This article appeared first on Corporate Dispatch’s Diplomatique.Expert Week journal.
Last Monday, the 4th of November, the US filed paperwork in order to initiate the process for it to leave the Paris Climate agreement. It will leave the agreement on the 4th of November 2020, just one day after the next US Presidential election. This means that should Trump lose the election, it will be very tricky for the next President-elect to halt its withdrawal, given that he or she will have no legal power to prevent the country from leaving before their swearing-in, on the 20th of January 2021. The implications for the US and the world at large are significant.
What is the Paris Climate Accord all about? In short, it is a non-binding agreement by more than 200 countries with the intention of reducing carbon emissions. Every country had submitted its own plan as to how it would achieve these, but there are no ramifications for members should they fail to achieve their stated goals. In short, there was nothing to lose by participating. The Obama Administration pledged to reduce greenhouse gases to 26% below the 2005 level by 2050.
President Donald J. Trump has made it clear that he thinks these pledges run contrary to American interests. In his words, they represent “an unfair economic burden” on U.S. businesses, workers and taxpayers. He has sought to rollback legislation enacted under his predecessor that sought to curb emissions on heavier polluting forms of energy, such as oil and, particularly, coal. Trump has few such qualms about the use of coal, saying that he was seeking to effectively bring coal back, and have it used on a more widespread basis, despite its proven harm to health. He also asserted that the Paris Agreement allows China and other large state polluters an unfair advantage by allowing them to continue to increase their emissions until they reach certain levels.
The Trump administration’s argument that there would be considerable economic impact and job losses from a change in policy on climate change does not take into consideration the considerable impact that opting against taking action would have in the long term. The science on climate change is both clear and iron clad – humans and human activity is having an adverse impact on the climate, and unless actions are taken and taken soon, temperatures will rise, leading to increasing sea levels and abnormal weather patterns, amongst other dangers.
In order for global temperatures to be ‘contained’ to a 1.5 or 2-degree Celsius rise, the global economy needs to reduce carbon emissions by 50% by 2030, and net-zero carbon emissions by 2050, according to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. In order to reach this type of target, countries need to take urgent action to contain and reverse their carbon emissions. With the US now effectively out of the agreement, other countries may feel less inclined to fully implement their own end of the bargain, given that America (14.75%) is the world’s second largest polluter after China (27.51%). According to the Climate Action Tracker, the current policy trajectory would lead to an increase of between 2.5 & 4.4 degrees, which would be incredibly damaging to the planet as a whole.
The Paris Climate Accord was effectively the lowest common denominator possible which was palatable to countries, since it did not force them to do anything, and could be seen as a subtle way of kicking the can down the road whilst also appearing to do something about climate change. President Trump’s decision to pull out of the accord, if fully realised next year, may lead to a collapse of the accord in its entirety. The Paris agreement is an imperfect one – but if countries try to reach the proposed goals and fall short, it is better than to not even try at all.
Some of you might be asking: well, what are the implications of climate change, really? Is climate change really a man-made phenomenon, and has it not been around for millenia anyway? The short answers are:
- With the increasing release of CO2, the atmosphere will trap that heat, leading to higher temperatures, which in turn will lead to more frequent and intense heat waves, crop failures, and make access to both food and water more difficult for the more impoverished members of the human race. The impacts? Increased migration flows, deaths due to higher temperatures, unreliable food and water supplies, increased conflicts over access to water, etc.
- As the world warms up, ice sheets and glaciers will melt. Sea levels go up, and this can impact coastal communities around the world. This could also lead to increased rainfall and flooding, putting those communities that are close to, or indeed in valleys at higher risk of damage and fatalities. This would also have a considerable impact on naval bases, putting military infrastructure at risk.
- Finally, climate change will make extreme weather both more severe and potentially more common. When warmer air meets higher water levels, you have a recipe for stronger and more resilient storm fronts. We have seen a fair few in Malta over the past decade. Droughts would be more pronounced, leading to food insecurity, which is a considerable concern for countries that import more of their food than they can produce for themselves.
Climate change is a very real phenomenon. The US decision to pull out of the agreement is both unfortunate and misguided. Should it lead to the collapse of the agreement, that would put us on a dangerous trajectory that would affect the rich and poor, young and old, regardless of skin colour, religion or sexual orientation. We will all suffer. The geopolitical implications would be stark. Access to food, water and other natural resources that are in dwindling supply could become another point of conflict in a world already rife with reasons to fight one another. There is no more time for empty words and delaying tactics – the world needs to act, not tomorrow, but now.
Matthew Bugeja – GeoPolitics Advisor – Ci Consulta
