“Pollution from human activities is changing the Earth's climate. We see the damage that a disrupted climate can do: on our coasts, our farms, forests, mountains, and cities. Those impacts will grow more severe unless we start reducing global warming pollution now.” As stated by Frances Beinecke. On December 12, 2015, 195 countries reached a new climate treaty (Falkner1107). This treaty is called the Paris Agreement. Currently the Paris Agreement aims to only rise the temperature of the earth below 2 degrees Celsius or less this century (Herz 30). Climate Change occurs due to human emission of greenhouse gases (Weatherholtz 581). The Paris Agreement is a pledge based treaty that many are hopeful will succeed. Currently the Paris Agreement is still in place. In 2016, Donald trump, tried to repeal the agreement, but was unsuccessful. By the end of 2020 the United States plans to withdraw themselves from the Paris Agreement. This policy is important to the United States because we are one of the top contributors of greenhouse gases, which comes from the combustion of coal, oil, and gas (Weatherholtz 586).
One reason for initiating changes to this policy is that pledges have consistently fallen short of the collective goals (Herz 30). This happens because some of the countries are not able to pay for the needs of the Paris Agreement. Some of those needs would need to be met financially, or industrially. Secondly, Countries that have not stepped up to the plate when their pledges are not met, thus it creates a gap (Herz 31). The gap then causes the temperature to be raised because the Agreement’s changes have not been met. Countries still need to be prepared for extreme weather due to the target temperature being exceeded. Extreme weather would consist of excessive rainfall, which would raise sea levels, drought and warm periods of weather throughout the year. Lastly, there has never been a group of people who have actually enforce the countries pledges and made sure they were met (Herz 32). If a group was created that would enforce the rules and regulations set, there would be more results. With more results the affects of the Paris Agreement would be great and more widely felt across the globe.
One alternative to the Paris Agreement in the United States would be to form an interstate agreement, before entering any Climate Change treaties (Weatherholtz 609). An interstate agreement is an individual agreement from each of the fifty states, that outlines what will be accepted by that state. If a plan like this were in place, it would bind states to be accountable to other states and to the United States (Weatherholtz 610). Another policy option would be to form climate clubs (Herz 33). Climate clubs are a type of policy option that puts pressure on countries to participate in global agreements. If they don’t, they must pay a price of some kind. This would allow a few people, or in this case, countries, to lay down the framework for the rest of the countries (Herz 33). With the smaller number of countries, it would be easier for them to meet and come up with rules and regulations (Herz 33). They would also be able to create incentives for other countries to join (Herz 33). The club would provide a platform for members (Herz 33). It would also deter free-riding and give strength in other places (Herz 33). The great thing about this option is that most of the groundwork for climate clubs for the Paris Agreement has already been laid out by the High Ambition Coalition (Herz 34).
Some pros that come from the incorporation of this policy, is that it allows each country to set their own rules and allows them to do what they can (Herz 30). Once plans are put into place new norms will emerge that will be beneficial to global warming (Herz 30). When many of the countries enact their plans, and see them through, it will allow for a larger reduction in global warming. Luckily, for the Paris Agreement, there are many ways of reducing carbon emissions, such as using renewable resources like wind and solar energy (Faulkner 1109). Another pro is that jobs in the renewable resources industries would be increased. While we would lose jobs elsewhere, the jobs opened up through these industries would offset any major national changes. A major pro is that Paris Agreement has almost global support. Of the 196 countries negotiating the Paris Agreement, 181 of them have already ratified it.
The cons of the Paris Agreement are that even with the pledges, our global warming, by the end of the century, will be almost 1 degree Celsius more than what our target was (Herz 30). This makes everything the agreement has worked towards negatively viewed around the world. Another con is that in previous agreements, pledging has not worked like the writers of the Paris Agreement hope it will (Herz 30). There is not enough concerned people to pledge to the cause. The major drawback of the Paris Agreement is that it does not hold any country accountable to enforce these pledges (Weatherholtz 597). Without enforcement when nothing gets done to punish those who do not follow the rules, others follow suit and it changes the dynamic of the agreement. Climate change does not affect all countries equally (Faulkner 1110). Some countries have little to no change if at all. Whereas some countries changes are massive and definitely noticeable. One con that would specifically affect the United States, is jobs within the coal and natural gas industry would be lost. This would hurt the economy within the United States, and the people working within the industry. It could affect hundreds if not thousands of peoples’ lives and wellbeing. The Paris Agreement is just a framework for reduction of greenhouse gases. We must keep in mind that we have not yet fixed climate change with this agreement, and it could still fail. If it doesn’t receive enough support from governments around the world, the Paris Agreement will never be successful.
The best policy option would be forming climate clubs such as the High Ambition Coalition (Herz 34). By starting out with a small number of countries, you would be able to come up with rules, regulations, and enforcement guidelines for the policy (Herz 34). Climate clubs would also be able to come up with incentives and rules that deter free-riders (Herz 33). Climate clubs also would be able to enforce a fee if the policies were not met. When the framework is already laid out, it makes it easier for countries to join or want to join because they do not have to do as much work (Herz 33, 34). They’ll be able to implement climate clubs of their own based on the framework and layout of the clubs that are already currently in place.
For the Paris Agreement to succeed, countries must prioritize climate change in their foreign policies (Herz 29). If they don’t prioritize climate change, global warming will never be reduced and will only increase. This would cause for more issues around the world. For the agreement to be effective, someone has to create incentives for countries to participate (Herz 33). The more countries that join in and participate, the greater chances we have of tackling this global threat. If they join in there must be a way to hold them accountable for their actions and taking place if the Paris Agreement is to ever truly succeed in changing global warming. The Paris Agreement combats a serious problem, Climate Change. If we do nothing about it, it will affect soil, plants, oceans and our way of life (Calkins 531). The United States foreign policy is to build and sustain a more secure, prosperous, and democratic world for the benefit of the international community, and the American people. Global warming and climate change is a threat to the American way of life, and to the international community. If the United States helps the Paris Agreement to succeed, we will have a better world, not just for the United States, but for the world as a whole! This would also help improve our relationship with foreign countries around the globe. The United States alone has already pledged about three billion dollars to the Green Climate Fund. This fund helps developing countries around the world adapt and fight climate change. However, more funds are still needed to help combat this threat if we are to have a better world and future. For the Paris Agreement to be successful governments around the world will need support. Not just the major countries either, it will need the support of the smaller countries. If not, it will only fail. If every country around the world were to join in and participate effectively, the agreement would surely succeed in reaching its goal of dropping the temperature 2 degrees Celsius.
There are four reasons as to why the Paris Agreement may fail. First, countries that have signed and ratified the agreement withdrawal with their best interests in mind. They put their countries needs ahead of the needs of the world and withdraw from the agreement. Second, even if the countries are legally bound, they fail to comply to the rules and regulations set by the agreement. Some of the countries are not able to comply to the rules and regulations as they are too tedious. Thirdly, it will fail to produce a long-term approach to global warming. This is only a temporary fix for global warming. If a more permanent fix isn’t reached anything done by this agreement will be reversed. The last reason as to the possible failure of the agreement is that the current pledges are not enough to stop global warming. We need more pledges to stop global warming, but no one is committing to pledging due to the results being extremely varied. The earth will still get warmer by three degrees Celsius if the agreement fails. We are not doing nearly enough to save millions of people around the globe from a miserable future.
After careful study, time, and thought, it would be best for the United States to agree with the installment of the Paris Agreement within the United States. If they don’t implement this plan, or a plan of some kind whether it’s climate clubs or an interstate agreement, or even continue with the Paris Agreement, global warming will only get worse. Former President of the United States Barack Obama once said about the Pairs Agreement, “This agreement is the best chance we have to save the one planet we have. No agreement is perfect, including this one. Even if all the initial targets in Paris are met, we’ll only be part of the way there when it comes to reducing carbon in the atmosphere.”