Former US President Donald Trump, recently won the 2024 Iowa and New Hampshire Republican primary elections, solidifying his status as the Republican Party nominee for the 2024 US Presidential race. Trump’s second-term bid sends shockwaves through the climate movement, as his past tenure was marked by rollbacks of hard-won environmental standards.

In September 2019, the Trump administration revoked Obama-era greenhouse gas emission (GHG) standards by enacting the Safer, Affordable, Fuel-Efficient (SAFE) Vehicles Rule to deregulate the automobile industry. For every vehicle regulation that states have tried to implement, Trump passed 14 deregulations.

But what unsettled me the most was his administration’s justification for it. The White House stated that, “The SAFE Vehicles Rule builds on President Trump’s historic deregulation, which is unleashing economic growth and increasing prosperity.” This did not come as a surprise to me since it aligned with Trump’s economic-driven campaign promises. 

It took three years and seven months for Trump’s administration to come up with this wonderful rule. Yet, its juxtaposition of prosperity and deregulation demonstrates why governmental policies must be informed by science.

Do not let the naivete of the rule deceive you

I argue that the SAFE Vehicle Rule was a carefully crafted rule that aimed to proliferate organized climate change denial. The rule does not need to deny climate change, because it never acknowledged it to begin with. 

The transportation sector is the largest emitter of GHGs in the US, as automobile emissions accounted for 82 per cent of the sector’s total emissions in 2019. But somehow, the phrases ‘climate change,’ ‘greenhouse gasses,’ or ‘global warming,’ were all missing from the rule. I see this as the classic ‘it’s not happening’ climate denial rhetoric coming from the US’ highest office. 

Scientists have long tried to raise awareness about climate change, but I think that most governments — preoccupied with immediate concerns — forget that some phenomena are bigger than us. 

Humans have been around for about 200,000 years. Carbon dioxide (CO2) has never exceeded 300 parts per million (ppm) during all of human existence in the last 800,000 years. However, in the last 200 years, we managed to reach 424 ppm. As a species, we are in an unprecedented period where CO2 levels could double by 2060 if current trends continue. At this rate, global temperatures may increase by a 1.5–4.5 degrees Celsius by 2060 and 5.0 by 2100.

The time to act was yesterday

CO2 is significant because it traps heat in Earth’s atmosphere, warming the planet; a fact proven over a century ago by scientists like John Tyndall, Svante Arrhenius, and Elisha Foote. 

Although a 1.5–4.5 degree Celsius change might seem small, it’s enough to make familiar landscapes unrecognizable, threaten our food and water sources, and intensify natural disasters. Consider agriculture: such a temperature rise could drastically reduce crop yields, leading to global food shortages and soaring grocery prices, affecting everyone but the super-rich. 

This makes me wonder, why aren’t we acting? Worse, why reverse progress by revoking strict gas emission standards? Is our shortsightedness causing indecisiveness? If the deadly COVID pandemic couldn’t unite us for vaccination, I’m not sure we’ll convince everyone of climate change’s human causes in time for action.

Some stories do not have two sides 

I argue that, at its core, the problem is science denial — not just specifically vaccine or climate change denial. From my observation, many people, regardless of their educational levels, see scientific facts as casual opinions, leading them to confuse misinformation with asking ‘tough questions.’

Presenting balanced views has sometimes led to a false balance in climate change reporting, causing unintentional misinformation. To appear neutral, media outlets give equal weight to climate change deniers and the majority of scientists who affirm its reality and human causation. 

The SAFE Vehicle Rule illustrates a false balance, claiming to replace Obama-era regulations because they “hurt consumers and auto producers.” But I don’t think consumers and auto producers should benefit at the cost of humanity. Additionally, how do consumers benefit from wildfires filling our lungs with smoke, storms threatening our homes, or heat waves parching our crops and raising food prices?

The environment is a shared resource. CO2 emitted by one vehicle theoretically affects the entire globe’s prospects. Therefore, strict Obama-era regulations, aimed at a rapid, equitable transition into green energy, are crucial at this eleventh hour.

We need a top-down approach

Ideally, everyone should understand the severity of climate change and be motivated to act. However, achieving universal individual-level consensus may not be feasible in time for action. 

But is universal agreement even necessary for action? Not in my opinion. 

I don’t think the responsibility should rest on individuals but on major fossil fuel corporations and policies contributing to environmental destruction. Effective action against climate change requires governments to oversee policies that rapidly transition us to green energy.

I argue that democracies must restructure themselves so that scientific consensus on societal issues, including climate change, is seamlessly integrated into public policies. The survival of humanity shouldn’t depend on fluctuating majority opinions of a civilization living in this geologically insignificant time scale.

Furthermore, I think some problems are too dire to wait for opinions to align with scientific facts. TIME magazine calls 2024 “the ultimate election year” with 64 countries — including the US — holding elections. I see this underscoring the urgent need to examine science’s role in democracy. Although President Joe Biden reversed the SAFE Vehicle Rule in 2021, we’re now facing a real risk of Trump undoing this and endangering our future again.

No time for denial or skepticism 

I don’t believe right now is the time to question climate change’s existence because, for the first time, our civilization is equipped with adequate scientific advances to ameliorate a catastrophe. That’s why humanity needs to take science seriously. Presently, I think we need to discuss how to integrate science more permanently with democracy. 

Restructuring society needs to happen. Even if not stopped, fossil fuels are bound to run out. But, by understanding science, we can make informed decisions about societal restructuring — hopefully, in time to shield marginalized communities from its worst effects. 

Harshit Gujral is a third-year PhD student in computer science, with a focus on green technology and public health. He is a member of Climate Justice U of T.