“United States withdrawal [from the Paris accord] could become a specific excuse for countries that were hesitant to join in the first place…. The second thing is withdrawal of our financial support and technical support for other countries, particularly developing countries, for both mitigation and adaptation.” – John Holdren, May 31, 2017

John Holdren is the proverbial gift-that-keeps-on-giving. He has toned down–but not repudiated–his past of exaggerated alarms. (Remember his worry about one billion climate-related deaths by 2020?)

In the wake of President’s Trump decision to withdraw from the Paris climate accord, Kiley Korth of the Center for American Progress interviewed Obama’s former science advisor. The entire interview is reprinted below in light of the new story line from ThinkProgress that Trump’s decision was really not that important! So Holdren then versus ThinkProgress now.

Trump’s bold, correct decision was a major blow to a global effort that was destined to fail anyway. James Hansen rejected Obama’s signature action before Trump did, stating:

It’s a fraud really, a fake. It’s just bullshit for them to say: “We’ll have a 2C warming target and then try to do a little better every five years.” It’s just worthless words. There is no action, just promises. As long as fossil fuels appear to be the cheapest fuels out there, they will be continued to be burned.

Here is the Korth/Holdren interview.

——————-

Q. So we finally have an answer from Trump on the Paris agreement. What are the implications of the U.S. withdrawing?

Holdren: It’s a blow to the prospects for limiting the damage from global climate change and a blow to U.S. leadership on the world stage. The harm from climate change can no longer be avoided; it’s already happening. We’re already experiencing more torrential downpours and associated flooding, more extreme heatwaves, larger annual area burned by wildfires, and increasing damages from sea level rise.

In addition to the direct effects on U.S. emissions and investments in preparedness, resilience, and adaptation, there is the effect on other countries…. United States withdrawal could become a specific excuse for countries that were hesitant to join in the first place, and were persuaded to do so by the unity of the U.S. and China leading the charge, to now withdraw from the agreement. The second thing is withdrawal of our financial support and technical support for other countries, particularly developing countries, for both mitigation and adaptation.

And the last way in which U.S. withdrawal will have major adverse impacts is our standing in the world diplomatically and politically. We’re going to lose tremendous global clout and influence if we prove ourselves to be such an unreliable partner in global agreements — who’s going to take lectures from the United States going forward about what we all need to do together?

Q. Almost everything we’ve learned is from leaks and anonymous sources, but Ivanka Trump reportedly wanted to be sure her dad heard from both sides and was getting the best advice. But there is no reliable scientific expert giving him advice. What do you think about that decision making process?

Holdren: I think it’s a terrible gap that President Trump has not yet appointed an OSTP director [White House Office of Science and Technology Policy, which Holdren directed]. In addition, the other major science and technology appointments in the government are mostly vacant: there is no NOAA administrator, there is no NASA administrator, there is no USGS director, there is no director of the office of science in the Department of Energy.

There is no indication anybody is able to whisper in President Trump’s ear about what science is telling us about climate change and what is needed to deal with it, never mind about a host of other issues in which science and technology affect or should affect policy choices — about the economy, biomedicine and public health, space, national and homeland security, and more.

Q. This is a terrible choice to be presented with but what concerns you more, leaving all of these science-related jobs empty or filling them with people who very clearly have no background in science? The one that sticks out the most to me is Sam Clovis, the right wing radio host who’s rumored to be picked for lead scientist at USDA.

Holdren: I actually do think it’s worse to fill those positions with unqualified people. It’s basically a fraud when you do that, and I don’t support fraud in government. If they’re not interested in having science and technology advice, they might as well admit it by leaving those positions vacant.

Q. As far as federal spending goes, the Trump budget blueprint looks like they took anything related to science and just hacked it out. Obviously some of that will be restored by Congress, but I assume there will be cuts. What impact does it have when you diminish anything related to science and technology?

Holdren: The first thing I would say about that is that the problem in the end is the overall caps on discretionary spending. If Trump adds $54 billion to defense and Congress goes along with that, then there is no alternative under the caps but to reduce spending elsewhere in the discretionary space. And there is no way in that circumstance to avoid cuts to R&D [research and development], because R&D is a substantial part of discretionary spending after you get done with defense. If you don’t lift the caps, there are going to be cuts for sure. For that reason I think it’s probably a mistake for the science and technology community to go after individual cuts… because I don’t think we’re going to win an argument about not increasing defense.

Q. I’ve been watching over the past several months, starting with the Trump cabinet members’ confirmation hearings when a lot of them were asked, do you think climate change is a hoax? And there’s a new tack where you don’t outright deny climate change but you cast doubt on it.