What Will Happen and How Will We Know?

I see a lot of slagging of various media outlets and also see many media outlets used to support one position or another, so it was with some interest that I saw this posted the other day:

What's needed is for someone (reputable) to assign positions for some Canadian media outlets.  I'd like to see where the CBC, the Tyee, the G&M, the National Post, CTV (any others?)... where they fit on the spectrum.  I have my opinions, but I can't claim to be objective on this....

But with that in mind, I offer this lengthy article from The Economist: 

Up in Smoke?  What will happen if America's president-elect follows through on pledges to tear up environmental laws.

It's a lengthy article and seems to fit the description above - "skews conservative but still reputable; Great in-depth source of news".

I'd recommend reading the whole article, but, just in case, here are a few snippets that caught my attention:  

Mr Trump’s view on climate change, it seems, is chiefly governed by what he thinks each audience wants to hear. That may be good news for the world. Public concern about global warming is rising in America; 64% of Americans say they are worried “a great deal” or “a fair amount” about it, and 71% say America should not withdraw from the Paris accord—including a majority of Republicans. As for scrapping the EPA, the share of Americans who like the breathable air and drinkable water the agency helps to safeguard is no doubt even higher. Mr Trump acknowledged this, too, in his recent interview: “Clean water, crystal-clean water, is vitally important.”

Mr Obama’s most important environmental regulation is the Clean Power Plan, which seeks to limit carbon emissions from coal- and gas-fired power stations. It is considered crucial to America’s chances of fulfilling its commitment under the Paris accord to cut its emissions, by 2025, to 26-28% below their 2005 level. Mr Trump has promised to scrap the plan.

"... even this would not persuade many electricity companies or states to reverse the shift they are already making towards renewables and away from coal. The growth of renewables has helped cut America’s emissions from power generation by around a quarter since 2005. The main reason for that progress, an abundance of cheap shale gas, gives the lie to another piece of Trumpian bluster: the tycoon’s promise to pep up the coal industry.

"... solar installations in the world’s sunniest spots now offer power at less than 3 cents per kilowatt-hour (kWh)—cheaper than even the most economical gas plants. “With solar so cheap you might think it is a communist plot, but you’re still going to put up the panels,” says Mr Harvey. The volatile price of fossil fuels also makes them less attractive when planning new generating capacity."

"Strenuous efforts by China to cut emissions would also mean vast domestic demand for clean-energy technology, which would help the country’s firms to consolidate their lead in supplying a fast-growing, and lucrative, global market. While Mr Trump occupied himself with a few unprofitable coal-mines, China could be taking a commanding lead in batteries, solar panels and wind turbines."

Extreme weather events linked to climate change already result in huge distress and enormous bills: in the 12 months to April 2014 central and state governments spent $92bn after floods, droughts and other disasters.

So while there are certainly concerns when a loose cannon like Mr Trump is on the doorstep of the White House, positive things are likely to continue to happen.