In one of many posts on Facebook, a friend of mine builds the case that (1) anthropogenic (man caused) global warming (AGW) has materially damaged the earth and human beings quality of life on earth, and (2) Trump has reversed the Obama environmental regulations on fossil fuels that were working well to mitigate the severity of that damage.

My friend also cites one result of this reversal is the increase in property damage costs and loss of life as the total count of USA tropical storms and hurricanes surpasses 18 in one year. This has occurred during 5 of the past 20 years, with this year’s hurricane season (2020) being one of the worst.

It has been much reported, reviewed and contested that 97% of tens of thousands of PhD climate scientists in the world in their peer-reviewed papers either agreed that AGW damage from burning fossil fuels is significant or acknowledged the reality of AGW but did not explicitly in writing quantify its significance in raising the earth’s surface temperature.

This implies that 3% of the climate scientists rejected the significance of AGW outright.

It is left to the reader’s intuition and personal analysis to determine how close to reality the 97% figure is, since the scientists who didn’t overtly take a pro or con position on AGW in his/her paper were counted as being pro.

Some long-time environmental/energy journalists have researched these peer-reviewed papers and believe reality is the 97% figure is closer to 81% .

Notwithstanding, it’s safe to say there is enough agreement among climate scientists that AGW is the primary cause of the earth’s average surface temperature (AST) increasing inordinately to warrant taking a close look at what adjustments need to be made to the current President Trump EPA regulations.

The vaporized chemical compound in the atmosphere identified as one of the largest contributors to AGW is carbon dioxide (CO2) produced when man ignites fossil fuels. These vaporized molecules are suspended in the outer layer of the earth’s atmosphere:

“The 2-degree increase in global [earth’s] average surface temperature (AST) that has occurred since the pre-industrial era might seem small, but it means a significant increase in accumulated heat.” ClimateWatch Magazine, 8-14-2020

The climate scientist authors mentioned have not reported on how much of the average surface temperature increase can be attributed to each of (1) AGW components such as CO2 from humankind burning fossil fuels; (2) the earth’s other natural greenhouse gases such as nitrogen oxide/N2O, water vapor/H2O, methane/CH4, and ozone/O3; and (3) long-cycle natural (earth) effects.

One such long-cycle natural effect of freezing/warming the earth’s surface results from the Milankovitch effect which is the hypothesis that “variations in eccentricity, axial tilt, and precession [of the earth in its orbit around the sun] resulted in cyclical variation in the solar radiation reaching the Earth, and that this orbital forcing strongly influenced climatic changes on the earth.”

For instance, in the 4 billion years of the earth’s existence, scientific evidence discovered in modern times from drill-hole glacier samples supports the occurrence of five (5) cooling/warming cycles of severe glaciation and eventual subsequent warming, i.e., Ice Ages.

Some environment extremists, both social activists and politicians, have misused science facts to draw conclusions that fit their scare-tactics narrative rather than the actual scientific evidence.

“Few have underscored the threat more than student climate activist Greta Thunberg [Swedish teenage activist who emotionally lectured the 2018 UN Climate Change Conference] and Green New Deal sponsor US Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez. The latter said, “The world is going to end in 12 years if we don’t address climate change.” Says Thunberg in her new book, “Around 2030 we will be in a position to set off an irreversible chain reaction beyond human control that will lead to the end of our civilization as we know it.”

However, the 97% climate scientists who believe AGW is a reality take a more rational view:

“No credible scientific body has ever said climate change threatens the collapse of civilization much less the extinction of the human species.” Michael Shellenberger, long-time environmental journalist/activist https://www.forbes.com/sites/michaelshellenberger/2019/11/25/why-everything-they-say-about-climate-change-is-wrong/#28229dec12d6

Nevertheless, it is rare to find a liberal or conservative who has seriously thought about global warming and AGW’s part in it who disputes that it is occurring. It is as simple as taking accurate earth surface temperature measurements over time and truthfully recording them for historical tracking purposes. Then, do the averaging math. This has been done at least from the the pre-industrial era starting in the mid 1700s until current time.

The main question at this point in history is what can be done to reduce fossil fuel’s ignition impact on the environment without “throwing the baby (humankind’s socioeconomic health) out with the bathwater (total elimination of fossil fuel utilization at all human costs in an attempt to preserve healthy air and water in the earth’s atmosphere and dramatically reduce AGW causing CO2).”

I have confidence that we as a civilization can come up with a solution that supports human flourishing and the sustainability of the earth’s environment without “throwing out the baby with the bathwater.”

We have done similar things in the past, so we have lessons learned.

When more than two dozen countries undertook in 1989 to fix the ozone hole over Antarctica, they began replacing chlorofluorocarbons (CFC) in refrigerators, air conditioners and hair spray. Associated Press, Washington, 2006

It worked. Sort of.

But they had little idea that using other gases that contain chlorine or fluorine instead, e.g., hydrochlorofluorocarbon – HCFC, also would contribute greatly to global warming. Associated Press, Washington, 2006

Which leads us to the obvious question, “What will be the unintended negative consequences on the environment if humankind can and does actually determine how to anthropogenically manipulate the levels of natural greenhouse gases in the earth’s atmosphere?”

Actually, it is very impressive how God’s nature heals itself when left to its own devices.

Remember the BP Deepwater Horizon Oil Spill when an offshore oil and gas drilling rig exploded in the Gulf of Mexico. The flow line from the well at the bottom of the Gulf to the rig platform for storage was ruptured and immediately started spewing oil and gas into the Gulf’s deep waters.

The hydrocarbon eating microbes .5 miles deep in the Gulf had the bulk of the oil and gas spilled cleaned up within several months — 200,000 tons worth.

Very impressive.

Notwithstanding, I’m on board for constantly reviewing and sensibly and incrementally tightening EPA regulations if hard scientific data provide a strong correlation between a proposed regulation change and a direct reduction in undesirable anthropogenic global warming levels.

For a start in our review, let’s consider my friend’s list with his comments of the Trump administration EPA regulation changes and my comments in the braces [ ]:

1. The EPA let’s polluters police themselves, “because of the pandemic.” That’ll work…Duh. [Actually, in this case there is no EPA regulation change, just a temporary suspension of EPA inspector visits during Covid19. Fines are still being issued by the EPA to corporate violators, so this temporary honor system must be working somewhat. Are some violators getting away with malfeasance? After all, we live with the human condition which makes us all susceptible to temptations of sin, so probably, yes. I spent 45 years as a technology professional in large computer corporations. Hewlett Packard (HP) was one of those corporations. I worked for HP between 1982 and 2006. HP was a very early leader among large corporations using Green manufacturing principles. I have faith that the significant majority of large corporations in America desire to be good citizens when it comes to protecting the environment. Altruism is not the biggest part of the reason, but it was a significant part for HP. Another reason, it is just good business and increases a company’s market potential.]

2. Rolled back Obama’s carbon emissions, allowing nearly a billion tons more of carbon emissions for the cars’ life than the Obama standards.

3. Weakening mercury and air toxics standards. We breathe that, don’t we?

4. Selling the rights to drill nearly 400,000 offshore acres in the Gulf of Mexico. [President Obama also did this in 2015; actually, President Trump allowed 10s of millions of offshore acres to be leased]

5. Replacing Obama’s clean power plan, again, accelerating the climate crisis.

6. Gutting the clean water act. We drink that, don’t we?

7. Neutering the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) [enacted by the US Congress in 1970 when President Nixon, a Republican, was in office and used as a model for over 100 nations around the world.]

8. Silencing scientists. [This is a stretch. The scientists in the EPA under President Obama felt as if they had been silenced by President Trump, but the reality is the projects they had been working on to rapidly and significantly reduce greenhouse gas emissions were discontinued. That’s they way it works when a “new sheriff is in town in Washington D.C.” It happens every time a new President is elected. Every career professional in D.C. should understand this is a possibility with a newly elected administration. For a federal government career professional, it is naïve to think otherwise.]

Investigating this list does make me think that President Trump’s administration overcorrected President Obama’s EPA regulations by weighting them heavily in the conservative-economics direction. There needs to be a better balance of EPA regulations than we have today.

But, I also believe prior to President Trump’s overcorrection, President Obama’s EPA had eight years of overreach by weighting its regulations inordinately in the liberal-social direction.

My position on this should be no surprise to anyone who knows me today. I am a self-described independent centrist. My preference is balance in everything, not extremes.

If we could get liberals and conservatives in the US Congress to quit vilifying each other long enough to have truthful discussions about root-cause/effect-mitigation incremental solutions, we might actually get back to a more balanced set of EPA regulations to protect the earth’s environment.

Before that can happen, trust must be rebuilt between these two groups. That’s a heavy lift indeed.

I actually do believe it is possible, but these two groups first must stop acting like petulant kids and be the intelligent adults I believe them to be.

Ultimately, I believe in order to flourish in general and protect the environment specifically, the World/USA human civilization must achieve a solution for AGW that incorporates appropriately weighted consideration for all four major systems of our society – social, economic, religious, and political.

Science is a key substrate that supports all four major systems, NOT a standalone system that acts as the sole arbiter for any of civilization’s challenges.

I believe our society today has been “trained” by partisan politicians with an agenda to consider science as King. Obviously, science is a very important component when deliberating EPA regulations. In fact, in my opinion, it is the foundation upon which viable solutions are built.

But, we cannot as a thriving, healthy, human civilization rely only on science and ignore the negative impact the EPA regulations have on all the societal systems: economic, social, religious, and political.

Common sense and balance are imperatives.