The Downsides of Expanding Fossil Fuel Use
Fossil fuels are non-renewable fuels including coal, oil, and natural gas. They provide heat, electricity, and transportation but when they are used, they emit carbon dioxide. This is a greenhouse gas that largely contributes to climate change because it holds heat in the atmosphere. These industries earn the United States a lot of money, in fact, the US is the world's top gas supplier. The downsides of these industries are the clear impacts on the environment. What is more important, preventing climate change or bringing money into the country?
For environmentalists, the answer is clear; limiting fossil fuel use to reduce the extent of climate change is more important than generating revenue for the United States. However, the Trump administration does not view this issue the same way. Part of what has brought Trump back to the White House is his financial and economic promises. Trump promises to lower the nation's debt and bring in revenue, largely from the gas exports. Former President Biden had placed holds on the supplies, but Trump intends to reverse these holds and increase gas exports again.
The Trump administration has gained a lot of their campaign support based on economic standpoints. This plan of increasing gas exports may have propelled them forward in the election but pull the world back in terms of progressing towards a healthier environment. Many environmentalists are upset by these plans but all Americans will feel some backlash, even if they do not take a strong stance on environmental issues. This is because increased exports may rise the prices of electricity and gas. More gas exports means less available in the US, therefore higher prices. No American wants raised energy bills.
This message may be displayed in confusing ways in the media to make it sound better; more jobs in energy-related fields, reduced national debt as a result of increased exports, America being the top gas supplier in the world, etc. These all sound positive and has been the big driver behind Trump's campaign. However, the underlying message in anything related to increased fossil fuel burning is that it harms the environment.
Environmentalists are fighting to continue to have some holds and pauses placed on the process of getting licensed to export gas and other fossil fuels. The worry is that Trump has made it known he will reverse Biden's holds quickly and continue giving out permits and licenses. This plan is not sustainable and has been advised against by energy secretaries. This plan will harm Americans who have to pay increased prices and it will harm the environment.
I loved your blog! I also wrote of similar consequences without correct change and direction in the government. Trump has outwardly spoken several times about how the environment is not one of his pressing concerns. It is scary to think about possible negative outcomes from this. Have you ever heard of the Climate Clock countdown in New York City?
ReplyDeleteThank you for doing the research and putting it all together in a educational way. I think no matter what side people are on they should be worried. I wish we could all at least agree that there is a problem that needs fixing. You are right, increased fossil fuel burning is bad for the environment. I would like to hope they can come up with a solution but from the words I have heard from his mouth I have a feeling it will get worse before we can correct it.
ReplyDeleteGreenhouse gasses are incredibly damaging to the world and I feel like it is not taken as seriously as it should be. I also agree that Trumps focus on gas exportation really puts us at risk environmentally. In order to correct it, the US needs to be made more aware of the negative consequences that follow Trumps plan.
ReplyDeleteWow, this is definitely a thought-provoking article! The trade-off between economic growth and environmental sustainability is greatly complex, and not as simple as I thought it could be. Your point about increasing gas exports leading to higher energy prices for Americans stood out, as this could be detrimental to lower income families. It is interesting and alarming to think about how Trump’s policies could impact the economy and the environment in the future.
ReplyDeleteI feel like America is a massive business, so all the people really care about is bringing money in, but I feel that America has enough money and instead should be using it to protect the environment. We should work together as a country to stop burning fossil fuels and build together to create more energy that won't put people out of jobs, take away peoples money/raising prices, and be sustainable in everything we do.
ReplyDeleteThis is a very professionally written and significant post to recognize what is to come for our country concerning climate change. It is disheartening to read of America's priorities being economic return, where this could still be possible in implementing sustainable initiatives but climate ignorance overshadows this. I am afraid of what is to come under Trump's administrative influence to reverse sustainable policy. Well done.
ReplyDeletei don't know the exact name of it I believe it was the countdown or dooms day clock where it talked about have its expected that in the year 2029 if we do not change what we have been doing and help the environment then the damages will be irreversible no matter what we do and if this is the plan for the next 4 years it brings me great worry for what will happen to our planet.
ReplyDeleteI appreciate the way your post considers arguments from different points of view. Notice that it won't be all Americans that will benefit from the fossil gas industry but the owners of those companies. They plants tend to have quite negative impacts on surrounding communities. And the whole industry seems to downplay the impact and scale of methane leaks...
ReplyDelete