Immersing into the effects of the U.S. ceasing participation in the 2015 Paris Agreement on climate change mitigation.
The Paris Agreement is an agreement constructed by the UN, or more specifically the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC). It is an agreement, signed by all 196 UNFCC members, to limit the global rate of carbon and greenhouse gas emissions. The goal of this agreement is to either delay or stop the average global temperature rising a further 1.5°C (as is currently predicted will happen between 2030 and 2052) (1). This seemingly minor rise in temperature would have devastating consequences such as rapidly rising sea levels, ecosystems dying out and decrease in crop productivity (2). The Paris Agreement was seen as the beginning of the change that would need to be made in order to truly cut back on global emissions; and it would be constantly reviewed every 5 years and adapted as the situation would require.
However, the United States announced they would leave the agreement on June 1, 2017 and formally withdrew on November 4 2019: the withdrawal will only be finalised on November 4 2020 (the day after the American election). The Trump Administration decided to withdraw as they claimed that the agreement was ‘an unfair economic burden imposed on American workers, businesses, and taxpayers by U.S. pledges made under the Agreement (3). Trump also claimed that the US has reduced their carbon emissions and made renewable energy easily accessible to their citizens. President Trump claimed that the cut on Carbon Emissions would make many people lose their jobs and would be too harsh of an imposition on their economy. Trump has often downplayed the global climate crisis and even criticised Obama’s administration for their regulations against Carbon emissions. Furthermore, not only has Trump withdrawn from the Paris Agreement but also, has completely defunded Mission Innovation (MI): an initiative of the European Union and twenty two other countries to invest in and discover clean energy (renewable). Mission Innovation was planning to help all the countries involved in the Paris Agreement to find other sources of energy, in order to stick to their claims of reducing emissions.
Trump’s claims that he is making America more sustainable and reduce emissions are false and cannot be supported with any evidence; in fact, the Trump administration has undermined any global efforts with its increasing support of fossil fuels and has repealed countless regulations that encouraged a shift away from non-renewable energy sources (such as coal, oil and gas). Trump’s lack of awareness or action taken on the crisis has caused certain US states or cities, such as New York and California, to make their own plans to decrease emissions and cut down on their carbon footprint. However, even if these states met all their targets, they would still fall short of the goals set out in the Paris Agreement; proving that in order for real change to be implemented then it is necessary for the country to make decisions as one unit.
The United States is the 2nd largest emitter of Carbon and other gases worldwide, currently only behind China (4). Therefore, the Paris Agreement is sadly less effective without the US: even though the rest of the countries in the world (apart from Syria and Nicaragua) have all committed to reducing their emissions and continuing with the agreement regardless of American involvement. Most members of the United Nations have acknowledged that the US withdrawal from the Paris Agreement will weaken any enforcement measures they decide upon and make the changes inefficient. Also, the Paris Agreement was aided strongly by the Obama administration, who provided leadership and political backing; so when the US withdraws, there will be a political void. China and the European Union have both made it clear they are keen to continue with the agreement (5), and this void could force China (the largest emitter and biggest power currently in the Agreement) to take leadership.
However, in spite of everything, there is the strong argument that the Paris Agreement (even if the US had remained signed and ratified) would not have been effective or a significant point of change. The Paris Climate Agreement, when compared to its predecessor: the Kyoto Protocol, seems to be ineffective and distributing unfair and uneven responsibilities. The Kyoto Protocol (1997) is an agreement that makes industrialised countries commit to reduce greenhouse gas emissions to match individually tailored targets (6). The Kyoto Protocol would be far more effective than the Paris Climate Agreement as it gives countries individual aims in accordance to their emissions, size and places a larger responsibility on the more developed and wealthier countries (who can afford to cut down emissions and rework their energy sources). In contrast, the Paris Agreement has abandoned any idea of individual and different accountability and instead, is placing too heavy a burden on underdeveloped countries and pressuring them to reduce emissions (7); claiming that unless newly developing countries take responsibility for their future carbon emissions then any changes developed countries make will be insignificant and far more expensive. However, this mindset leads to the powerful countries being allowed to take credit for the initiative to start and sign the Paris Climate Agreement, without them actually being hugely affected. Furthermore, scientists have said that even if all the countries involved in the Paris Agreement met their goal emissions by 2030, which for many it is already seeming impossible, the global emissions will still be above the rate needed in order to stop the temperature rising (8): the entire aim of the Paris Climate Agreement.
In conclusion, although it has been recognised that the targets set by The Paris Climate Agreement, even if met, will not be enough to stop the global temperature rising; it has still been recognised as a significant effort and a movement towards actually stopping global temperature rising. Therefore, in my opinion, the US withdrawing from the Paris Climate Agreement is actually very significant as considering both the size of the US and its rate of emissions, it would make any effect reached by the Paris Climate Agreement almost redundant due to the unrelenting emissions from the United States. Moreover, the lack of concern that the Trump administration is showing to the urgent climate crisis hints that the emissions from the united States will not be modified and in fact, will be increased - as shown by his reactions to the Obama administration’s attempts to become more sustainable.
Citations
(1) - The Two Sides of the Paris Climate Agreement by Raymond Clémençon, 2016
(2) - According to an analysis of 70 studies done by Carbon Brief
(3) - On the US Withdrawal from the Paris Agreement’ Press Statement - Micheal R. Pompeo, Secretary of State
(4) - Statista.com (as of 2018)
(5) - Council on Foreign Relations (cfr.org)
(7) - The Two Sides of the Paris Agreement by Raymond Clemençon, 2016
(8) - The National Geographic
Comments