Turning the tide:  A new era of Trump’s climate policies 

With Donald J. Trump set to return to the Oval Office on January 20th 2025, a new era of climate politics is on the horizon. Historically, Trump has made a habit of having a contradictory ‘flip-flop’ approach when making his stance on a political issue clear and his environmentalism is no exception to this. 

Predominantly, Trump is a climate change denialist, having referred to it upon numerous occasions as nothing more than a ‘hoax’, ‘nonexistent’ or a ‘very, very expensive form of tax’. Despite this, in 2009 Trump did sign a political advert appearing in the New York Times which expresses support for legislation combating climate change quoting ‘‘If we fail to act now, it is scientifically irrefutable that there will be catastrophic and irreversible consequences for humanity and our planet’. But one quick Look at his twitter / X history realigns one with the reality that any past sympathy Trump may have held for our planet is long gone. 

‘The concept of global warming was created by and for the Chinese’ Trump’s twitter account 2012 6 Nov

Not to mention his consistent rhetoric of making light of a concerning situation in which he will either jest that any cold weather is evidence enough that climate change is not real or mock those who are taking steps towards change. Take his online outbursts directed at climate activist Greta Thunberg for example, in which he has suggested she has an ‘anger management problem’ and should ‘chill.’ 

During his presidential term of 2017-2021, Trump’s policy only weakened climate action, whilst the majority of the world’s leading countries were setting and meeting their climate targets. One of the most shocking decisions made during this time was Trump’s withdrawal from the 2015 Paris Agreement after deeming its terms incompatible with his commitment to delivering economic freedom to the American people. A theme which continually halts any hope for climate delivery as ultimately, first and foremost, Trump is defined by his businessman persona and deregulatory agenda; for him climate change policy infringes upon the private lives of Americans. 

Throughout this time, Trump continued to undo much of the progress of his democrat predecessor, Barack Obama, such as cutting his Clean Power Plan which was set to reduce carbon dioxide emissions by 32% from 2005 levels by 2030 through prohibiting new coal plants. Instead Trump went forward with his Affordable Clean Energy Rule which was used to pacify as in reality it was only reducing greenhouse gas emissions by 1% and allowed him to continue with his ulterior motive, revitalising the coal industry. 

At present, if the evidence is anything to draw from, it would appear that Trump’s 2025-2029 presidential term will be no different than what we have already seen. From what one can gather from his presidential campaign, climate change still remains a non-issue, in fact when asked about it directly in an interview with Fox News host Tucker Carlson, Trump remarked

‘Nobody talks about nuclear…the biggest problem we have in the whole world. It’s not global warming, it’s nuclear warming.’ 

Demonstrating clearly that Trump does not care to discuss climate change at all as he quickly diverted the question in a way which allowed himself to express matters he aligns himself more closely with such as the American military. Additionally, in an almost familiar state of events, it is expected that Trump will yet again withdraw from the Paris Agreement after his democratic predecessor, Joe Biden rejoined it. 

If the allusive project 2025 is anything to go by, we can also expect to see the approval of more oil and gas infrastructure, expected to release billions of tonnes more carbon pollution. Plans are also currently circulating that would suggest Trump will not leave protected areas alone in this pursuit as is made clear in his decision to open Alaska’s Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, home to polar bears and caribou, to drilling. 

In the midst of what appears to be a disastrous outcome for America’s climate, it is important to remind oneself that Trump, whilst president, is still just one man. There are climate protections in place which even he cannot penetrate. Undoing significant legislature such as the Inflation Reduction Act which made historic investments in climate action will be impossible to alter without congressional approval. Whatsmore, hope can be found in the federal government and its ability to pass its own climate initiatives beyond Trump’s jurisdiction such as California’s ‘The Great Implementation’ plan, which is set to achieve net zero carbon pollution by 2045.

Words by Libby McGuinness

Valencia Floods: The cost of climate change denialism

Climate change denialism kills… and governments still aren’t listening. The end of October held Spain’s deadliest flash flood, killing hundreds of people particularly within the Valencia region. Scientists have attributed these ‘Monster’ floods once again to man-made climate change. 

Man-made climate change is increasingly talked about with its damaging effects becoming inevitable. While this extreme weather remains unchanged, so does the nation’s preparation for it. Climate change denialism is a stance taken too often by those in power resulting in a lack of funding and focus on defending against this. The recent floods in Valencia are a prime example of the effects it has on the everyday citizen. 

The World Weather Attribution has declared that climate change directly impacted the amount of rain that the clouds carried, pushing it up by 7% for every degree of warming. They have linked this directly to the causes of the Spanish flash floods and their ensuing devastation. This, however, is not a new revelation.

Researchers across the globe have been continuing to expose the life-threatening effects climate change is beginning to create. Their efforts have only increased after the devastating results of storm Helene which tore its way through the U.S only weeks before. We continue to see firsthand the destruction of everyday life as a result of man-made climate change while those in power fail both to aid the climate crisis and prepare the public for what that brings. So, what did the Spanish government do to fail their citizens in the growing climate crisis?

One of the Spanish government’s most crucial errors was the lack of communication with the general public from the very beginning. After over eight hours of continued rainfall, a flood was clearly imminent, however, it was not until houses were knee deep in mud and cars floating down the street that a message alert regarding ‘possible flooding’ was issued. Citizens claimed they were left completely blindsided by the flooding and had no opportunity to prepare or evacuate. 

Those affected have been left divided as to where the blame should fall. Was this a lack of preparedness on the government’s behalf or a denial of impending danger? This need for communication was strengthened through the aid, or lack thereof, given post flood. Those in poverty-stricken areas were left without help or any form of alert for days, knowing their loved ones could be lost and buried under the rubble the rain left behind. Both the community and those following along through the media are looking to the authoritie’s lack of focus on aid in the following days that cost valuable lives. 

The underfunding and lack of prioritisation of water infrastructure and flood defences increased the loss of life in the event of the floods significantly. Throughout the past 20 years there have been several plans drawn to aid defence against extreme weather. Almost 18 years prior, plans for flood works were prepared to be installed at the Poyo ravine. These exact plans however expired in 2017 as ‘no work had been initiated’. If it had been enacted, the damage caused to the surrounding areas would have been considerably minimised. 

Climate change evidently escalated the magnitude of such a disaster, rainfall like this has not been seen since the 1950s. Nevertheless, it appears that the errors of the government who funded poor infrastructure and allowed people to settle in these high-risk areas massively contributed to the traumatic death toll.

The citizens of Spain have come together in protest against the failure of the government, claiming the blood to be on their hands. The authorities accept their role in the flash flooding and discussions are in place on how to handle future events such as these, countries like Germany are also taking note from the failures of Spain. The country aims to make improvements for the future but the climate change denialism which grasps countries across the world was undoubtedly an overarching contributor to the 2024 Valencian floods. 

Words by Lucy Bysouth

Electric Dreams, Carbon Nightmares: The Hidden Environmental Cost of Generative AI

AI chatbots are freaky. To someone like me with little knowledge about technology, programming or any other computer science jargon, I find them incomprehensible. 

A strange thing inside my computer, which knows how to simplify my readings, how to solve maths equations, how to quell the torrent of spiteful emails I send to my landlord about the leaky fridge. As it obeys my commands to ‘make this email sound more polite’, I often find myself soothed by its mechanical rearranging of my fiery words into ones which are clinical and assertive. It is probably due to this thing that I have not yet been evicted. Or that I am able to think of my article titles. 

Despite all of its pros, chatbots are very scary. Their not-quite-human responses, as well as the unsettling videos and images they produce, provoke a deep fear of the uncanny for many. It is thought that their reinforcement of instant gratification is making people lazier. 

As well as this,  they are also trained on stolen information from real people, who receive no compensation for their work. Indeed, in 2023 the New York Times sued Microsoft and OpenAI, claiming that their chatbots were trained using articles from journalists at the company without consent, thus violating their copyrights. 

As unethical as this all is, the biggest threat we as a species are facing from generative AI is their huge environmental impact. To explain it in the simplest of terms (for people like me with little knowledge of computers) the most complex Ais require the most power. The more power needed, the more carbon emissions are created in the process. 

Generative AI refers to artificial intelligence which can answer questions, create images and videos, solve problems and provide ideas. In other words, the chatbots we are so familiar with today. These are the said Ais which require the most power, due to their complex and advanced nature. 

These chatbots have not only increased in accessibility, but they are also thrust onto consumers in an attempt for constant innovation. In this case, to ensure search engines keep up to date with the newest technologies and quickest ways to retrieve information. 

This becomes an annoyance for two reasons. The first is that often searchers come across inaccurate and often laughable information, as is seen in the case of the viral ‘first person to backflip’ search. When google users went to search the much-asked question, AI overview confidently stated that it was curated by the medieval trickster ‘John Backflip’. 

As entertaining as it is to play around with AI and its inaccuracies, every futile search takes up 4 to 5 times the amount of energy as typing your query into a regular search engine. With every search engine now being equipped with an AI chatbot, this poses a huge environmental challenge. 

The size of generative AI is measured by parameters, with the larger models being the most advanced, thus taking up the most energy. According to the Scientific American, GPT-3 has a whopping 175 billion parameters. They state that the model went through ‘1287 megawatt hours of electricity and generated 552 tons of carbon dioxide equivalent’. To put this in perspective, this is comparable to the emissions of 123 standard petrol vehicles for a whole year of driving. And with the site reporting approximately 3.1 billion websites in September of 2024, its mind-boggling popularity suggests it will only continue its path of destruction. 

Likewise in 2019 it was found that the generative AI model BERT (which was 110 million parameters) depleted the energy of a ‘round trip transcontinental flight for one person’. The lack of tactility in chatbots often means people are unaware that they have a real physical impact. By comparing them to practices that we have known for years cause huge environmental damage demonstrates just how sinister they are. 

So how exactly do we avoid this? Chatbots are now seemingly ubiquitous and feel impossible to avoid. But, a recent study by google suggested that size matters less than some think when it comes to sustainable AI. 

The research suggested that for the same or similar size, using a ‘more efficient model architecture, processor and greener data centre can reduce the carbon.’ It is clear, then, that change needs to come from those at the top. Companies must invest in more sustainable processes to create generative AI. Public pressure- such as petitions, emails and spreading awareness- can help to achieve this, as well as boycotting sites such as Chat-GPT.

There are also eco-conscious alternatives out there for use, such as the non-profit company ‘Ecosia’, which is equipped with a ‘green filtered’ AI. Promoted by green energy such as solar power, the chatbot also offers sustainable advice and suggestions which are mindful of the planet. Thus, by promoting practices which are environmentally conscious, users are encouraged to incorporate these into their daily lives. As a bonus, Ecosia’s profits are distributed worldwide to support tree-planting initiatives. It is certainly worth switching your browser knowing that each search is not actively aiding the destruction of the planet. 

It is easy to feel despondent about the ways in which small parts of our life have a big environmental impact. It can feel particularly overwhelming when software which is so damaging has seen an exponential rise in popularity, which is only getting larger. 

However, education is crucial. Knowing what happens as a consequence of your small search allows you to make the first small changes and move forwards making environmentally conscious decisions. So, next time you need a twelve-fingered picture of Jesus in a theme park to send to your uncle on Facebook, do your research before turning to Chat-GPT. 

Words by Daisy Morrow

Football has an ownership problem yes, but the blame for the decline of the great game should be shared across the board

Over the last thirty years, there has been a growing concern amongst football fans alike around the direction of the sport and whether it ultimately fails to serve local communities in a way many of our parent’s generation remember. A growing problem is the ever-bigger distance between fans and the club’s ownership, which can be seen across the tiers of English Football with ownership protests seen at Reading FC, Bolton Wanderers, Oldham Athletic and my own club, Sheffield Wednesday.

Protests have been sparked as a result of fans feeling as though their voice often wasn’t heard and fears around the long-term future of many of these clubs. These fears are understandable after clubs such as Bury FC and Darlington FC’s ownership battles ended in the teams having to start again at the bottom of the English Football pyramid.

The stark truth is that the last three decades have seen the gap between fans and owners widen even further, as both stakeholders have very different interests and objectives in their clubs. Naturally, fans seek investment in both the infrastructure and squad in an attempt to progress as far up the pyramid as possible whereas owners are much more focused on turning a profit or receiving a return on their investment. 

The days of the local businessman owning the football club are long behind us, now it is often rich American businessmen for clubs such Arsenal or Burnley or even the Saudi government, as is the case for Newcastle United. The objective for these owners solely comes from the drive to expand their fanbase on an international scale, in the hope of generating extra revenue for the club. This was demonstrated when Birmingham City CEO Garry Cook suggested that their League One match against promotion rivals Wrexham should be played in the States, an idea which had zero thought for the fans of the English and Welsh side yet seemed appealing to the American owners of both clubs. 

The scrapping of FA Cup replays for the current 2024/25 season, against a backdrop of much fan disgust, went ahead, with Manchester City boss Pep Guardiola conceding that it would harm smaller clubs but “much better’ for those teams playing in European competitions. The money available from playing in European competitions makes historic competitions like the FA cup of no interest to Premier League owners. 

The expansion of television coverage, particularly over the last ten years, has been another decision, taken purely for profit but with little consideration for fans. Games are now changed at short notice to appease Sky schedules and broadcast at times which hinder travelling fans. On Wednesday evening, Burnley fans were expected to make the 630-mile round trip to Home Park, a fixture which leaves fans no choice but to make accommodation arrangements. The game was also broadcast on Sky Sports Football, a match one can only assume was picked as it was a relegation threatened team versus a promotion contending team, no matter what inconvenience this makes for the fans.

As mentioned previously, my own club Sheffield Wednesday has been in the forefront of protests against our Thai-businessman owner, Dejphon Chansiri. Fan grievances come from a mixture of ticket prices, poor operational decisions, lack of investment and our near dice with relegation back to League One last season after a less-than-ideal start under the management of Xisco Muñoz.  Whilst I agree fans have a right to protest their ownership and that owners should fundamentally be ‘custodians’ of the club as opposed to ‘owners’, I often feel my own teams fanbase are so blindsided by their hatred for our owner, they unfairly portion 100% of the blame for our misfortunes on him. This view does not make me popular with friends, family and the wider fanbase, particularly on social media and I have often been called a ‘traitor’ for holding views about the club I love which differs from the consensus. 

The most recent disgruntlement from fans has come after a lack of progress for the Owls in the January transfer window. Despite no communication from the coaching team to the Chairman around which players they wish to purchase and less than helpful comments made by manager Danny Röhl around transfer rumours, fans wish to place all the blame at the door of the owner. My sympathy for our owner grows, when I see the abuse he is subject to on social media, not only directed at him but also his family. I agree that Chansiri deserves criticism for some poor business decisions in the past, particularly those that have seen the club receive points deductions or transfer embargos, yet he cannot be blamed for every issue seen at Hillsborough and he certainly should not be subject to any form of abuse, no matter your views on his ownership.

Football clearly does have an ownership issue. The distance between fans and owners is ever widening and decisions made by owners, the FA and media companies are only adding to this. However, fans must be reasonable in the blame they place on owners and, as is the case for my own club, when they should also look at the decisions by the wider footballing establishment when looking who to blame for their disillusionment with the great game. 

Words by James Childs