Unfortunately, the Trump administration is bowing to the old special-interest line that the United States must choose economic competitiveness over environmental protection even though history says otherwise.
During the EPA’s 46 years, the United States experienced record growth while curtailing pollution. For every dollar spent on lifesaving regulations, we’ve seen up to $9 in health benefits — a boon for economic welfare. Conventional air pollutants have been reduced by 70 percent, while our economy grew by about 250 percent. By 2008, the environmental technologies and services industry supported 1.7 million jobs and generated $300 billion in revenue. That year, the industry exported goods and services worth $44 billion, topping U.S. sectors like plastics and rubber products. During the Obama administration, we set a course with the auto industry to double fuel efficiency and prevent millions of tons of carbon pollution. Today, the industry is thriving.
Bullish environmental leadership and climate action are not costs; they’re investments.
Mark Bowden's essay for the Atlantic on how to deal with North Korea is helpful in understanding the current state of the issue, the dangers that loom, and the options we have moving forward. He confesses that there are no good options, but that the least bad one is to learn to live with a North Korea with nuclear weapons and ballistic missiles (which has been the basic conclusion of every administration that's tried to grapple with the problem). He reminds us that we lived under a far more existential threat during the Cold War and learned to cope with that. But any attempt to remove the Kim regime or knock out their nuclear capability would assuredly lead to one of the greatest catastrophes in human history with possibly tens of millions of Koreans and Japanese being slaughtered.