Is there a secret agreement between Trump and Putin regarding climate change?
While I write about traveling to Paris and France in general, I also write about political and cultural issues that are important to France. It is only natural that France is the leading voice against climate change since Claude Lorius, a French glaciologist, was instrumental in proving man-made global warming. [See the trailer for the documentary about his work, “Antarctica: Ice and Sky” (2015) by clicking here.] France also does not deny what is right in front of them. As a supporter of France and an American horrified by what I view as an assault on American values coming out of Washington, I feel it is my duty to add my observations and questions to the discussion. I hope I am dead wrong about the suppositions I write about here.
There is evidence that Russian President Vladimir Putin had a hand in electing Donald Trump as U.S. president this past November by conducting a widespread cyber operation directed at the election. In fact, some believe the Russians changed voter counts, and while this fact has been disputed, as a former election judge, it wouldn’t surprise me after seeing firsthand just how temperamental voter machines can be. Computerized machines are supposed to do what people program them to do; these machines seemed to have a mind all their own. Whatever the method, it is clear the Russians are guilty. The expected response from Trump by many is that he would be outraged over outside influence in our election process, even if he is the declared winner; after all, he has alleged that the Clinton Foundation illegally received millions of dollars from foreign powers in exchange for special treatment. One would think Trump would want to avoid similar accusations. But instead of condemning Russia’s unlawful actions, he wants to ease U.S. financial sanctions against Russian individuals and groups, such as those put in place in 2014 after Russian military aggression in Ukraine. Why would Trump do this?
Images like this of a lone Polar Bear floating in the Arctic are not faked. How can it be denied?
Perhaps the answer can be found in Trump’s climate change policy: he flatly denies it exists. He has called climate change “bunk” and a “hoax” and has said that taking measures to halt its pace would “make us noncompetitive in the manufacturing world…” Photographs of melting Arctic ice, estimated to be melting at rate of 13.3% per decade, are not a hoax, nor are images of starving polar bears who can’t find food. How do Trump’s denials about this help Putin? As 60 Minutes reported on October 2, 2016 in the segment entitled “The Arctic Frontier,” the melting Arctic ice means ships will be able to pass through the once-impassable Arctic Ocean, specifically the Northern Sea Route, a possible alternative to the Suez Canal that could mean a decrease of as much as 28 days from northern European markets to Asian markets. The savings for the shipping industry would be a “big boon to business around the world.” The Northern Sea Route runs along Russia’s Arctic coastline, and Russia now has a strong military presence along the route. When 60 Minutes correspondent Lesley Stahl asked Philip Breedlove, a retired four-star general who most recently was the Supreme Allied Commander of NATO with responsibility for the Arctic, what would happen if the Russians gained control over the Northern Sea Route, Breedlove responded, “If the Russians had the ability to militarily hold [it] at ransom, that is a big lever over the world economy.” By denying that climate change is real, Trump has ceded his leadership role to challenge any country on whether this shipping route should even be used, much less challenge Putin on Russia controlling it. This all but guarantees the United States will remain silent as the Arctic ice melts into the ocean and numerous species go extinct – and while Russia gains control over the Northern Sea Route. Russia as a superpower would be reborn.
Unfortunately, unlike Antarctica, which is governed by an international treaty that bars countries from owning or exploiting its land, the Arctic has only a council that meets every six months and issues a non-binding declaration of its business every two years. Only states with territory in that region can be members with voting rights. So if it is in a member state’s best economic interest to allow the Arctic ice melt so as to open the Arctic Ocean to trade ships, no observer state on the council can vote against it. The U.S. is a member state on the Arctic Council due to Alaskan territory contained within the Arctic, so it has the power to be a dissenting voice. But it seems the U.S. is just as anxious to see the Arctic ice melt as Russia. When Lesley Stahl visited the temporary U.S. Navy base in the Arctic for the 60 Minutes segment, the Navy was there to map the bottom of the ice and was “amassing…research to prepare for an expanded presence in the Arctic, as the ice continues to melt.” If U.S. policy prior to Trump being elected was indeed to halt the march of climate change, would the Navy have been there gathering data on how to maneuver beneath the ice? My guess is they would say they were there so they could eventually match Russia’s military presence within the Arctic region, not that they were there to prepare for the U.S. to send commercial ships through the Arctic. It feels like U.S. climate change policy is a kind of doublespeak: Take some actions to show we’re against climate change, but don’t do too much if it impacts us economically in the short term. Remember, this segment aired on October 2, 2016, while Obama was still in office; Trump was elected on November 8. I freely concede, however, that with ExxonMobile CEO Rex Tillerson as Trump’s Secretary of State pick, whose company stands to profit from oil deals in the Arctic region, Trump isn’t double-speaking his climate change policy, he is screaming.
Unless Trump completely changes course, he will likely lose the chance to prevent a climate change tipping point that scientists predict will happen between 2020 and 2030: the defrosting of the Arctic permafrost. Billions of tons of plant material frozen for centuries and containing carbon are slowly thawing out from within the permafrost, but as time passes and more carbon is released, the thaw rate will increase. Excess carbon in the atmosphere heats the planet; excess carbon in the ocean makes the water more acidic and therefore deadly to marine life. Once the plant material has thawed, there is no putting back the permafrost. The cycle will continue, and the earth will continue to heat up at an accelerated pace.
I have to wonder what prevents world leaders like Trump and Putin from seeing what is right in front of them. Is it that they don’t care because they won’t be around to experience the worst effects of climate change? Besides being world leaders and seem to be scratching each other’s back, there are three other things Trump and Putin have in common: They are both older, rich, and have adult and young children. Trump will be 71 years old this year, while Putin will be 65. They are both billionaires, though Putin is far richer than Trump. Trump has four adult children; Putin has two. Trump’s son Barron will be 11 years old this year, while Putin reportedly has three young children under the age of 10 with Alina Kabaeva, who may or may not be his wife. Because of their respective ages, Trump and Putin will unlikely be alive to suffer the full effects of the heating earth. But their young children will – and their adult children are witnesses to their respective father making choices that will impact their lives, and the lives of their children. The earth will one day belong to the children of today. Will it be habitable for them? Do Trump and Putin think their billions will somehow save their children from having to live with the full effects of an overheated planet?
If that is the case, they fail to understand an ancient proverb: “Only when the last tree has been cut down, the last fish caught, the last river poisoned, will we realize we cannot eat money.”
Salut.
Image of U.S. & Russian Cooperation by CanStockPhoto. “The Last Polar Bear” by Gerard Van der Leun, Flickr, CCBY 2.0.
References:
“The Arctic Frontier,” 60 Minutes segment, aired October 2, 2016. “Arctic Council” from Wikipedia, CCBY 3.0. “Claude Lorius” from Wikipedia, CCBY 3.0.
“Global Warming Climate Change Forecasts – 2030” from Global Warming Forecasts, http://www.global-warming-forecasts.com/2030-climate-change-global-warming-2030.php.
“Effects of Changing the Carbon Cycle,” by NASA Earth Observatory,
http://www.earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Features/CarbonCycle/page5.php?src=share.