as a climate scientist, we asked buizer how he felt the withdrawal from the paris agreement would affect science studies and communication going forward. below is an edited version of his conversation with planet forward.

planet forward: your work at the university is directly related to climate and climate change. how do you think leaving the paris accord will affect your work?

buizer: it’s not going to affect it. other than having to answer questions about what i think. i actually found myself in a different spot than a lot of my colleagues — lonely in rooms … people were freaking out and i was actually glad. and, in fact, i found myself being hopeful that he would pull. and that was a weird place to be. it probably is counterintuitive to you.

and here’s why (i was in this mindset): the paris agreement is an accord — it’s voluntary — it has been voluntary since the beginning and whether or not the country was going to meet its commitment — by the way were not on track, even with the obama efforts, to meet them. the voluntary commitment and being a signatory gave us a seat at the table and gave us a chance to develop leadership. it didn’t mean that we were going to do anything about reducing greenhouse gases. the only thing that was required was a recording about 10 levels of carbon that each nation put forward.

trump had already — over the last few months — begun gutting the laws and regulations that epa had, that obama had put in. so it wasn’t going to make really any difference whether or not we were in the accord or not in the accord, whether we were going to reduce greenhouse gases — that was already happening.

secondly, in a corollary, that’s the bad news. nationally we were going to do whatever we were going to do no matter what. any chance that we have to reduce greenhouse gases doesn’t happen really on a national level; it happens because of companies like exxon or bp, or states like california, or individuals like you and i are doing things. because we’re in — we believe we’re in. we’re in this big challenge and we’re going to do what we can do. so it doesn’t happen at a national level.

the other thing is, i was aware it’s going to take something like 4-5 years to actually be out (of the paris agreement). it’ll be really interesting to see what happens in, say, november or october 2020, the debate is going to be “which side of this are you on?” we’ll still be in the accord, having made moves to be out of it, but four years from now is 2021. so, the reason why, i thought, well, mother nature/father atmosphere — it’s really going to make no difference whether we are in or out. what is going to matter is whether or not we have a seat at the table, and whether or not we can demonstrate leadership as a nation. so, as an american, that’s sad. …

for my work specifically — the impact is actually not about the accord — my work is being affected by his budget, with him gutting all climate budgets, because that stops the work. … it’s about the work that gets done, helping people understand the impacts and vulnerability and what we can do about climate variability and change… that work can’t continue. and we support a lot of students. i have four students — graduate research assistants — who are getting their ph.d.s with this funding. that’s where it’s going to affect the work. i’ll have a tougher time getting the necessary funding, certainly from the federal government, so i’m seeking other sources.

q: what challenges do you think the academic and scientific community faces in the coming years as a result of the withdrawal?

a: … we (used to be) listened to. we were invited to the table. we were doing the inviting — we had a seat at the head of the table. i’m imagining a future where that is no longer true. because why should they? we’re seated leadership — we’re “just another country” now. in fact, we’re the largest undeveloping country there is.

look around infrastructure, positions on nationalism, and weirdness in government — it looks an awful lot like (undeveloped) countries and the way those countries govern themselves. … it will be a while, but that’s the direction we’re heading. social justice issues, and governance and all the broader issues — the corruption. there’s a list out there done by the un body that ranks the countries and corruption and we keep going down and down and down on that list. … in literacy and education — literacy, corruption, life span. everything that’s considered to be a developed country — we are going down.

i certainly can’t walk into a room and can’t be sitting at the head of the table seat. the europeans will be sitting in that seat or the chinese will be sitting in that seat.

q: how can academia bridge the divide on climate in america?

a: sure. but not in the same way we thought it was going to be in the past. we had the finest (universities) … if you look at the shanghai rankings, u.s. universities are something like 16 out of the top 20; we have the best higher ed. universities and colleges are really strong in the u.s. and revered and respected. in coming to the debate, we have legitimacy as a place. but where i say, “maybe not so much, or we have to change our way” … in the past our legitimacy was based on the rigor of our science.

as an aside, for something for ncse (the national council for science and the environment), i was adding the nobel prizes … and since world war ii we, the u.s., in the sciences — not peace or music or art — we have as many nobel prizes as the next seven countries that follow. so there is some credibility about what we do in science and engineering.

so i don’t think that is necessarily what needs to happen for the political divide — it has to be storytelling; it has to be communication; it has to be understanding that we as scientists might be good at piling up knowledge and proving fact. but we’re not really as good at communicating.

it struck me that some people park climate change — something that’s fact — in the same place that we have to park our faith.

q: how does leaving the paris accord change the way we tell the climate story?

a: i think we shouldn’t let paris distract us from what we’re saying and how we’re doing it. more than ever we have to come at it with sort of clarity of message and steptoitness – and all the stuff i said at the beginning, about how it doesn’t really matter. it doesn’t really matter, but only if we keep trump’s feet to the fire. we’ve gotta keep the conversation going … and we need to make sure the rest of the world knows that our president doesn’t speak for us.

and that’s why i love the, yes, “we are still in” — i’ve been seeing that all over the place. and california doing what they’re going to do, saying, we’re going to go talk to the chinese, since we can’t talk to our own white house. so i think that kind of activity, as far as messaging — most of what we need to do is actually use our own tactics. so if they say it’s all about the jobs, then it’s absolutely all about the jobs. they said we added something like 55,000 jobs in coal in this last year. well, then i’d like to know what was added in renewables, etc.

and here’s another one — you want to save money on healthcare? … how strong is a healthy country — is it because of healthcare or the quality of air? imagine if we’re not burning any fossil fuels in this country; that’s one way to save it.

on earth day 2008, knapp signed the american college and university presidents’ climate commitment, where the university committed to reducing its carbon footprint and measuring greenhouse gas emissions. in 2010 gw released an official climate action plan, setting its goal of being carbon neutral by 2040, and during knapp’s tenure the university has remained on track to reach that goal.

knapp said the most important act of sustainability that he has done is to “develop the leadership capacities of the students to be in this for the long haul.” students have wide-ranging interests on sustainability, which gw then fosters and cultivates the students to be able to go in the free market and work with any person, corporation, or government. one way that this has been done is through establishing sustainability as a minor which allows students “to see how everything is connected.”

the president also worked with corporations and governments to reduce their carbon output, and become more sustainable. a major collaboration that was done under knapp’s tenure is the capital solar partnership with american university and george washington hospital. these corporations created four solar farms that allow gw and the other partners to obtain half of their energy usage from solar. the energy from these farms is enough to power 9,000 homes — the equivalent of taking 18,000 cars off the road, and 85,000 metric tons of carbon dioxide out of the atmosphere.  

gw also has become a trusted advisor to the washington, d.c., local government on how it should handle their run-off, by spreading what was done on gw campus to the surrounding area. these partnerships were done by both president knapp, and the board of trustees, which put sustainability first on campus. 

most recently, knapp signed on the university’s behalf the “we are still in” declaration in response to the united states’ withdrawal from the paris accord, along with what has grown to more than 300 colleges and universities, impressing that the university and its students, faculty and staff remain committed to the goals it committed to in 2008.

before becoming a state representative, rep. dyer worked in landscaping and forest management. being in that industry has allowed him to not only understand new hampshire values, but also gain real world understanding of the environment. while serving in the new hampshire house, rep. dyer also works as a graphic designer. “… working with various business owners and startups in new hampshire i have been able to… help their companies grow and become centerpieces of their communities,” rep. dyer said.

we chatted with rep. dyer shortly after new hampshire gov. chris sununu announced that his state would not be a part of the group of states planning to follow the guidelines of the paris climate accord. the reason for this is that new hampshire already has high energy prices, with new hampshire state director greg moore saying doing this deal “will hurt the economy, kill jobs, and drive up energy prices even further on families.”

as a libertarian and a member of the house, rep. dyer has a unique perspective on the environmental issues facing new hampshire, including climate change in a state economy that is reliant on carbon eminent forms of energy. what follows is an edited transcript of rep. dyer’s conversation with planet forward.

q: first, what do you think about your governor’s decision to not be a part of the paris climate agreement with states like california and virginia, etc.?

a: although i have my disagreements with gov. sununu, i actually support that. since the paris accord would focus still more on a lot of economic policy designed to combat climate change. and i don’t really think that new hampshire is in a position to afford those kinds of additional policies.

a policy that is openly discussed in the paris accord is the carbon tax that they wanted to implement, and you know that is going to cost (more) — especially for someone like myself; i heat my house with coal in the winter time. a carbon tax would disproportionately affect people who heat with carbon-based forms…

there are so many things that a carbon tax effects that (it) would make it hard for normal people to live. so, you know there are lots of parts of the paris accord that i just really couldn’t get behind… although i have my disagreements with trump and i have my disagreements with sununu, you know this wasn’t one of them.

q: federal guidelines, such as the clean power plan (cpp), have good intentions when it comes to saving the environment, but do you believe that the greater federal regulations and lack of free market control outweigh the good intentions?

a: i wish that they would do it in other ways. i think the best way is by tax credits. i think that if you incentivize companies to invest in clean energy by giving them tax credits that they can make use of, that would be the most productive use of policy, at least at the federal level.

certainly, i think we can have the discussion of tax credits at the state level, but one of the problems that exist is tax credits at both the federal and state level you start to have this disproportionate effect where the government is now starting to pick winners and losers in the market. and by the very nature of you having a tax credit, it’s almost acting as a subsidy to those companies — which is what it is designed to do, but by raising the cost of all the other forms of energy.

as a libertarian, i resist mandates that act as artificial controls in the market. but i understand why they exist, because if they didn’t exist then it would be very likely that new hampshire would become very reliant on one or two sources of energy, whereas realistically we cannot be so reliant on that. does it increase cost, yes, it does, but it has some value at least.

q: what policy can the federal government do that is environmental but libertarian in nature?

a: tax credits are one thing. the less money that the state takes from companies that are looking to invest in renewable energy is a good thing. does that mean that i think fossil fuel energy providers should be taxed at a higher rate? technically yes, but that’s the nature of tax credits. already the fossil fuel industry has a myriad of tax credits at their disposal that they can use to mitigate their business taxes, and other various taxes that they pay on their property and capital gains. you might as well extend and issue credits to renewable energy companies.

until we are out of the woods with the federal deficit we are not going to be able to make much headway on things that are important, like enabling investment in renewable energy… if i were to, say, go to congress and talk to my federal representatives they are all democrats. and say i want a renewable energy tax credit that’s broad based… they would probably say ‘that sounds like a great idea’ and then go to the congressional budget office and be very quickly disheartened to learn that they can’t afford to implement these types of credits…

q: do you believe actions that help the environment, recycling solar energy, etc., should be voluntary on the individual level, or are they so important that they should be mandatory?

a: obviously the only way that you can address the issue is to change things that you do in your everyday life, whether or not that’s recycling, making more efficient use of your land, growing your own food, buying less meat. there are so many things you can do in your everyday life that can reduce your carbon footprint that it’s really sad that more people don’t make those choices — but we can’t force them to and we shouldn’t. and the best thing we can do is educate people on what actions can reduce their carbon footprint.

president trump withdrew from the paris climate agreement because he did not believe it was fair that it put most of the blame on the united states for global climate change. despite the fact that the united states is the second biggest contributor to global climate change, president trump explained that he cannot support a deal that punished the u.s. but does not pose any punishments for the world’s greatest polluters.

let us all remember that whether china is the first or the last on the list of polluters, the u.s. has the means and resources to make a huge impact and an enormous influence, if not more. instead, president trump cries victim and masks his reality of wanting to live in the now, “put americans first” and allocate fiscal resources to other programs and treaties that put the united states on the top and… the military.

the best part about the accord was that it forced countries like the united states and other wealthy nations to help “developing countries,” but really the global south, to build renewable energy sources for their countries that suffer the biggest burden in the first place.

certainly climate change is not a priority for the current administration but that does not mean it isn’t a priority for humanity. the hottest year ever recorded was 2015. then 2016 stole that record. so. are we going to continue to abide by the status quo, or are we going to strive to make systemic change and also become conscious citizens.

originally the u.s. agreed to contribute $3 billion to the green climate fund, and under the obama administration, $1 billion had been transferred. the white house could easily have stayed in the paris accord, even as it opted not to pay into the climate fund or impose emission cuts. why did he do it then? to make a point? to urge and force people to act on their own part for the next four years? to make local and individual impacts instead of always relying on someone else to do it? that’s the positive way to look at it at least, and the wise way to examine it.

i do hope his decision galvanizes people and pushes them to engage in their own sustainable acts so the planet doesn’t melt over but also to finally acknowledge and take responsibility — the same way it is inspiring me to continue my efforts to save the planet and its people.

now, more than ever, it is imperative that we immerse ourselves into the experiences that are being felt all over the planet. we need to listen to the stories of the refugees of climate change, the global citizens whose environments are shifting in sudden and dangerous ways.

although it seems as if president trump is shying away from american leadership, on second thought, his shortsighted decision is inspiring citizens to act. perhaps surprisingly, leaving the paris accord isn’t stalling breakthrough innovations to reach sustainability but, instead, advancing efforts.

all around the country, companies, mayors, governors and even college presidents are declaring to solemnly act on the climate pledge to continue to support climate action. ideally we want to go beyond the paris agreement’s plea, but it does represent a major step in the right direction. india and china are ahead of schedule in meeting the paris commitments. can the united states, along with other wealthy nations also serve as pacesetters — or at least followers — in the most crucial battle of our age?

however, there is a silver lining; numerous states, cities, and companies have stepped up to the plate and taken the pledge to continue, as they would have if the paris accord had been respected. massachusetts, for example, pledged to ensure that their co2 emissions would be 25% lower than they were in 1990. this is a step further than the levels the u.s. had agreed to in the paris agreement.

the state of hawaii has stepped up to the plate by recently signing two bills that would reduce greenhouse gas emissions and strive to improve soil health and agriculture. these bills were set to be signed at a later date; however, after the withdrawal from the paris agreement, the bills were brought to the forefront of the table to be expedited. this shows that legislation is being pushed forward at the state level of government in order to ensure that climate change is combated within the u.s.

trump has now moved the focus of the media and public onto all the entities that are taking the pledge to reduce carbon emissions. this has resulted in a stronger anti-climate movement. his action has brought this trend into the public eye. citizens are proving that regardless of a misguided president, we can still facilitate change. for example, states. municipalities, business leaders, and universities have used the website, “we are still in” to serve as a platform to declare that they will still support the goals set by the paris agreement. this focus and attention likely would not have occurred at the level that it has if not for the withdrawal.

the continued support of “clean coal” ignores the rise in renewable energy that provides far more jobs and opportunities to the u.s. economy, more than what the coal industry can provide. the claim of 50,000 new jobs for coal mining is misleading. in reality, only 1,300 new coal-mining jobs have been added since october of 2016, the labor department reports. according to inside climate news, jobs in renewable energy are growing at a rate that is 17 times that of the national economy.

furthermore, it is likely that if the united states had stayed on as a member of the paris agreement they would have been more of a hindrance than an aid. with the removal of the clean power plan that president obama created, as well as a new epa director who doesn’t believe in climate change, the united states would not have reached its set goals of 26% to 28% reduction in carbon emissions by 2025.

the absence of the united states from the paris agreement will pressure other countries to step up and lead the charge in climate change, possibly creating and implementing models that states and cities would be able to adopt to reduce their emissions. as many have already pledged to do so, new waves of people are finally receiving the support that they deserve

although many have perceived the withdrawal from the paris accord as a failure and embarrassment of the united states as a world leader, there is still hope; individual efforts to curb climate change are receiving more attention than ever before. other countries have an opportunity to the lead in the planet’s future. perhaps we should not be so quick to look to the negatives of this decision. instead, let’s embrace the positives and new opportunities that it has presented.

as a start at answering these questions, here are five ways we can (still!) 2022年卡塔尔世界杯官网 .

first, we can take on climate change as the unique and unprecedented moral challenge that it is. given the nature of the problem, it is not surprising that we have not yet developed a sufficiently durable regulatory framework for addressing it. in the absence of a federal regulatory framework, we can focus on developing adequate moral frameworks. we will need to articulate workable visions that inspire and guide us to take responsibility for the effects of decisions that are only meaningful when large groups of people make them, and that will play out over decades and centuries. while traditional notions of blame and culpability may be inadequate – as carbon-emitting behavior is not inherently “bad,” and only causes problems at the aggregate level – we will nonetheless have to confront questions around the responsibility of nations that have benefited most from carbon-emitting behaviors to those most likely to incur harm.

second, we can try to recognize and address people’s concerns about the political and economic impacts of large-scale climate change policies. while social science research consistently shows that the majority of americans are concerned about climate change and think something should be done about it, people’s relative prioritizations of climate change vis-à-vis other issues vary. reasonable people can prioritize different values – and the appropriate role for government in protecting them – in different ways. it is an over simplification, furthermore, to assume that all who object to climate change policies deny the science of climate change and its human causes. they may be placing a higher priority on protecting the economic strength of the us and its political sovereignty, and see climate policies and agreements – rightly or wrongly – as threats to those concerns. we need to address these concerns in principle, practice, and message. even though the paris accords are quite minimalist in that they do not empower any global agency or enforcement mechanism, for example, they were not necessarily perceived that way by those who are most concerned with us sovereignty. maybe the next such effort should take place in pittsburgh.

third, we can recognize the importance and success of efforts at the scale of states, cities, corporations, and municipalities. after the u.s. withdrawal from paris, leaders at all scales of governance below the federal, as well as within the private and non-profit sectors are empowering themselves and each other to minimize and adapt to the impacts of climate change. examples include the michael bloomberg-led initiative to get sub-national players officially involved in paris; california’s push to strengthen its already strong, legislation-mandated emissions reductions; pittsburgh’s plan to transition to 100% renewable energy; indiana university’s grand challenge on environmental change, and several states forming the united states climate alliance. these efforts will drive change in and of themselves and will serve as experimental laboratories for the development of larger-scale approaches to climate change.

fourth, we can work to understand and address the increasing polarization of environmental issues, in particular climate change. the environment – and in particular climate – is becoming an issue that fractures along partisan lines. this was not always the case, and it need not be the case in the future. however, it will take serious dialog and creative thinking to break out of the current rut. social science can help us understand the roots and bounds of this polarization. to chart new pathways forward, we will also need to draw on art, religion, and the power of storytelling. we will need to develop new narratives and lines of engagement in order to depolarize. when it comes to issues for which passion abounds on all sides, consensus may not always be possible or even desirable. to what extent are shared goals possible? when they are not, what might it mean to move forward without consensus? these questions and others will have to be addressed.

finally, we can learn to “think like a planet.” almost 100 years ago, when aldo leopold learned that exterminating wolves would lead not to “hunters’ paradise” but to deer explosions and denuded hillsides, he was willing and able to accept his error and begin to learn to “think like a mountain.” in the face of anthropogenic climate change, we now must follow his example and take on the moral and mental shifts required to “think like a planet.” fortunately, cultural and cognitive shifts do not depend on government policy – indeed, they must take place before any meaningful large-scale policy will hold.

duncan marsh has been director of international climate policy for the nature conservancy (tnc) since 2006. previously he worked at the state department as a climate change negotiator, contributing to the kyoto protocol — the predecessor to the paris agreement. other work he performed at the state department included negotiating technology and transfer elements of international climate change negotiations.

at tnc, marsh’s work has concentrated on reducing emissions, deforestation, and climate finance. he has lead negotiations on behalf of tnc in global forums that include the u.n. framework convention on climate change and forest carbon partnership facility. marsh understands international politics on climate change and his opinion on the withdrawal of the paris accords is rooted in experience and fact. 

the following is excerpts from planet forward’s conversation with marsh. 

planet forward: you have worked very closely on climate agreements leading up to the big one in paris. how does this withdrawal impact you, personally? how will this change your job?

marsh: i would say we’re “shifting the goal post.” it’s not like climate change policy has changed. there are always interest groups that slow down the process and some of those interest groups are represented by governments. it’s still a setback from the overall goal of emission reduction in the u.s. the nature of the work is not likely to change but the efforts will be ramped up further to build the political constituency in the u.s.

q: will the u.s. leaving hurt the countries who remain in the pact?

a: there are direct and indirect effects if the u.s. slows down its efforts to reduce emissions. since the u.s. has been the largest contributor in history, we will be affecting other countries. the poorer countries and more vulnerable countries will be most affected by the u.s. withdrawing. if we fail to follow through with the funding obligations, that will harm other countries including ourselves. the growth is expected to come from growing countries. if we don’t help them then we will be exacerbating climate change and the effects of it.

the bigger question is what impact this will have on negotiations. will countries want to stay in or will they be less enthusiastic to stay in because the u.s. is not doing what they should do. it’s a profound abdication of responsibility (to withdraw from the agreement).

the u.s. climate alliance will help a great deal in assuring the rest of the world that the u.s. is committed to the goals of the agreement. they see that the majority of the u.s. population and businesses take climate change seriously and will act on it. the climate change efforts will survive after the trump administration.

q: the new york times reported that the formal withdrawal mechanism takes four years, but american officials could stop participating in climate talks immediately. how do you see the trump administration handling this?

a: i think they will still stay in international communications. (rex) tillerson said it was important to stay at the table and most in the administration think that too. it is important to stay at the table and to be constructive and not to shake things up. it would be destructive behavior pattern and not be good for the international community as a whole.

but i do expect them to participate in a relatively neutral way. this decision will hugely disempower the negotiations and other countries will not take the us seriously. it’s hard to say what the administration will do in the timeline going forward. trump’s speech was a lot of bluster and fairly offensive to the rest of the world that want to solve this problem  and a lot of the language that was dismissive to the world as a whole. the funding obligations to the green climate fund, we knew they were not going to fund or support the clean power plant act. a lot can happen in the two to 3 years that it takes for the formal withdrawal in the international. the response of cities states and business are so strong and the admin should consider that when withdrawing from the agreement in general.

q: since the announcement on june 1, governors, mayors, university leaders and companies across the u.s. have banded together to form the u.s. climate alliance — saying they’re “still in” and will forge ahead with the protocols in the agreement. how do you think the u.s. leaving — and not having the federal push behind efforts — will affect state, city and other individual efforts?

a: i certainly think they are strong enough to do a great deal. i think we’ll see continued movement to a low carbon development. … there are a few exceptions. the coal industry wants to maintain its status regardless of what agreements there are. natural gas is what’s causing the coal industry to decline — and not just natural gas, but sharply decreasing costs of renewable energy.

the coal industry we expect to shrink, and the rise in renewable energy around the country will continue to grow. if you want to make your political argument about keeping american jobs then you need to look toward the future and not the past.

the cities and states and business that are still in, they will be able to have an impact — even without the federal government. it is uncertain if the group can meet the goals set by the paris agreement. and we understand that national-level regulation in the country and that regulatory agencies are important and that businesses would rather have a unifying system to be able to meet the carbon goals instead of state by state. federal regulations are important, but it is not a goal of the trump administration.

q: california gov. jerry brown signed its own agreement with china to reduce carbon emissions. do you think we’ll see more agreements like this — and will they be effective?

a: california already has been a part of many international treaties… like with canada in trading utilities. there already is important trading between canada and california and there will be a lot more coming up in the future with other states and countries.

q:how does this withdrawal change the way we tell the climate story?

a: i think we may be to witness something we didn’t fully expect when president trump withdrew from the agreement. the response from this country, business, states, and cities have been so profound and that it is possible that this becomes a tipping point for public support — for the public to address climate change.

what’s next for efforts to mitigate climate change? for global action? american leadership? renewable energy? science?

here at planet forward, we are focused on innovations, the science and the stories that can inspire us and move our planet forward.

the time is now, more than ever, to engage in a meaningful conversation about our planet’s future.

raise your voice. weigh in. tell us in a 300-750 word written or 1-2 minute video essay:

• how does leaving the paris accord change the way we tell the climate story?
• how will the departure affect your life, your studies or your line of work?
• how do you think leaving the paris accord will affect the innovations needed to “2022年卡塔尔世界杯官网 ”?
• how can we better tell the story of our planet — in a way that compels and engages us, rather than divides us?

let’s embark on this story together. share yours with the editor at editor@planetforward.org. we’ll consider your essay for publication on planetforward.org.

— the planet forward team