Well, we are going to see. Whether changes are narrow or far reaching, there will be changes. Trump Picks Top Climate Skeptic to Lead EPA Transition - Scientific American
this is one of the downsides. the best we can hope for is he has friends in the oil business, and gasoline skyrockets. then we won't need government to save the planet for us.
"The Trump team has also lined up leaders for its Energy Department and Interior Department teams. Republican energy lobbyist Mike McKenna is heading the DOE team" Yup, draining the swamp. Uh-huh.
Possibly cars can be made (in US) larger and more powerful Trump Threatens To Repeal Fuel Economy And Emissions Regulations Your upside may vary
i suspect he's making a deal with china right now, to bring back the hummer factory and good american jobs.
I'm afraid this thread is destined to go to Fred's House of Politics. The premise makes it so. Regardless: Nixon loved an open fire in the summer. Reagan tore down the solar water panels from the White House Bush II was followed at NASA Marshall taking off the roof solar water heaters I have no expectations of anything but the natural laws working regardless of 'policy.' The Arctic will continue to have summer navigation while all ice sheets and glaciers will continue to melt. In the Northern hemisphere, Spring will start sooner and Fall last longer. High temperature records will continue to be set. California will continue to improve air quality with other, non-CARB areas will get a taste of the 1960s air. Life expectancy in the USA is expected to decrease. Bob Wilson
The interface of environmental sciences and politics has long been broad. Now it is more so. It's more than a political discussion of course. I found this worth reading: What Trump can—and can't—do all by himself on climate | Science | AAAS Perhaps a library trip is required? National agencies are built from layers of 'law' and are not susceptible to de-materialization at the stroke of a pen. Not any pen.
What you and the author of that article neglect to realize is that with a Trump appointed scotus, Obamas power plan is not legal.Poof. As for the Paris agreement.Once the IPCC and the Paris commitment is defunded the entire plan will unravel.
I think it is widely recognized that Clean Power Plan will now have less influence on %coal in US energy generation. Existing facilities (that might have been shut down) will keep going. Whether new coal plants will be built in response is another matter. Not a quick process. For me it will be interesting to hear the 'packaging' required to keep US fossil-C industry 'financial incentives' flowing.
Absolutely an interesting question what IPCC (and COP) shall do and be with little or no US governmental support. How US earth-system science proceeds is also interesting, but very different.
Source: Butler Act - Wikipedia The Butler Act was a 1925 Tennessee law prohibiting public school teachers from denying the Biblical account of man's origin. It was enacted as Tennessee Code Annotated Title 49 (Education) Section 1922, having been signed into law by Tennessee governor Austin Peay. The law also prevented the teaching of the evolution of man from what it referred to as lower orders of animals in place of the Biblical account. Source: Indiana Pi Bill - Wikipedia The Indiana Pi Bill is the popular name for bill #246 of the 1897 sitting of the Indiana General Assembly, one of the most notorious attempts to establish mathematical truth by legislative fiat. Despite its name, the main result claimed by the bill is a method to square the circle, rather than to establish a certain value for the mathematical constant π, the ratio of the circumference of a circle to its diameter. However, the bill does imply various incorrect values of π, such as 3.2. The bill never became law, due to the intervention of Professor C. A. Waldo of Purdue University, who happened to be present in the legislature on the day it went up for a vote. Natural Law has a certain degree of persistence that ordinary laws can not overcome: King Canute and the waves - Wikipedia The USA holds no monopoly on science, math, and engineering. So I'm fairly sanguine about what happens next. Sorry for the 'take one step back' to wind up taking two steps forward in the future. Bob Wilson
No US monopoly, but an already decreasing share. Closest thing to a US monopoly in my eyes is high-tech equipment. Europe (including UK) is the competition there - not China. Best not let that slip away. In terms of total money spent on research, China may be alone in increases. But budget transparency remains an issue There could be a spirited discussion on balance between basic research and problem solving in any country. I suppose 'basic' could take (at least a brief) dip in US.
I am reminded of Dr. Robert Goddard who developed and launched the first, liquid fueled rocket: He subsequently developed the first, turbo-pump, vane guided, liquid fueled rocket: So in the 1930s, he held the record for largest and most sophisticated liquid fueled rockets with record setting heights. Yet he was ignored except in Germany: The only Goddard rocket that saw combat: 6903517 - Dr. Goddard and a 1918 version of "Bazooka" The USA has history of technology leading engineers and scientists, many from other lands, who create the most wonderful and terrible devices. But with rare exception, they were too often unappreciated in their own time. Not always but often enough. Bob Wilson
If he would leave the economy requirements and get rid of the damn grey market laws there might be an upside. Diesel Suzuki Carry here I come. (Far better than the mostly idle 2001 Dodge Ram crew I keep to move trailers furniture and lawn supplies)