Climate progress is alive and well — and under attack in the us | thearticle

At the recent COP25 climate talks in Madrid, activist Greta Thunberg lamented that the international conference had “turned into some kind of opportunity for countries to negotiate loopholes

and to avoid raising their ambition”. Many countries are to blame, but the United States holds a special place as the only country in the world to pull out of the Paris Climate Agreement.

So it may seem surprising that 2019 was an excellent year for climate progress in the US. Even as the Trump administration attempted to chainsaw through 50 years of US environmental

protections, states, cities and companies around the country started treating climate like an emergency, urged on by the passion of youth activists. Seventeen states, representing 40 per

cent of the US population, remain officially committed to upholding Paris Agreement targets as members of the US Climate Alliance. States representing nearly 70 per cent of the US economy

have promised to deliver on reduced emissions in line with Paris through an agreement called America’s Pledge. “One hundred per cent clean,” became a rallying cry as the mayors of 200 cities

declared they would move aggressively toward 100 per cent clean energy. The House passed a 100 per cent Clean Economy bill with an astounding 160 co-sponsors. Several big power companies

announced ambitious clean energy targets of net-zero climate pollution by 2050. Businesses supported climate action. When President Donald Trump said he would revoke California’s authority

to set car emissions standards stricter than the federal government, four major car makers — Ford, Volkswagen, BMW and Honda — announced that they would voluntarily follow the stronger

emission standards set by California’s rules, which are followed by 13 states across the US. Colorado, an oil and gas-producing purple state, and Pennsylvania, a swing state that voted for

Trump in 2016, were among several that passed ambitious climate laws in 2019 that will lead to new investment, clean economy jobs, and reduced climate pollution. New York City passed

congestion pricing, a vehicle fee designed to reduce climate pollution from transportation, while raising $1 billion to pay for the city’s outdated transit system. Democrats believe they can

pass bipartisan climate legislation in the House in 2020. The Senate, led by Republicans, is, however, another matter. All is not well, to be sure. The Trump administration is fighting the

pro-climate trends with actions verging on the surreal. It has launched dozens of attacks on climate and public health protections. It has tried to roll back rules limiting coal plants’

carbon pollution and even on the emission of mercury, a neurotoxin that affects babies’ brains and which, in any case, all the nation’s power plants have already controlled. Coal industry

lobbyists now run major government agencies. But climate is not the only target: this month the president lambasted low-flow toilets, coughed up a meandering rant against windmills, and

stripped away protections for wild birds. People and businesses can no longer be penalised for killing birds through actions not expressly intended to kill them; indirect actions like

building in sensitive bird-breeding habitats are no longer considered a problem. Yet polls show that US voters increasingly consider climate to be a top concern. A large majority of

Democrats and even a majority of younger Republican voters say so. Young climate activists from groups like the Sunrise Movement are keeping the heat on politicians. Democratic candidates

for president have all issued detailed climate platforms. The Green New Deal is a vision introduced by the progressive wing of the Democratic party for ending fossil fuel use and climate

pollution across the US economy, while taking bold economic steps to ensure suffering is minimised as the transition takes hold. It is creating new momentum for federal climate action. The

US political structure is built to be resistant, and states and cities have done an admirable job of keeping climate progress on the table. Another four years of Trump’s antics — from

closing research centres to replacing academic advisors with industry lobbyists to redefining what kind of science can even be considered in federal rule-making — would make it much harder

for the US to fight climate change within the time frame science indicates is needed. But federal action is still a powerful lever. A government that funds the climate emergency rather than

dismissing the science and firing the scientists would make a big difference. And an election is coming.