On Friday, millions of people marched for the cause of protecting our planet #ClimateStrike. This movement is getting bigger and bigger. More and more people are talking on climate and the implications of sitting idle wondering -- shall we believe in science?
Granted, there has been notable progress around the globe. The UK banned plastic straws. France banned pesticide. Kenya banned plastic bans. The air pollution, contaminated soils, water pollution kill people. The message is clear. Climate is trending.
President Trump touts his policies saved the coal industry, while the word coal is now a by-word among the environmentalist. Call it media hype, call it fake, call it whatever you like. The dirty coal is darkening the image of the President and the United States.
As the President averted the image of phony rhetoric on environment, it now becomes a dilemma for all the leaders outside the US. Should they go green and present themselves as leading and taking the initiatives on climate? Or perhaps it may be regarded as anti-US that saying things against President Trump and his policies?
The climate surely is a vote winner, while the balance between being business friendly and protecting the environment is always difficult for all the ruling entities around the globe. Regulations stifle the industrial output. The good economy may have compensated the air qualities, as in China.
Is climate President Trump's weak point? Surely, the President is not targeted for attacks by the environmentalists. The President is a target of everything else -- be it corruptions, firing/hiring of the right/wrong people, and other scandals. Will he improve his image on environment, even if it is (mainly) not human that we talk about?
Granted, there has been notable progress around the globe. The UK banned plastic straws. France banned pesticide. Kenya banned plastic bans. The air pollution, contaminated soils, water pollution kill people. The message is clear. Climate is trending.
President Trump touts his policies saved the coal industry, while the word coal is now a by-word among the environmentalist. Call it media hype, call it fake, call it whatever you like. The dirty coal is darkening the image of the President and the United States.
As the President averted the image of phony rhetoric on environment, it now becomes a dilemma for all the leaders outside the US. Should they go green and present themselves as leading and taking the initiatives on climate? Or perhaps it may be regarded as anti-US that saying things against President Trump and his policies?
The climate surely is a vote winner, while the balance between being business friendly and protecting the environment is always difficult for all the ruling entities around the globe. Regulations stifle the industrial output. The good economy may have compensated the air qualities, as in China.
Is climate President Trump's weak point? Surely, the President is not targeted for attacks by the environmentalists. The President is a target of everything else -- be it corruptions, firing/hiring of the right/wrong people, and other scandals. Will he improve his image on environment, even if it is (mainly) not human that we talk about?