By Aashay Tripathi
President Donald Trump has invited considerable criticism after withdrawing the US from the Paris Climate Accord. His decision is being condemned not only by major environmental campaigners but also his political predecessors, opponents, and by the CEOs of some of the largest US-based companies.
Trump’s justification
Trump argued that the Paris Agreement favoured the other countries involved in the agreement, mainly China and India, at the expense of the United States. He argued that the agreement was less focused on climate change and that it laid more emphasis on other countries gaining a financial advantage over the United States. Quoting the study by National Economic Research Associates, he asserted that the compliance with the Paris Accord would result in the loss of 2.7 million jobs in the US by the year 2025. Additionally, he said that the compliance to the commitments under the agreement would lead to a production fall in sectors like coal, iron and steel, and cement. He argued that this would cost the US trillions of dollars of loss in GDP, loss of millions of jobs, and a drastic fall in the household income. President Trump also stated that the US would enter the agreement again only if the terms were renegotiated to suit their needs.
However, the arguments supporting Trumps decision seem to be flawed. For starters, the leaders of France, Germany, and Italy have issued a joint statement stating that the terms of the agreement cannot be renegotiated.
Uncovering the truth behind Trump’s argument
Interestingly, Trumps argument of the Paris Agreement restricting the US from using the available energy resources, while allowing China and India to continue and even expand their respective usage, does not hold true. This is because the projections by the US Department of Energy pointed out that given the regulations, the energy production will continue to grow till 2040.
The Paris Agreement does not bar any of the participants from doing anything. The non-binding agreement allows countries to map out their own, personalised plans for reducing emissions that cause climate change. The US vowed to reduce its emissions by at least 26 percent below its 2005 levels by the year 2025, prompting it to use less coal, but without any specific limit. Under China’s plan, their emissions would peak in 2030 after which a fifth of its energy would come from carbon-free sources. However, recent analysis shows that the emissions may have already peaked. The accord does not carry penalties for nations that miss their targeted carbon emission reductions or even decide not to comply.
The myth behind the statistics
The statistics supporting Trumps argument come from the study on the economic impacts of greenhouse gas regulations prepared for the American Council for Capital Formation, a conservative think tank whose board includes prominent Republicans and representatives from industry trade groups. However, it does not consider the potential benefits from emission reductions or future technology that could influence costs over the long term.
The claim that the combined efforts of all the participants would only produce a two-tenths of one degree Celsius reduction in global temperature by 2100 has been refuted by the findings of the Climate Scoreboard, a collaboration of Climate Interactive with the MIT Sloan School of Management System Dynamics Group. They stated that the full implementation of the current Paris pledges, in addition to the mid-century strategies would reduce the expected warming to 3.3°C by the year 2100. Furthermore, they pointed out that if nations set ambitious goals for the future, the positive impact would be even larger.
A different look at the Paris Agreement
Another perspective on the importance of the Paris Agreement has been put forward by Dr Daisaku Ikeda, the president of Soka Gakkai International, in his peace proposal. Dr Ikeda mentions that the Paris Agreement came into existence less than a year after its adoption, which in itself is an unparalleled feat. He asserts that all the participants came together to confront the common threat of climate change, defying the impossible.
This reorientation was only possible because all the participating countries held the shared awareness that climate change was an urgent issue plaguing all the nations. The Paris Agreement thus stands out as an example of how solidarity, a sense of purpose, and shared awareness about a particular problem, expedites the process of finding an all-encompassing solution.
Future expectations
Despite the withdrawal, the US carbon levels will continue to drop primarily because US energy production is now powered more by gas than by coal. However, with the withdrawal, US follows Syria and Nicaragua, to become the third nation to not be a part of the Paris Climate Accord. Trump has started a lengthy process of exit that would not even conclude by November 2020, the same month he will be up for re-election. All eyes are now on what efforts, if any, the US would adopt towards tackling climate change on its own terms. With China and India reconfirming their commitment to meet the targets, the decisions by the remaining participants would also be of utmost importance. The move has ensured that the climate issue would, for once, become a major topic of debate in the next presidential contest.
Featured Image Source: VOA News