
President Donald Trump is attempting to propose a radical change in the United States’ views on the climate. His main purpose was to defund the environmental protection agency. True to his views, the President’s proposed budget reallocation reinforces his dismissal of “the very expensive hoax” (Trump). Intending to reverse everything the Obama administration accomplished for the future outlook on climate. The Obama presidency, following careful evaluation of the massive amounts of scientific proof, was characterized by meaningful action to discontinue human interaction that further catalyzed the acceleration of climate change. Trump does not care at all about the consequences of global emissions on the environment. Conversely, newly appointed cabinet members and representatives describe the Earth’s predicament with terms such as “exaggerated” and “naturally occurring”. Regardless of its origin, the global climate’s transformation is drastically effecting susceptible regions and eventually will alter quality of life similarly in the United States. In regard to this unrecognized threat to national security, the American government must be held responsible for the protection of its citizens. Through inevitable societal and economic tension, climate change poses a threat to American citizen’s quality of life, warranting increased EPA fund allocation in the national security budget despite illegitimate opposition from within the Trump administration. 

 

President Trump’s cabinet choices consist of several climate change deniers, most notably Secretary of State Rex Tillerson. The former Exxon CEO has a clear conflict of interest regarding government action taken to combat climate change. His big oil past increases the unlikelihood that Tillerson’s examination of climate change statistics were unbiased. He clearly opposes the validation of global warming because of his past connections with the oil giant. Exxon recently came under investigation for understating the role fossil fuel has in expediting the greenhouse effect, misleading the public in order to maintain maximum profitability. Tillerson and Exxon “helped organize the most consequential lie in human history” (Barrett). Furthermore, when interviewed about the accusation on Fox News, Tillerson dodged responsibility “they’re dealing with a period of time that happened decades ago, so there’s a lot I could say about it. I’m not sure how helpful it would be for me to talk about it.” (Barrett). I contend that the only reason human emissions were able to avoid government mandates for so long is the massive economic influence the fossil fuel industry had and continues to have on the global economy. “From 1990 to 2000, the oil and gas industry contributed to the government more than $122 million in political donations.” (Van den Hove 7).  Exxon essentially used its economic leverage to filibuster and eradicate any bills that would threaten their efficiency. The secretary of state’s personal investment in prolonging debate on climate change’s existence further discredits the legitimacy of the EPA’s defunding and dispels counterarguments claiming government’s position is completely unbiased and factual.  

The purpose of national defense is to provide citizens with protection and security from domestic and foreign threats. By providing evidence of the alternative political motivation that provoked the EPA budget slash, I prove that the belittlement of impending environmental instability originates from political greed rather than scientific evidence. I assert that the government defines the term security poorly in regard to the public welfare. The only reason for increased military spending is so the population improves their view of his presidency. For example, the Bush administration’s national approval rating climbed thirteen points following the declaration of war against Iraq (Glanton). Instilling pride in the American psyche as well as demonizing a common enemy are classic political strategies to bolster public opinion. President Trump countered his rating of 43%, a historically low statistic, with “A message of American strength security and resolve,” (Nelson). Accompanying his proposed half a trillion dollar increase in defense spending, the patriotic appeal to the American public alludes to a likely alternative motive. I assert that the overriding purpose of the President’s proposed budget alteration is an attempt to take advantage of the public’s nationalistic tendencies in order to garner support for his administration. These increased expenses deprioritize the EPA and gloss over the serious threat climate change poses to the American populace. While the American military’s role as the global police force justifies massive funding, the budget following the increase “would be about the same size as the total annual budgets of Israel, Canada, Taiwan, Turkey, and Mexico combined.” even described conservatively that is excessive (Nelson).  The crippling defunding of the EPA has resulted directly from excessive military spending catalyzed by exaggerated global friction magnified by the President’s antagonistic nature. The provocative behavior of the government hypocritically instigates confrontation with other nations, placing Americans in unnecessary danger. The degradation of the current administration’s integrity and lack of dedication to the public’s welfare provides further evidence that corporate greed was a factor in the threat analyzation of climate change. 

In order to further capitalize on exposing the President and his cabinet’s selfish motives for proposing the EPA’s abolishment, I intend to validate the societal concern warranted by climate change. The reason climate change is so dangerous is the minimal immediate widespread concern it yields. Undermining society indirectly, it acts as a “threat multiplier in conjunction with other traditional threats to national security” (Burnett 70). The U.S national defense follows a cause prevention system; in order to increase safety America acts first to avoid having to deal with the effects of societal threats. Environmental protection agencies demand funding because, unlike the majority of national security situations, the cause is ongoing and the effect is inevitable. “There are two means by which conflict might arise as a result of changing climates” (Burnett 70). The first is the inevitable stress placed on the economy following a global reduction of emission activity. The second is the potential devolution of societies following dissipation of resource availability that they are acclimated too. In order to mitigate the effects of both scenarios, government recognition and societal preparation are necessary. Furthermore, the national security difficulties, introduced by unchecked climate change, transcend environmental occurrences. Due to developing nations’ heavy reliance on “climate sensitive forms of capital” the tension on their societies will be exponentially greater than developed nations (Burnett 70-71). Monitoring potential animosity accrued by these nations towards more stable regions such as the United States will become an important security concern. Inevitably, scarcity will spur legal or illegal migration to developed nations. The obvious encouragement of climate induced immigration is further evidence President Trump did not fully consider the long term consequences of defunding the EPA. Extreme cases of scarcity, provided environmental agencies are not allowed to prepare and limit the consequences, may lead to societal unrest “if viewed as being ineffective at managing climate induced challenges” (Burnett 72). Considering the significance climate change has on global and domestic safety, it emphatically warrants government recognition.  

I will fight against claims that the United States is cannot be touched by the environmental issues facing less established countries. Introducing hardships American citizens face not only reinforces the need for domestic agencies, but also calls the Trump administration’s integrity into further question. The decisions of a democracy that does not acknowledge the plight of her own people demand scrutiny, especially decisions involving national security. The last 5 years in California have been characterized exclusively by its dryness. While droughts are naturally occurring phenomena, the increasing global temperature is lengthening and intensifying natural disasters. Not coincidentally, it was California’s most severe drought ever in 267 years as a state. I intend to use residential health evaluations of two California counties to support the status of climate change as a national threat to public safety. Common impacts of droughts include “economic losses, infrastructure changes, diminished access to services, environmental degradation, and social network disruptions” all of which were represented in the two counties observed; Tulare and Mariposa. The side effects were displayed in a heightened state, corresponding with the intensity of the drought. Damage to physical health, gradual decline in mental health, and intensified threat of poverty deteriorated citizen’s quality of life. “2 million Californians are served by private wells or small water systems” (Barreau 783). When 2,455 of those wells were reported dry, over 12 thousand citizens were without water for over a year. A state of emergency was declared due to the state’s inexperience in handling a drought of that severity. The prolonged event attacked Californian’s physically, mentally, and economically certainly threatening their domestic security in the process. Its increased length and intensity compared to previous droughts is a result of weather radicalization caused by climate change. American’s affluence does not render us impervious to the effects of our emissions. California is evidence of the domestic threat posed by global warming, as well as the societal and economic tension it produces. It is the duty of the government to continue to prioritize fossil fuel reduction in the interest of preventing further drought intensification. 

Critics of climate change are likely to disagree with my claim that EPA funding is crucial by implying that the societal effects of climate change are merely theoretical. In response I intend to provide evidence of these consequences through the experiences of societies more susceptible than the United States. Island nations in the South Pacific such as Fiji, Tonga, and Western Samoa provide initial warnings to less vulnerable nations. Similar to the U.S, the islands’ “economic activities are mostly concentrated on the coast” (Mimura 139). The concentration of people located on the coasts means that rising sea levels, an aspect of climate change that will similarly threaten the eastern seaboard in the next century, will displace thousands and devastate the small economies. An environmental disaster similar to this in the United States would devastate the global economy and domestic infrastructure, as “Over half of the U.S population lives on the 17% of the land considered coastal.” (Scavia 150). The nations consisting of multiple islands are faced with sudden “migration of people from outer islands to the capitals” in an attempt to avoid the flooding (Mimura 139). Already the islands are experiencing several effects of climate change on societies; immigration, economic stress, and resource scarcity. Tonga is a perfect microcosm for American interaction with the environment, erosion is accelerated by commercial mangrove clearing as well as the natives’ failure to build seawalls in preparation. Should the United States government disband environmental agencies, lack of preparation and mitigation will catalyze similar events as Tonga on a much larger scale. Furthermore, without action these examples of “physical changes may lead to changes in social activities and social stability” (Mimura 140). Southern Pacific islands provide concrete evidence of climate change, its effects on society, and why structural preparation is essential to avoiding social and economic disaster. 

By introducing a new, very possible, scientific projection of the future in America should Trump’s defunding proposition be ratified, I provide insight into the disastrous outcome of the government’s recent regression. These scenarios qualify my claim that the EPA is a necessary component of national security by hypothetically illustrating situations without it. Over the next century, “global warming is expected to accelerate the rate of sea-level rise by expanding ocean water and melting alpine glaciers” (Scavia 150). Scientists’ project that, at the current rate of emission, by 2100 sea levels “could rise by close to two meters in total” (Dennis). These projections wash away entire city blocks from areas such as New York, Miami, and San Francisco. Thousands of people will be displaced as a result, without necessary emission mandates and threat evaluation, the flooding will cause a national crisis. Additionally, “Climate change is likely to increase the frequency of the most intense categories of hurricanes” the greater volume of hurricanes is projected to displace countless Americans on the east coast over the next century (Dinan 186). The rising sea-level also magnifies the potential damage hurricanes making landfall are capable of inflicting on property by prolonging floods. However, provided the EPA is allowed to mandate emission sanctions to the national economy, these impending hardships may still be diluted. 

The Trump administrations adopted obliviousness regarding the importance of maintaining and recovering the global climate damages established agencies tasked with reducing the carbon footprint. He does not prioritize the American people over himself and is reversing years of environmental progress. The evidence surrounding the existence of climate change as well as the danger that it places current and future Americans in is indisputable. The President and his compatriots’ proposition to cut EPA funding is motivated entirely by aspirations to further their commercial and political standing. Concrete evidence provided in this paper demands the ratification of climate recovery orientated legislature for the preservation of American national security. 
