Description of the Case
The United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) held the 2015 Paris Climate Change Conference to address the public goods problems of global warming. In this conference the Paris Climate Agreement had over 196 parties take part of the agreement including the U.S. and China. Both states have not agreed to take part in conferences that aim to control global warming despite being the highest polluters. Both states are responsible for 35% of the global gas emissions. In relation to the 2011 gas emission levels, the Obama administration agreed to cut down gas emissions by 17%. Another proposal set by the Paris accord is having Global North countries help Global South countries to support them financially with sustainability. The agreement is completely voluntary, therefore no state will face repercussions by not taking part of the agreement. All states signed the Paris Climate agreement on April 22, 2016 and it went into affect November 4, 2016.
The conference and agreement stated that temperatures have risen extensively since the 1900s. The United Nations’ with the international community in one convention to address the problem. There is an estimate that global temperatures will raise from three to ten degrees Farenheit in the next couple of years on a global scale. The International Energy Agency predicts that the use of coal will only increase up to 50% if no action from states is taken. With the reduction of fossil fuels can taking place to decrease greenhouse emissions there will still be a 15% increase in coal since much of the electricity is powered by coal. The graph below named “Global Land-Ocean Temperature Index was created by the NASA’s Goddard Institute for Space Studies, a federal agency in the United States of America, that monitors the activities of Earth and Space. The graph depicts surface temperatures since 1880 and the global warming of the Earth’s surface, with 2016 reaching record high temperatures, this research was also collected by the Climatic Research Unit and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration.
The plan of the agreement to combat this problem is eliminating greenhouse gas emissions produced by fossil fuels such as oil, coal, and natural gas. Instead, the Global North should transfer from the industrial system to more sustainable energy post-2020. The U.S signed the agreement under the Obama adminisitration. Due economic reasons the Trump administration did not want to partake in the agreement and decided to leave it. The reasoning behind leaving is that “America is $20 trillion in debt” (Trump, 2017).and is hesitant in how much more the agreement may ask from the United States of America and disadvantage the state compared to outher countries in the world. According to National Economic Research Associates, by the United States agreeing with the Paris Accord, the implementation of energy restrictions can lead to the loss of 2.7 million jobs by the year 2025. Manufacturing jobs will be the most affected since there will be 440,000 fewer manufacturing jobs in place. By 2040, the U.S will have a loss of GDP by $3 trillion. Overall, the Trump administration had the intention of benefitting the citizens of the state and strengthening the U.S economy by keeping and the possibility of creating more industrial jobs. The Trump’s administrations take on the Paris Accord is put American citizens as a priority by providing them jobs and also to strengthen the U.S. economy. This can be seen as a self- interested approach.
Conferences of the Parties “Adoption of the Paris Agreement,” the proposal awknowledges the different stakeholders that should be made aware of as states ratify the agreement. Several of the stakeholders listed were “local communities, migrants, children, persons with disabilities, and people in vulnerable situations and the right to development, as well as gender equality, empowerment of women and intergenerational inequity” (FCCC, 2015). In summary, individuals, communities, local governments, as well as the international community may face repurcussions if no action is taken to reduce green house emissions long-term. The table below is adapted from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change claiming that by 2080 millions of people in different international communities will be negatively affected by floods, hunger, and lack of water caused by the warmth of Earth’s surface. By putting these groups at the foundation for finding a long-term solution for global warming, continents such as Africa and Asia may face less negative impacts of climate change since they are the most vulnerable.
California state within the U.S. is trying to implement its own state policy to reduce carbon dioxide emissions, one of the most crucial and popular greenhouse gasses emitted by human activities. California Global Warming Solution’s Act was originally created in 2006 with an aim of reducing greenhouse gas emissions by 80% relative to 1990 by 2050. The goal is to be able to replace sources of fossil fuel energy. However, even by fossil fuel ener
Solutions
SOLUTION 1: Doing Nothing
In the long run, the United States remaining withdrawn from the Paris Agreement is dangerous and unfavorable for the state domestically and globally. However, the United States staying withdrawn from the agreement could stimulate some short-term economic benefit for the Nation. The United States staying out of the Paris Agreement would increase the economic growth since there is less regulation on the industrial greenhouse gas emission. If the United States were to rejoin, there would be very strict regulation on these gas emission levels, decreasing economic growth. Without these regulations, companies would spend less effort and money on pollution controls and other environmental protection funds. Less ecological management would increase corporate profit since there will be no transfer to renewable energy. Although this would increase the profit of the individual company, it would come at huge cost on the environment. Also, the increase in profit for many companies could lead to the expansion of their size; this would decrease the unemployment rate. Regardless of those economic benefits, there will be a detrimentally significant cost politically and environmentally.
While withdrawing from the Paris Agreement, the Trump administration was also overturning Obama’s energy plan and directing the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to revoke the Clean Power Plan. With the series of reversed regulations issued by Trump’s executive orders, federal agencies do not need to incorporate climate change into their review processes and their future plans. These agencies would also overturn the suspension on coal development on the federal lands. Trump also ordered a review of emissions restrictions for gas and oil wells (McBride, 2017). Due to these actions and executive orders, the chance of the United States fulfilling the high expectations and obligations of the Paris Agreement is slim. The United States is one of the largest emitters on Earth, coming second only to China, and would be responsible for seventeen percent of the global reduction of emissions if they followed the agreement. Now we can foresee that Trump’s review of emission restrictions could not only set back the goal of reducing the emission worldwide, but also could increase the emission rate if he decreases the present regulations. Moreover, the United States’ exit from the Paris agreement is encouraging other countries like Brazil to mimic their actions, while influencing other countries to not follow through with their emissions cuts.
Leaving the situation as it could have a significant effect on foreign policies and foreign relations. Patrick Stewart said the decision would endanger the United States’ national security and prosperity by sabotaging their global leadership (McBride, 2017). As a leading figure on the worldwide stage, the United States’ exit from the Paris Agreement can make the U.S lose the trust and respect from other countries, potentially damaging the relationship with many countries deeply concerned about environmental issues. Furthermore, the U.S. retreat on the Paris Agreement could empower its stiffest competition, China, to fill the leadership vacuum. CFR’s Varun Sivaram and Sagatom Saha argue that ending U.S. influence in the clean energy race will also empower China to take on other issues like the South Asia Sea territorial problems (McBride, 2017). These factors could severely reduce the United States’ world leadership role.
SOLUTION 2: Implementing a Nationwide Policy Similar to the Paris Climate Agreement
One of the possible solutions regarding the United States bailing on the Paris agreement is the implementation of a nationwide policy similar to the Paris Climate Agreement. This is a less complicated procedure than rejoining the Paris Agreement; it will also have an appealing effect on reducing the greenhouse gas emission. This solution would be favorable to the United States because it is easier to pass an environmental protection bill through Congress than going through the procedure of reentering the Paris Agreement without knowing if other members will welcome the United States. They strongly opposed the United States exiting the agreement, so it is possible that they will not want the nation to rejoin. The United States would have a better appearance on the global stage and would regain other state’s respect by putting an effort into fighting against climate change. It is not a laborious process for the Legislative branch and the Executive branch to come together to pass an environmental regulation bill. The United States has already had multiple acts regarding the ecosystem, such as the Clean Power Plan under the Obama Administration. The implementation of a series of environmental actions could achieve a similar effect as if the United States stayed in the Paris agreement. Furthermore, the United States could customize workable regulations that differ at the state level and on the federal level.
The downside of this solution is that it is difficult to get the Legislative and Executive branches on the same side of the issue. This has been made even harder following the November 6, 2018 midterm election. The Senate is currently under Republican power, while the House is under Democratic power (Kommenda, et. al., 2018). It will be difficult for him to propose or approve a Nationwide Policy similar to the Paris Agreement. It has been made clear that the Trump Administration is not the most prominent advocate for climate change or environmental protection. President Trump has publicly denied the existence of climate change and discredited the importance of the emission cuts. He directed a series of orders of postponement of environmental Actions (Zhang et. al., 2017). Further, these kinds of bills could take a long time to get approved with the standing status quo.
We assume that when the U.S. passes a bill, it will enforce the policies; however it is difficult to keep track of the effect of the implemented policies. It will be hard to determine exactly how much the emission levels decrease. Most of the environmental policies could take a really long time to create a visible effect. Without seeing an impact, the nation will not be sure that the system functions as it should. Going back and forth with all many environmental agreements could confuse the companies and civilians. People would question the facts, seriousness, and impact of climate change and environmental issues. The worse outcome could be that the citizens lose their faith in their government.
This solution provides a more accessible and efficient way for the United States to achieve the same effect as the Paris Agreement. Nevertheless, there are many problems to overcome, such as time consumption and political conflict within the government. Last but not least, the effect of the implemented policies could be hard to trace and to correct.
SOLUTION 3: Rejoining the Agreement Under a Different Presidency
The United States left the Paris Climate Agreement under the presidency of Donald Trump; however, it would be possible to rejoin under different leadership. Even President Trump himself said that the U.S. “could conceivably” rejoin the Paris Agreement (“Climate Change”, 2018). The Agreement was the most strict on the United States, wanting the nation to cut its emission levels by seventeen percent. President Trump believes that we should rejoin, but only if the agreement becomes more fair and lessens its requirement for the U.S. By rejoining, relations between the United States and the international community would improve drastically. Not only would these relations improve, but it would also better the lives of those living in the nation by creating new jobs. Many jobs would be created to research these resources, and the possible ways to make them cheaper. These cleaner energy sources would then make jobs on the labor force with their implementation. For example, workers would need to create technology such as windmills, solar panels, dams, and water storage facilities for clean energy (“Renewable Energy Technologies”, 2014).
Our reuniting with the Agreement is the only way to give it the power that it needs to be successful on its own; this is due to the US having the second-highest greenhouse-gas-emission levels in the world. Rejoining could not be done under Trump’s presidency, as it would reflect poorly on the United States. Leaving and reconvening under the same leadership would have lowered the nation’s credibility in the international community, creating the perception that it does not stick to its decisions. However, this stigma would not created with different leadership making the decision to take part in the agreement.
Admittedly, switching from non-renewable resources to sustainable resources will be expensive. A decrease in the nation’s economy will accompany the initial shift. However, the nation will be able to survive it, especially as these sources continue to get cheaper. In fact, a study conducted by the International Renewable Energy Agency (IREA) claims “Renewable Energy Will Be Consistently Cheaper Than Fossil Fuels By 2020” (Dudley, 2018). The ends will justify the means, and with more nations employing people in researching and implementing these sources, the quicker this process will be. As the United States is a world hegemon, it has the power to influence this research. Other nations are currently researching cheap, renewable alternatives, but if the United States were to join, the international system would quickly advance its research.
Conclusion
To conclude, the United States’ withdrawal from the Paris Climate Agreement has turned what could have been a very powerful alliance into a much weaker one. Since the U.S. has the second-highest level of natural-gas emissions, it is imperative that the levels get lowered to slow the progression of climate change. There are a few different ways for the nation to go about handling the withdrawal from the Agreement: First, the United States could continue to stay separate from the agreement. This is the worst conclusion, since even though there may be economic gains in the state, the state will suffer politically and the globe will suffer environmentally. Two better options would be either for the U.S. to create its own national agreement that is comparable to the Paris Agreement, or to rejoin the agreement under a different presidency. If the United States were to make its own agreement, it would be able to place less harsh restrictions on itself. Emission levels could be decreased, just not to the immediate seventeen percent drop that the Paris Agreement expected. Levels could eventually drop that much if restrictions gradually got tougher. However, it would be hard to see if the agreement was actually making a difference or to see if the U.S. was actually going to drop emission levels. Rejoining under a different presidency would be the best solution, it would give the agreement power again, improve international relations, decrease natural-gas emission levels, and will eventually turn over a profit.