President Trump's decision to withdraw the nation from the Paris Agreement on climate change drew concerns for the National Park System and speculation that more wildfires will flare up in Great Smoky Mountains National Park/NPS file photo
President Trump's decision to withdraw the United States from the Paris climate change accord is drawing criticism from park advocates and businesses tied to national parks, as well as pledges to reduce carbon footprints and praise for states that are focused on renewable energy.
“It’s another setback, essentially. It’s just another indication of the lack of commitment towards addressing climate changes," Kristen Brengel, the vice president for government affairs for the National Parks Conservation Association, said Friday. "Parks are the places where people can actually see the visible impacts of climate change. In many of the policy decisions that have been made up until this point, we’re basically pulling back on proactively addressing carbon and promoting dirty energy sources like coal. Not moving forward with the Paris agreement is just another indicator for our lack of commitment for addressing climate change.”
At Vail Resorts, Inc., which manages the Grand Teton Lodge Company that manages properties in Grand Teton National Park as well as a portfolio of ski resorts, Chairman and CEO Rob Katz said the president's decision wouldn't sway the corporation from working to reduce its carbon footprint.
"We are deeply saddened by the decision to withdraw from the Paris Agreement. As a global company, Vail Resorts believes we have a unique responsibility to protect the incredible natural landscapes and environment that surround our mountain resorts and those across our planet.," he said in a release. "Climate change is a global challenge that requires global cooperation, and it is disheartening to see the United States pull away from working with the other 194 countries that were part of the Agreement. Vail Resorts will redouble our efforts to find significant ways to minimize our carbon footprint through reducing our energy use to help address one of the most serious challenges facing our worldwide community."
At the Appalachian Trail Conservancy, President and CEO Ron Tipton took heart in that "10 of the 14 states that are home to the A.T. have set aggressive renewable energy portfolio goals and others are expected to find the need to take action in the absence of federal leadership. The ATC will continue to develop solid climate change related policy with our recently hired director of Federal and Legislative Policy."
Mr. Tipton cast a dim outlook for how continued climate change would impact the trail that stretches from Maine to Georgia and is used not only by long-distance thru-hikers but by section hikers and those out for a weekend meander or day hike.
"In the coming years visitors will likely have to cope with higher temperatures, dried-up streams and more forest fires similar to the devastating fires in Great Smoky Mountains National Park in 2016," he wrote in a letter to A.T. supporters. "For now, water availability isn’t a vital problem, but if those supplies dry up, it will present an entirely different and punishing challenge for those seeking to enjoy the A.T. During the 2007-2008 drought, portions of the Trail in North Carolina had to be closed — was that an unusual event or a harbinger of the future?"
Back at NPCA, Ms. Brengel said it was good to see that the National Park Service's web pages on climate change remained intact and that the agency was continuing its work to address climate change.
“But this constant pursuit by the administration to look for ways to defund climate research and reduce regulations that protect our air, it’s an extremely disappointing direction to head in and it will have dire consequences," she added. “No one should be proud that we’re pulling out of the Paris Agreement. This is disappointing and disheartening. It’s definitely a sad day for parks.”
Comments
And apparently, under one or another name, enjoys the glory of 'dsbunking both sides".
Rick appears to have fallen for the fake Heller site just has he has fallen for the fake change data and the fake study reporting that 97% of scientists believe man is the primary cause of climate change. The guy is gullible to a fault.
Not that gullible - I never got into junk bonds.
Of mild interest is which right wing rag overuses the term 'horribly wrong'. If you folks take note in every instance where our favorite troll comments on climate change he terms it "horribly wrong", almost like he does a cut and paste of his nonsense.
Well I never got into "junk bonds" either. Not that there was anything wrong with them. Financed many a very successful company and earned great returns for many people that bought them. And yes, the predictions of global warming models have been horribly wrong. And that isn't C&P from anywhere. Its fact.
Oh, Eric. You're so cute when you try to pass off party line as "fact".
Tell me Rick, is the Artic ice cap gone? Answer - no. The prediction was horribly wrong. Tell me Rick, have we had more and more severe hurricanes? Answer - no. The prediction was horribly wrong. Tell me Rick, have we had more andmore severe droughts? Answer - no. The predictions were horribly wrong. Tell me Rick, have temperature rises been anywhere near predictions? Answer , no. That is not unless you manipulate the data. The predictions have been horribly wrong.
Now its likely, rather than honestly answering these questions, you will indignantly claim you don't have to answer questions from me. Your silence (or non response to the questions) will be telling in itself.
The archaic meaning of "prediction" (Webster's) is "an act of proclaiming or preaching," hence "a sermon." On that score EC is right: The predictions (sermonizing) on climate change have been wrong. That's the danger with making predictions. When they don't come true, the preacher is left to protest that his predictions were "premature." Many a preacher, predicting the Second Coming, has been ridden out of town on a rail.
In no way is a prediction "science." The science remains what is. Is the Earth getting warmer? It either is or it isn't, nor does that by itself "prove" a thing. The other day, watching a program on Amelia Earhart, the commentator noted that the island on which she may have landed itself has grown in size. Wait a minute. i thought that the Pacific islanders were in jeopardy of drowning. How can islands be "growing" when sea levels are rising?
When we resort to predictions, we are admitting we don't have the science. No real scientist needs predictions. Nor does a good preacher need to predict the Second Coming every Sunday to keep his flock. The flock he keeps will be the people who want an "authority figure" to do their thinking. Those predicting catastrophe from CO2 may be right, but they still sound and act like preachers. Now, whose turn is it to pass the plate?
I'm getting a headache--think I'll go sit under my oak tree and smoke a cigar....