What Facts Support the President's Environmental Actions?

If I thought anything President Trump and his administration are doing was based upon facts, or even informed observation, I'd be more likely to be giving him a chance.

For example, his actions yesterday regarding the environment and global climate change: the vast majority of experts in those fields are convinced that those actions fly in the face of facts.

(Disclaimer: majorities can be wrong, and the "vast majority" of environmental and climate change experts might be wrong. But the rigors of the scientific method, which include the verification by others of observations and conclusions, have proven over time to provide reliable information, information upon which we can base informed decisions. Yes, new information can alter or even disprove previously-held conclusions. That's the way of science. But in many situations we must make our best decisions now based upon what we know now, because the future can't wait.)

So, whose verified or at least potentially verifiable research did the Trump team cite to justify pulling back on President Obama's environmental policies or reopening the way to increased use of coal and other fossil fuels? Who is saying that pumping more CO2 into the atmosphere will not hasten the onslaught of the most drastic effects of climate change, evidence of which we are already seeing around the globe, not to mention in our own backyards, this March of 2017? Which economists (those practitioners of what someone once called 'the dismal science') believe that government deregulation will revive the struggling coal industry?

The rest of the world, including even China, is positioning itself to move toward a future of cleaner energy, while the United States seeks to revive the towering smokestacks that once dotted our skylines and filled our lungs with deadly particles and poisons.

I believe we can protect the environment, can possibly manage climate change, and can create and maintain good jobs. But not by increasing our use of fossil fuels. Trump's actions encourage the fossil fuel industry that helped elect him and they encourage the short term interests of people like me who prosper when the markets go up. But they are not good for our children or grandchildren. And the coal fields of Appalachia will remain as depressed as they are.

Today's Plain Dealer reports that a Cleveland City Councilman is on his way to Washington to try to counter the planned near-destruction of the EPA by President Trump and the Secretary of the Late EPA. What better messenger can there be than one whose city's "burning river" proved to be the flame that ignited the largely bipartisan environmental protection movement that cleaned up the Cuyahoga River and much, much more?

Your thoughtful and informed responses will be welcomed.