Fake News: Trump ‘War on Environment’ Is ‘War on the Unborn’

Astrid Riecken/Getty Images
Astrid Riecken/Getty Images

In one of the most convoluted exercises in sophistry to ever grace the pages of the Jesuit flagship publication America magazine—a strikingly high bar—President Donald Trump has been accused of waging a war against unborn babies because of his opposition to the Paris climate accord.

One hardly knows where to begin in taking apart an argument that is literally filled with errors, fallacies, inconsistencies and non-sequiturs. The essay by Nathan Schneider appearing in the May 31 issue of America, titled “Trump’s war on the environment is a war on the young and the unborn,” makes the incredible case that withdrawing from the Paris agreement constitutes a war on future generations tantamount to “genocide.”

No matter that historically the environmentalist movement has been closely allied with the population control movement, literally waging a war on the unborn through its promotion of vigorous anti-natality programs and abortion on demand.

Mr. Schneider makes no effort to conceal his own apocalyptic vision of climate change. Without the Paris accord, he claims, mankind is a species “embracing its own suicidal fragmentation.” The climate will turn “to chaos” because Mr. Trump has issued the command that “we are to proceed with the destruction of the planet.”

How a person can have such unshakable certainty in the outcome of complex future events is truly remarkable. The inability to entertain even the slightest doubt that carbon dioxide emissions will necessarily lead to climate Armageddon borders on meteorological Fundamentalism.

To judge a particular accord as contrary to the nation’s interests, on the other hand, is hardly a “war on the environment.”

Perhaps Mr. Schneider should consider what a war on the environment would actually look like. Pouring toxic waste into rivers, filling the air with noxious fumes, polluting forests and open countryside—these are signs of a war on the environment, and sadly, they can still be found in certain nations.

Carbon dioxide, on the other hand, is non-toxic. It is fundamental to the life of plants and a necessary component of photosynthesis. Growers regularly pump CO2 into greenhouses, raising levels to three times that of the natural environment, to produce stronger, healthier plants.

Current levels of carbon dioxide concentration in the environment are substantially lower than they have been during earlier periods in the planet’s history. Without human intervention, the concentration of CO2 has climbed as high as 7,000 parts per million (ppm), whereas at present, the concentration is just over 400 ppm.

Some, such as UN climate scientist Dr. Indur Goklany, who has previously represented the United States on the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), have defended rising CO2 levels as a good thing for humanity. Goklany has argued that the rising level of carbon dioxide in the earth’s atmosphere “is currently net beneficial for both humanity and the biosphere generally.”

“The benefits are real, whereas the costs of warming are uncertain,” he said.

During his presidential campaign, Donald Trump promised Americans that if elected he would make the United States energy independent and get out of the Paris climate deal. The fact that a president keeps his promises is usually considered a good thing.

In point of fact, Mr. Schneider’s issue isn’t just with the president, it is with the nation that elected him. According to a recent study by the Pew Research Center, a majority of Americans don’t believe in manmade global warming.

That doesn’t put them at war with the environment, and much less at war with the young and the unborn. Maybe they just want an America that is able to think and act for itself, rather than one that bows to ever fad espoused by globalist elites.

Follow Thomas D. Williams on Twitter


Please let us know if you're having issues with commenting.