a blind eye to its treacherous future.
Trump’s branding of climate policies as “ideological” epitomizes the problem: Climate change has gone from a scientific topic to a political one. As global temperatures have risen, so have tensions over the issue.
“When I was a kid and something happened, the first people they’d go to was the scientist to figure it out,” science teacher Scottie Smith said. “The scientists were the good guys. And in the last 20 years, scientists and scientists’ understanding of how things work are actively rejected … Most developed nations do not struggle with this problem, mainly because the populace is educated in science and understands it.”
This placing of politics over fact has manifested as a war on all green policies. Trump has made clear his plans to remove any sort of incentive toward renewable energy and invest solely in traditional oil power. Though burning fossil fuels may have an immediate economic advantage, actively resisting alternatives simply limits the choices available to the American people.
“It’s a virtue signal to remove tax credits on solar and wind to prove that you stand against climate proponents, not one made out of economic, rational thought,” social science fellow Quinn McKenzie said. “Americans having the choice to install solar panels on their homes or wind turbines on their farms is more freedom … It feels like it’s a move that can only be made out of spite and [one] that is indicative of a broader politicization of climate.”
Furthermore, as of Feb. 10, Trump’s administration has told NOAA to review all of its grants for words such as “greenhouse gas,” “carbon” and “climate.” Though we have yet to know the directive’s ultimate purpose, recent scientific censorship at the National Institute of Health and the purging of diversity-related language within the government have offered little comfort.
Whatever his true intention, Trump has “drill, baby, drill[ed]” a huge hole in our climate protections in what he couches as an attempt to help the United States become more competitive in the global economic sphere. The same rationale underscored his decision to once again withdraw from the Paris Agreement, a global treaty comprising over 190 world nations with the goal of limiting global temperature increases.
“I think Trump perceives it as a prisoner’s dilemma, where if we commit to climate action, he views us as then being outcompeted by countries who don’t commit like India or China,” McKenzie said. “It’s a self-fulfilling cycle. When America pulls out, China and India can go, ‘Oh, well, if the U.S. isn’t going to do it, why would we commit to it?’”
Trump’s belief that America has been given an unfair burden to tackle climate change is antithetical to his idea that America leads the world. If China’s population does not encourage its government to act on climate, America — which has for centuries been an example and beacon to other nations — should not hold itself to the same low standard. We must set the pace in fighting for our planet instead of joining the rest of the world in neglect.
“To say we’re being unduly burdened is untrue,” McKenzie said. “Most of that burden is coming from the American citizens. If your people are placing the burden upon you, it’s probably not an unfair burden.”
Despite a 2024 Pew Research Center survey finding that 76% of Americans are saddened by climate change, the American people ultimately place other, seemingly more pressing matters over climate without consideration for how climate can directly affect them: If droughts impede food production, grocery prices will go up. If natural disasters disrupt mining sites, gas prices will go up. If people’s ways of life are destroyed by an ever harsher climate, “climate refugees” will be forced to migrate to survive.
The responsibility lies first and foremost with schools to instill the knowledge of climate change’s tangible impact in people as early as possible. Smith believes Trinity does a phenomenal job through courses such as AP Environmental Science or Human Geography, but other Americans may be less lucky.
“If we start with the kids, explain to them the problems, I do think you grow up to be a better environmental steward,” Smith said. “I do think that adult humans who have decided based on some 20-minute Google searching that they’re right are very difficult to convince. It took me 25 years to convince my mother that climate change was, in fact, real.”
Whether or not we are able to educate the masses, the government still bears a responsibility to protect the Earth. A republic should produce leaders who will make educated decisions in their citizens’ best interest, and — however radical it may seem — having a planet to live on may just serve our interest.
“The purpose of the U.S. as established in the preamble of the Constitution is to establish an enduring union for ourselves and our posterity,” McKenzie said. “And I think that part of ensuring a brighter, better world for our posterity is making sure that the place they live is habitable.”
