Guy, J. (2021 January 22) France has passed a law protecting the sounds and smells of the countryside. Retrieved February 14, 2020 from https://www.cnn.com/travel/article/france-rural-noise-law-scli-intl/index.html

French government passed a law to protect certain aspects of the traditional French countryside. This has occurred amid smell and noise complaints against the countryside. The purpose is mainly to preserve French traditions, but also to ensure that city living does not become pervasive across the country. 

I believe that this is a great idea. At first glance, it might be hard to see how this relates to environmental science and the protection of the environment. No matter the original or base intention of the new law, it will help to protect the environment. By not allowing city life to intrude upon the countryside, farmers are able to keep using the means that they have for decades or even centuries. Preserving the countryside can help prevent further expansion of industrialism. By not forcing farmers to come up with different methods for farming, France is enabling them to not fall into an industrial trap. In general, I know that France has had a number of issues surrounding keeping traditions alive. In addition, they have been at the forefront of much of the fight against climate change. I like the fact that this piece of legislation has many different layers to it. It is both working to preserve tradition, while inadvertently helping the environment. 

Peltier, E. (2020 December 16) In Landmark Ruling, Air Pollution Recorded as a Cause of Death for British Girl. Retrieved February 13, 2020 from https://www.nytimes.com/2020/12/16/world/europe/britain-air-pollution-death.html

This British landmark ruling ruled that the death of a 9-year-old girl in 2013 was due to air pollution. She had died of an asthma attack in London. The girl’s mother stated that she was unaware of the huge risks of air pollution where she lived. The UN wrote that this “would be ‘the first time that air pollution has ever been explicitly linked to a named individual’s death.’”

This is definitely a huge step forward in the fight against climate change. As the UN states, this was the first time that anyone had ruled that air pollution was the direct cause of a person’s death. Air pollution is worsened by and worsens climate change. They are both directly linked. There are numerous people across the globe who still do not believe that climate change exists, or refuse to acknowledge the gravity of the situation. I would hope that a ruling like this would make people more inclined to believe scientists when they say that climate change is a serious problem, not just directly for humans, but for the planet in general. By ruling this way, Britain is showing the true effects of pollution and climate change. We must reduce our emissions/pollution if we hope to survive as a species and help the planet to survive. Hopefully this case can be a wakeup call to people across the globe. 

Popovich, N. Plumer, B. (2020 September 17) What Trump’s Environmental Rollbacks Mean for Global Warming. Retrieved February 14, 2020 from https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2020/09/17/climate/emissions-trump-rollbacks-deregulation.html

Donald Trump reversed and changed a number of environmental regulations during his time in office. In the long run, this would increase greenhouse gas emissions into the atmosphere greatly. These came in the form of rollbacks, changing fuel-economy standards, and decreasing regulations for methane leakage. In addition, Trump withdrew the United States out of the Paris Accords, ruining decades of work and regulation that countless countries came together to create. 

This has a huge impact on every other country on the planet. Just because it is one country that is reducing its regulations does not mean that the rest of the globe is not affected. The United States is one of the largest countries in the world, and one of the countries most inclined to consumerism and greenhouse gas emissions. When a country as large as the United States decides to withdraw from previous agreements about climate change, they affect everyone’s health and the health of the planet. In addition, being as large as powerful as it is, the country is typically one to set an example for smaller and developing countries. Trump’s actions do not send a good message out to the rest of the world. 

Pronczuk, M. (2020 December 11) E.U. Agrees to Slash Carbon Emissions by 2030. Retrieved February 13, 2020 from https://www.nytimes.com/2020/12/11/world/europe/eu-climate-emissions.html

The EU has agreed to cut carbon emissions by 55% compared to levels measured in 1990. They have created a multi-trillion dollar budget for countries to spend to help them create a more environmentally friendly economy. This agreement comes after much dispute and debate between all countries involved. Many primarily coal-fueled countries opposed this agreement, so it is a surprise that all countries were able to come to such an accord. 

The EU is a massive conglomerate of countries. All of these countries working together to reduce their emissions and fight climate change could make a huge difference. The EU and the countries that comprise it are also a huge example for other countries across the globe, such as the United States. If the EU is recognizing how drastic our measures need to be to fight climate change, hopefully others will too and will follow in its footsteps. It’s great that the EU is not just pushing legislation on its countries, but also working to give them the tools they need in order to be able to succeed and create a greener way of living. Many of the countries in the EU are still coal-driven and this agreement will harm their economies and jobs. I hope that they will be able to find a way to succeed and show the rest of the world how to fight climate change effectively. 

Mueller, B. Landler, M. (2021 February 27) U.K. Court Blocks Heathrow Airport Expansion on Environmental Grounds. Retrieved February 13, 2020 from https://www.nytimes.com/2020/02/27/world/europe/heathrow-airport-third-runway-uk.html

The predicted expansion of London’s Heathrow Airport has been blocked by a UK Court of Appeal. The ruling states that the government has not fulfilled its duties to fight climate change that were outlined in the Paris Accords. While this will not affect anything outside of the UK, it could affect future decisions within the sovereign state. This is just one decision of many that have been made in past decades to support environmental protection efforts. 

The courts are doing the right thing in blocking this expansion and providing incentives to combat climate change. The government has not followed through on its efforts to fight climate change that it agreed to under the Paris Accords, so it should not be allowed to continue as if it has. This ruling could set a precedent in the UK, and hopefully set an example for other countries in the world. Expanding projects like airports can be detrimental to wildlife and their habitats. Preventing this expansion could ensure that biodiversity is not decreased. When certain people are doing all they can to help climate change along, rulings and laws might be the only way to protect the environment. 

Eilperin, J. Stein, J. (2020, June 4) Trump signs order to waive environmental reviews for key projects. Retrieved November 14, 2020 from https://www.washingtonpost.com/climate-environment/2020/06/04/trump-sign-order-waive-environmental-reviews-key-projects/

President Trump signed an executive order that allows approval for projects to continue without looking at environmental laws/regulations. By declaring a state of economic emergency, the president is able to make it so that proposed projects do not have to conform to environmental rules in order to start. The president says that this will help the country get out of the economic slump caused by the coronavirus and that the economy in this case is more important than the environment. 

Throughout the pandemic, the president has made it clear that he values the economy over anything else. He values the economy over people’s lives and therefore it makes sense that he would feel the same way about the environment. Previous executive orders and repeals of environmental regulations also show Trump’s track record of caring less about the environment than previous lawmakers. The environmental impact of this executive order could be catastrophic. This is not the president repealing a few regulations or allowing a few companies to go over allowed pollution limits. This executive order would make every regulation null and void when it comes to projects like pipelines and highways. If these projects were to continue with no attempt to lessen their impact on the environment, there could be huge negative effects. 

D’Angelo, C. (2020, July 15) Trump Guts Key Environmental Law That Gives Communities Of Color A Voice. Retrieved November 14, 2020 from https://www.huffpost.com/entry/trump-final-nepa-rollback_n_5f0de70ac5b648c301f03b61

President Trump has changed how the National Environmental Policy Act is used. The rollback of this policy would allow federal agencies to speed through the environmental impact assessments of projects. However, this would disproportionately affect minority and low-income communities. Increases in pollution and negative environmental impacts affect people of color more than others in this country. The process that is being pushed to the side is one that typically gives people of color an ability to voice their opinions and concerns about proposed projects. The rollback would decrease their ability to speak up. 

Throughout his presidency, the president has shown that the economy is one of his highest priorities and that the environment (and people of color) are not. The rollback of this policy would greatly affect both the environment and people of color. The lawmakers supporting this repeal are mostly wealthy white people whose families and friends would not face the effects. It’s terrible that people of color who face the burden of this act will be unable to express their opinions about it. By decreasing the time needed to be spent on environmental impacts, the negative effects will increase. There will be more projects that conform less and less to the existing rules and regulations and that pollute and destroy habitats. It’s no surprise that the groups who champion this rollback are in the fossil fuels industry and would benefit greatly from decreased regulations. 

Dennis, B. (2020, July 14) EPA rejects tougher air-quality standards, says 2015 limits are sufficient. Retrieved November 14, 2020 from https://www.washingtonpost.com/climate-environment/2020/07/13/epa-air-pollution/

While many people have pushed for stricter regulations on air pollution, the EPA under the Trump Administration has refused to make them tighter than the 2015 standards. The EPA as well as independent organizations maintain that many aspects of pollution have decreased in the past few years and that tighter restrictions would be unnecessary. The article also notes that lower-income communities and minority communities will face most of the negative effects of not attempting to decrease pollution. Many health organizations have stated that current rules and regulations will not be enough to avoid pollution related illnesses. 

An unwillingness to tighten restrictions on pollution could have huge negative impacts on the environment. 2015 was 5 years ago and a lot has changed since then. It seems like the Trump Administration and the EPA under it are more concerned with industry than the environment. They do not want to jeopardize their relationship with large corporations in order to combat climate change. This is unsurprising as there are many people in the administration, including the president himself, who believe that climate change is not real, that humans don’t impact climate change, or that the effects of climate change are not that great. I believe that we should change regulations as time passes and as statistics change. 

Egelko, B. (2020, June 29) Supreme Court allows Trump to override environmental laws to build border wall. Retrieved November 14, 2020 from https://www.sfchronicle.com/environment/article/Supreme-Court-allows-Trump-to-override-15374647.php

Protection groups sued the Trump Administration for its plans to build a border wall because they say the laws they are using for justification violate the Constitution. These groups argued that the laws give unconstitutional power to the executive branch and that the wall built would be extremely harmful to wildlife and their migration. State courts in states like California have declared that Trump cannot build the wall in their states using certain funding or in certain ways. However, the Supreme Court ruled that the Trump Administration can continue to build the wall amid these lawsuits. 

I am not surprised that the Supreme Court sided with Trump nor that states like California and Arizona are attempting to combat Trump’s efforts to build the wall. This situation could greatly impact the environment. Countless species and individual organisms migrate across the United States-Mexico border every year. The wall would decrease their ability to take their natural paths and certain species could become extinct or endangered if unable to migrate. It is also not surprising that the Trump Administration is taking advantage of rarely used laws that appear to give the executive branch unchecked power. I believe that the environmental impacts could be too great and that the costs outweigh any possible benefits that the Trump Administration sees in the wall. It is irresponsible to ignore the negative environmental effects of the wall and pretend that they don’t exist when building the wall. 

Popovich, N. Albeck-Ripka, L. Pierre-Louis, K. (2020, November 10) The Trump Administration Is Reversing More Than 100 Environmental Rules. Here’s the Full List. Retrieved November 14, 2020, from

https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2020/climate/trump-environment-rollbacks-list.html

The New York Times keeps a running tally of the environmental rule reversals that the Trump administration is attempting to complete. This includes reversals that have already occurred as well as those that are in progress. The Environmental Protection Agency is responsible for many of these reversals. Certain states are trying to sue and block these rollbacks from happening. The Times notes how detrimental these rollbacks could be to the environment. There will be increases in greenhouse gas emissions and air pollution will increase. 

I knew that President Trump had been trying to roll back Obama and previous presidents’ work to combat climate change. However, I did not realize how extensive his efforts have been. Trump has succeeded in reversing 84 regulations thus far with an end goal of 104. I thought that pulling out of the Paris Accords would be detrimental to the environment and increase the US’ negative impact on the environment greatly. I’m surprised that the emphasis has been fully on how Trump handled the Paris Accords and not on these dozens of other regulations that he is trying to repeal and reverse. I’m glad that there are different states that are trying to sue the EPA, but some of these reversals have gotten through court and have not been struck down during judicial processing. I hope that with the election of Joe Biden that the US will be able to reinstitute some of these regulations. The US is one of the largest polluters in the world. It is our responsibility to decrease our impact on the environment and make sure that we do not drastically increase our pollution from what it has been these past decades.