What the experts say about the environment in the Trump era is more complicated than what most people understand.
The reality of the country’s climate change, pollution, and environmental destruction is often more complex than the climate-science orthodoxy of a few decades ago.
As a result, a whole new vocabulary is being introduced to the debate over the environment, and the process of getting there has become more complicated.
In the midst of a climate change crisis, President Donald Trump is proposing a massive infrastructure bill, which would slash funding for the Department of Energy, EPA, and other environmental programs, and would leave the country with less than $1 trillion in its capital budget.
On the surface, this seems like a good thing.
Trump is calling for a $1.6 trillion infrastructure plan.
He is promising to bring back jobs.
He has pledged to rebuild the U.S. economy, and he is proposing to do it in a way that will allow his signature legislative achievement, the American Health Care Act, to come to fruition.
In the context of the climate crisis, however, the proposal is problematic.
What the experts know The science is complicated.
The science on the relationship between greenhouse gases and climate change is far from settled.
The best scientific evidence points to the existence of a complex, interrelated climate system that includes a lot of natural and human factors.
These factors, coupled with the increased emissions of CO2 from human activities, can cause a large-scale warming of the planet.
But climate change cannot be directly linked to human activities.
Climate change is the result of human activity, and humans are responsible for the greenhouse gases in the atmosphere that are fueling that climate change.
Climate models show that CO2 concentrations are increasing in the upper atmosphere, and that the world’s climate is warming faster than previously thought.
This warming is causing a dramatic rise in ocean acidification, which is damaging coastal ecosystems and threatening human survival.
We know that the rising oceans will cause severe damage to human health and food security in the coming decades.
In fact, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration recently announced that the planet’s ocean acidity will be a key determinant of the number of people living in the world by 2050.
We also know that climate-driven changes in the Earth’s atmosphere, such as the heat-trapping CO2 released by human activity and by other factors, will cause a dramatic increase in the amount of sunlight reaching the planet, and in the rate at which the oceans absorb heat.
We can already see the consequences of the combination of these two processes: sea level rising, more intense storms, and more severe weather.
The consequences of climate change are already being felt.
The U.N. and other organizations have warned that the consequences are already becoming evident.
Scientists say that the oceans and the atmosphere are changing, and they are seeing evidence of it.
There is more acidity in the ocean and the oceans are getting heavier.
These changes have already been documented in the Arctic, in Antarctica, and elsewhere.
But some scientists, particularly oceanographers, say that these changes will only become more extreme as the oceans warm and the climate warms, and as climate scientists become increasingly alarmed at the magnitude of the changes happening to the Earth.
Trump is trying to do something that scientists have long known to be possible: He is proposing massive infrastructure projects.
How to deal with the Trump administration’s climate-change proposals The government’s response to the climate crises and its response to climate change will likely be shaped by two main factors: the needs of the environment and the interests of the economy.
The need for the environment is clear: We need to reduce our carbon footprint in a responsible way.
The economy will have to respond to the needs and concerns of the American people.
It will have the same incentive as the environment: to reduce pollution and emissions.
But how should we respond?
How do we reduce pollution?
Pollution is a real threat to human well-being.
Pollution is killing, it destroys livelihoods, and it disrupts our daily lives.
The pollution we create, from landfills to factories, is a major cause of climate-related harm.
And climate change makes our environment less safe.
The problem with environmental politics is that it’s a politics of numbers, not of justice.
Polluters are not people, and we are not asking them to give up their rights to life, liberty, and property.
The climate-justice movement is an important response to this problem.
It is a response to an economic system that is broken.
It’s not just the climate problem that is changing.
There are other economic issues that need to be addressed, too.
One is our dependency on fossil fuels, which we cannot afford to continue producing and burning.
There has been a tremendous shift in the economy in recent years that has dramatically increased demand for energy and energy-intensive goods, from cars and trucks to the production of