Profile: Climate change and Alaska

While government departments avoid using the term “climate change” for fear of incurring the wrath of Donald Trump, Alaskan towns are already suffering from the effects — but claim that under their new president, federal assistance has been halted.

Here temperatures are rising twice as quickly as the global average, melting ice and raising sea levels.

At least 31 towns are at risk of “imminent” catastrophe need moved urgently because they are in so much peril.

Federal help has been slow in coming but under former President Barack Obama programmes had been put in place to relocate those most at risk. These have now been halted by the new Washington administration. We were getting down to the brass tacks of relocation and now work has just stopped,” said interior department official Joel Clement who has been working on climate adaptation with the communities.

“Without federal coordination from Washington DC, there isn’t much hope. This will take millions of dollars and will take years, and these people don’t have years. It feels like a complete abdication of responsibility on climate change.”

WHAT’S THE REACTION?
PEOPLE in the communities say they feel abandoned “It was clear from the start of the Trump administration that there was no interest in helping Alaskan communities, particularly coastal communities, adapt to climate change,” said Victoria Hermann, president of the Arctic Institute. “There’s now no liaison from Washington on the issue. It feels like the Obama administration was kickstarting something useful but now it has dropped dead.”

Powerful storms, rapid ice loss and coastal erosion are all taking their toll. “People are coping with the loss of their history, places where they could reliably hunt and gather food, their burial sites,” said Mike Brubaker, of the Alaska Native Tribal Health Consortium. “It causes a lot of distress. Before you see the physical impacts of climate change, you see the mental impacts.”

Fisherman Scott Anderson, who lives at Port Heiden, added: “The change has been rapid. It’s a lot wetter. The caribou have gone away. There used to be a dog and sled team but you don’t see that anymore because it’s rare to have a winter where everything freezes up.”

WILL TRUMP CHANGE HIS MIND?
IF the Alaskan people want Trump’s sympathy and understanding they are facing an uphill battle. What may prove key is whether he decides to accept a new report on climate change prepared by government scientists — or bury it to keep his hard-line conservative supporters on side.

Some of the scientists behind the report spoken privately of their fears that it will either be altered before its final release, scheduled for the autumn, or simply be forgotten about altogether.

The report states that “evidence for a changing climate abounds, from the top of the atmosphere to the depths of the oceans”, a conclusion that may not go down well with Trump who has said that a lot of climate change research is simply an elaborate hoax.

“I mean, it’s a moneymaking industry, OK? It’s a hoax, a lot of it,” said Trump.

The report is a key part of the National Climate Assessment which presidents are legally bound to carry out every four years so that preparations can be put in place for any problems caused by drought, increased rainfall or rising sea levels. However, the report will be reviewed by a Washington committee made up of political appointees who could demand changes or refuse to approve it.

IS THAT LIKELY?
IT’S fairly certain the committee are not going to enjoy reading the research. It notes that droughts and heatwaves in some parts of the United States have reached record intensities while rainfall has risen by nearly a third in the north-east during the worst storms.

The report goes on to predict that California will suffer chronic water shortages if nothing is done to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and that many coastal cities will suffer frequent flooding.

It also leaves no doubt about who is to blame for this climate change.

“It is extremely likely that human influence has been the dominant cause of the observed warming since the mid 20th century,” it states, adding that the evidence does not support any alternative convincing explanations.

It also warns of the “significant possibility” of future climate surprises because no climate model is failproof and humans are responsible for an “unprecedented experiment” with the world’s climate. The more greenhouse gas emissions increase, the greater the possibility of such “surprises”, says the report.

WILL TRUMP LISTEN?
IT’S unlikely as he seems to be operating on the theory that if he ignores the problem it will go away.

Emails have been leaked showing that at least one government department is censoring the term “climate change” with staff told to use “weather extremes” instead. And rather than “climate change adaptation” officials at the US Department of Agriculture (USDA) are advised to use “resilience to weather extremes”.

The president’s choice for the post as chief scientist of USDA is Sam Clovis, a former right-wing radio host, who has referred to climate change research as “junk science”.

Farming in the US is responsible for a sizeable proportion of heat-trapping gases with agricultural practices causing 15 per cent of US emissions.

As well as withdrawing the US from the Paris climate agreement, Trump has told the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to amend or get rid of various rules aimed at lessening greenhouse gases.

References to the problems cause by climate change have also been dropped by the websites of the Department of the Interior and the White House triggering protests from environmentalists.

“To think that federal agency staff who report about the air, water and soil that sustains the health of our nation must conform their reporting with the Trump administration’s anti-science rhetoric is appalling and dangerous for America and the greater global community.” said Meg Townsend, of the Centre for Biological Diversity.