THE PARIS AGREEMENT
An Analysis on President Donald Trump’s Decision
Abstract
An in-depth explanation of the Paris Agreement formed under the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) is provided and further analyzed to determine if its structure is deemed adequate. The global temperature cannot continue its pattern of increasing instead efforts should be made to not allow it to surpass 2F above recorded temperatures from since the industrial revolution. Summaries of natural disasters such as heat waves, hurricanes, and wildfires that occurred during 2017 are also included to show how climate change is affecting the individual lives of American citizens who are prioritized based on isolationist foreign policy. Impacts on human society, ecosystem, and economy are discussed in detail explaining further how the increasing global temperature is a threat. Analysis of social cost of greenhouse emission reduction is included to support three new rulemakings regarding standard car emissions. President Donald Trump’s decision to cease participation in the Paris Agreement is argued and a compromise is proposed.
Introduction
On June 1, 2017, POTUS Donald Trump announced that the U.S. would cease all participation in the Paris Agreement from 2015 on climate change mitigation. The Trump administration has been under scrutiny ever since they arrived in office and the topic that continues to be brought up is global climate change. It is a social trend to think of Republicans as silly to not believe in climate change but when one of their representatives has as much power possible for a government figure it is no longer a laughing matter. Laws here on out can be made by these people who are ignorant of the crisis at hand. Why is retreating from one agreement so important? The United States has been seen as a superpower ever since WWI and Americans have labeled their land as the land of opportunity. This should include the opportunity to lead in serious issues such as climate change. America is one of the main players of the global economy therefore they should be considered responsible for what consequences come from driving their economy. By being the center of production of goods in demand means that the U.S. is also a major producer an insurmountable quantity of waste especially in greenhouse gases. By pulling out of the Paris Agreement it not only sets back the goals intended by the agreement but it also shows the cowardice of the Presidential Administration by not being accountable for the United States contribution to the warming of the planet.
HISTORICAL BACKGROUND
PARIS AGREEMENT
Ever since the Industrial Revolution global average temperatures have risen 2C (35.6F). The trend of increasing temperatures is not changing so organizations are created to address the issue. The United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) sets non-binding limits on greenhouse gas emissions for individual countries and contains no enforcement mechanisms. Instead, the framework outlines how specific international treaties (called "protocols" or "Agreements") may be negotiated to specify further action towards the objective. The Paris Agreement was formed under the UNFCCC but its objectives were more specific. Each country determines, plans and regularly reports its own contribution to global warming mitigation. The overall goal of the agreement is to have the global temperature rise this century well below 2C above pre-industrial levels (Paris Agreement, 2017). In other words, the 196 parties involved with the agreement must take initiative to reach the common goal of having a global temperature of 1.5C above pre-industrial records.
Progress made towards the goal will be tracked according to Nationally Determined Contributions or NDCS. There are no specific requirements except that the countries should be “ambitious”, “represent a progression over time”, and contributions should be set “with the view to achieving the purpose of [the Paris] agreement”. The contributions should be reported every five years and individual countries have the option to pool their efforts to report to the UNFCCC Secretariat. At the 2015 Climate Change Conference the initial NDC was pledged and the agreement had a vision that every following reported contribution will be more ambitious than the last. The importance of this agreement was summarized by President Barack Obama as it “will help delay or avoid some of the worst consequences of climate change”. He is referring to the rising sea levels and increase in frequency of natural disasters.
The structure of this agreement is unique in that it is “bottom up” rather than “top down”. The Paris Agreement had a predecessor called the Kyoto Protocol which was another plan to reverse the effects of emissions influencing global warming focused in Kyoto, Japan. The Kyoto Protocol had legal bounds and was considered “top down” since it had specific commitment targets. The Paris agreement has no legal binding rather it politically encourages effort towards the goal. Because it does not have any legal weight the United States does not view it as a treaty like the UNFCCC treaty of 1992 which required further legislation from Congress.
CURRENT AFFAIRS
The Obama Administration really focused the spotlight on climate change and made it a national priority as it can affect the lives of future Americans. Trump however decides to stay true to his vision of “making America great again” by transitioning the focus from climate change to growing American jobs. Trump stated that "The Paris accord will undermine (the U.S.) economy," and "puts [us] at a permanent disadvantage." (Wikipedia, 2017). Within the Paris Agreement there is an idea of enhancing the implementation by “increasing the ability to adapt the adverse impacts of climate change and foster climate resilience and low greenhouse gas emissions development…”. If the United States were to implement laws that focused on lowering greenhouse gas emissions there would be an increase in funding for regulating those laws. It would also limit how companies can produce their products since they now would have to think about emissions and violation of would be new laws. But is protecting the current way of life in America what really needs to be done? Is ceasing all participation in the global fight against climate change the right choice in the long run?
CRITICAL ANALYSIS
Ceasing participation in efforts to limit greenhouse emissions and other factors that impact global warming does not lessen the amount of work that needs to be done in order to meet the goals by 2020 but it puts pressure on the other 195 parties to increase their contributions. 195 other party members sounds like the task can be easily achieved but in reality, not having the United States included puts the agreement at a disadvantage. The European Commission and Netherlands Environmental Assessment Agency used the EDGAR database and constructed a list of Countries and territories organized by the amount of carbon dioxide emitted in 2015. The leading country is China with 10,061,710 kilotons (29.51% of overall emissions) in carbon dioxide emissions and the United States of America comes in second with 5,172,338 kilotons (14.34%) (“List of Countries by Carbon Dioxide Emissions, 2017). However, China had a population of 1.37 billion in 2015 but their emissions per capita was only at 7.7 tons compared to the United States whose population was at 320 million and per capita emissions were 16.1 tons. Americans produce the most carbon dioxide per capita and by not taking initiative to lower the emissions the United States will only add to the problem being fixed.
President Donald Trump says that the withdrawal would be accordance to the America First Policy which refers to a foreign policy that emphasizes American Nationalism in international relations (whitehouse.gov, 2017). The Paris Agreement is definitely an international plan but to say it does not support American nationalism would not be all that correct because it is directly linked to the United States as the rest of the world. The goal is to reduce greenhouse emissions to decreases the global temperature. The decrease in the global temperature is of paramount importance because it is a driving factor in the natural disasters seen within the last few years.
HUMAN IMPACTS
Many American citizens have become victim to many natural disasters such as heat waves in California, floods in Florida, Hurricanes in the southeastern states, and wildfires in the Midwest. Climate change is not an isolated international issue because it is affecting the individual lives of the Americans the President has promised to prioritize. People are being displaced from their homes due to these disasters and in some cases their personal belongings are also taken from them. These natural disaster victims should not have to suffer from the consequences of these events. To give a small overview of what American citizens had to experience here is a small list of major disasters and their impacts within 2017 alone.
• August: Hurricane Harvey and Irma struck the southern states
o Results: at least 70 deaths during Harvey, and Irma killed at least 4 more people and left 64% of Florida without electricity and produced record storm surges (Levin, 2017)
• September: heat wave in California reached 106F in San Francisco
o Results: 6 people dead, power grid was strained, and thousands were left without electricity (Levin, 2017)
• October: Wildfires spread across 160,000 acres on Northern California
Results: 42 people killed (many victims were burnt beyond recognition), 100,000 people displaced, and 8,400 homes and businesses destroyed (Levin, 2017)
These are just the major events that made the headlines of popular magazines and news outlets such as New York Times and CNN but 2017 is being labeled as the year of the most witnessed natural disasters in history. Every time these disasters happen the intensity and range of destruction is magnified.
IMPACTS ON ECOSYSTEM
After the Napa Fires in Northern California the environments looked like the aftermath of a nuclear war with crumbled buildings and ash laying everywhere in sight. Toxic ash is a major concern for Californians at the moment. Since there were several waves of fires the temperature each one was burning at can vary which affects the composition of the ash. Combustion occurs at different temperatures within a single fire. Fires burning at temperatures lower than 840F will be darker-colored consisting mostly of organic carbon. Temperatures above 840F the carbon is burned away and inorganic compounds of calcium, magnesium, and sodium are left behind in lighter-colored ash. Fires above 1,100F leave nothing but oxides. Ash left behind is very light and is easily transported by the wind (Park, 2017).
The different compositions will determine if it is hydrophilic or hydrophobic. More hydrophilic ash is susceptible to mixing with nearby streams. The ash being washed into the water increases the available nutrients such as nitrogen and phosphorous which encourage large algal blooms. The issue here is that it can cause an increase of non-dissolved oxygen leading to areas of eutrophication. Sediments freed by hydrophobic ash makes the water more turbid (thick with suspended matter) which is not good for available tap water for civilians and can gum up feeding and breeding grounds for fish (Park, 2017).
IMPACTS ON ECONOMY
Hurricane Irma and Harvey cost up to an estimated 150-200 billion dollars in damage. The U.S. Forest Service has already spent about 1.75 billion dollars on fire suppression and the Department Interior spent and additional 400 million dollars (Levin, 2017). Keep in mind that these events are strengthened by the increase in global temperature so Trump’s argument about not being a part of the Paris Agreement in favor of the American economy is now questionable. However, Trump’s views on climate change has not changed after witnessing the destruction to property and millions of people’s lives after Hurricane Harvey and Irma (Levin, 2017).
The Environmental Protection Agency has estimated the benefits of reducing greenhouse gas emissions by calling it the social cost of carbon or SC-CO2. “The SC-CO2 is a measure, in dollars, of the long-term damage done by a ton of carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions in a given year” (EPA, 2017). The rulemakings directly targeted carbon dioxide emissions projected notable climate-related benefits for the economy. The projected net present value of carbon dioxide mitigation benefits over the next forty years from three vehicle rulemakings was estimated to range from 78 billion to 1.2 trillion dollars saved (EPA, 2017).
RELEVANT LAWS
Three rulemakings regarding car emissions have been made (EPA, 2017).
• The Joint EPA/Department of Transportation Rulemaking to establish Light-Duty Vehicle Greenhouse Gas Emission Standards and Corporate Average Fuel Economy Standards (2012-2016)
• Joint EPA/Department of Transportation Rulemaking to establish Medium- and Heavy-Duty Vehicle Greenhouse Gas Emission Standards and Corporate Average Fuel Economy Standards
• Joint EPA/Department of Transportation Rulemaking to establish Light-Duty Vehicle Greenhouse Gas Emission Standards and Corporate Average Fuel Economy Standards (2017-2025)
With these new rules the United States can participate in the Paris Agreement and contribute in achieving is goals and also benefit the economy rather than being at a disadvantage like Trump had stated.
ANALYSIS
There are some concerns on how this whole decision of ceasing participation in the Paris Agreement could have been avoided. In the explanation of the agreement above the legal bounds were mentioned several times. The Paris Agreement was not taken seriously by the new Presidential administration since it had no legal binds. No further legislation had to be made and no reviews were needed by congress to enforce the ambitions of the agreement. The major flaw in the Paris Agreement is that it depends on an entire nation’s integrity but from a political perspective, every time a new policy has to be passed or laws have to be enforced the person in charge will immediately think of how many resources (money) have to funded to support it and is it beneficial to the overall economic well-being of the country. In other words, President Trump saw the agreement as a suggestion even though it should be taken as serious as the Treaty of Versailles. The Paris Agreement most certainly has very good intentions but the way it was structured makes it easily ignored. The way the agreement was written was inadequate. The President found a loophole basically by calling the decision an effort to maintain The United States foreign policy of putting America First.
Conclusion
The world is in an era of rising global temperatures and spikes in the activity of natural disasters. Climate change is both an international and national concern because billions of people are being affected by the consequences of carbon dioxide emissions. President Trump can follow the America First foreign policy and participate in the contributions needed in order to decrease the global temperature to 1.5F above temperatures recorded in 1901 instead of surpassing 2F above said temperatures. The decision to cease participation is a mistake because instead of saving the economy it can endanger it instead along with the livelihoods of Americans. By making minor changes such as adding three new rules to standard car emissions the United States can save up 1.2 trillion dollars annually.
REFERENCE LIST
E. (2017, January 09). The Social Cost of Carbon. Retrieved November 24, 2017, from https://19january2017snapshot.epa.gov/climatechange/social-cost-carbon_.html
Levin, K. (2017, September 17). Extreme Weather: What's Climate Change Got to Do With It? Retrieved November 22, 2017, from http://www.wri.org/blog/2017/09/extreme-weather-whats-climate-change-got-do-it
List of countries by carbon dioxide emissions. (2017, November 25). Retrieved November 22, 2017, from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_carbon_dioxide_emissions
Paris Agreement. (2017, November 23). Retrieved November 23, 2017, from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paris_Agreement#Aims
Park, M. (2017, October 13). California Fires: Almost 6,000 Buildings Destroyed. Retrieved November 24, 2017, from http://www.cnn.com/2017/10/13/us/california-fires-updates/index.html
Rogers, A. (2017, November 07). After the Napa Fires, Toxic Ash Threatens Soil, Streams, and San Francisco Bay. Retrieved November 24, 2017, from https://www.wired.com/story/napa-fire-ash/
T. (2017, March 08). America First Foreign Policy. Retrieved November 23, 2017, from https://www.whitehouse.gov/america-first-foreign-policy