The Trump Administration\'s announcement to withdraw from the Paris Climate Acco
ID: 1712866 • Letter: T
Question
The Trump Administration's announcement to withdraw from the Paris Climate Accord raises profound ethical questions about government policy regarding climate change, environmental sustainability, public health and safety, and our duty to future generations. 1. 2. 3. Choose one ethical theory or theory of distributive justice to frame these issues and develop a thesis that addresses these questions comprehensively. Be sure to clearly identify the values and interests of all relevant stakeholders that are part of this issue (workers, consumers, firms, communities, and the state). Identify any and all ethical dilemmas and develop arguments aimed at resolving them. Based on these arguments recommend a course of action for the NSPE to take regarding the Trump Administration's withdrawal from the Paris Climate Accord. 4.Explanation / Answer
On June 1 2017, US President Donald Trump announced that he will withdraw the United States from the landmark Paris Agreement on climate change. It was adopted in 2015 by 195 nations, with 147 ratifying it—including the United States, which is the world’s second largest greenhouse gas emitter. Experts offer their analyses on what the decision could be suggested and what comes next.
While celebrated by some members of the Republican Party, international reactions to the withdrawal were overwhelmingly negative from across the political spectrum, and the decision received substantial criticism from religious organizations, businesses, political leaders, environmentalists, and scientists and citizens from the United States and abroad.
Paris Agreement and the background of withdrawal
The Paris Agreement was an addition to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) and it was initially agreed by all the 195 countries present at the 2015 United Nations Climate Change Conference of that year, including the United States then under the presidency of Barack Obama. Due to the status of the United States and China as the greatest emitters of carbon dioxide, Obama's support and his cooperation with China were seen as major factors leading to the convention's early success.
The main aim of the Agreement is to "the increase in the global average temperature to well below 2 °C above pre-industrial levels", predominantly by reducing greenhouse gas emissions. The agreement differs from the 1997 Kyoto Protocol, the last widely adopted amendment to the UNFCCC, in that no annexes are established to lessen responsibility of developing nations. Rather than that, emissions targets for each country were separately negotiated and are to be enforced, leading United States officials to regard the Paris Agreement as an executive agreement rather than a legally binding treaty. This removed the requirement for the United States Congress to ratify the agreement. The United States became a signatory to the Paris Agreement in April 2016, and accepted it by executive order in September 2016. President Obama committed the United States to contributing US$3 billion to the Green Climate Fund.[14] The Fund has set itself a goal of raising $100 billion a year by 2020.
Article 28 of the agreement give rights to the parties to withdraw from the agreement after sending a withdrawal notification to the depositary, but notice can be given no earlier than three years after the agreement goes into force for the country. Withdrawal is only effective after one year and the depositary is notified. The Agreement also states that withdrawal from the UNFCCC, under which the Paris Agreement was taken, would also withdraw the nation from the Paris Agreement. The regulations for withdrawal from the UNFCCC are the same as for the Paris Agreement.
On November 8, 2016, four days after the Paris Agreement entered into force in the United States, Donald Trump of the Republican Party was elected President of the United States. Many conservative Republicans dispute the level of human involvement in climate change. Trump is a climate change sceptic, who in 2012 tweeted that he believed the concept of global warming was created by China in order to impair American competitiveness .During Trump's 2016 election campaign, Trump promised to revitalize the coal industry, which he claimed has been hampered by environmental regulations. It has been argued that this contributed to the support he enjoyed from crucial swing states. His opposition to climate change mitigation was unchanged in the first months of his presidency, in which he issued an executive order to reverse Obama's Clean Power Plan and other environmental regulations.
A group of 20 members of the European Parliament from the right-wing in April 2017, alternative for UK Independence Party, Germany, and other parties sent a letter to Trump on urging him to withdraw from the Paris Agreement. 22 Republican Senators, including Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, also sent a letter to Trump urging him to withdraw the U.S. from the Paris agreement on May 25, 2017. The letter was drafted by Senator Jim Inhofe, known for his longtime climate change denial and by Senator John Barrasso, the chairman of the Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works. Most of signatories to the letter were elected from states reliant on the burning of fossil fuels (coal, oil and gas). In the same week, a group of 40 Democratic Senators drafted a letter to Trump, urging him to keep America in the Paris Agreement, writing that "a withdrawal would hurt America's credibility and influence on the world stage."
Both who opposition to it and support for the move were reported among Trump's cabinet and advisers: Secretary of State Rex Tillerson, Secretary of Energy Rick Perry, economic advisor Gary Cohn, and advisor and son-in-law Jared Kushner reportedly wanted the United States to remain committed to the agreement, while White House Advisor Steve Bannon, White House Counsel Don McGahn, and EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt wanted the United States to abandon it.
In late May 2017 during the G7 summit, the only G7 member not to reconfirm commitment to the Paris Agreement was Trump. German Chancellor Angela Merkel, one of the other leaders present, was publicly unimpressed with Trump's refusal to cooperate on climate change mitigation, which was seen to damage Germany–United States relations. The communique issued at the conclusion of the summit stated that the United States "is not in a position to join the consensus" of the other G7 countries on policies regarding climate change and the Paris Agreement.
Impact on US and global efforts to tackle climate change
It was a huge impact for the international Paris agreement. It was the US that drove the negotiations in the final stages in Paris and pushed through an agreement which was largely designed to accommodate the US. So it’s very disappointing that at this stage the US is retreating.
However, there will be not as big an effect on global emissions as you might imagine. Yes, the US is the world’s second-largest greenhouse gas emitter but I think the damage to international emissions was probably done when Trump got into the White House because as soon as he became president, everybody started to discount America’s pledge and Trump withdrawing from Paris doesn’t really change that.
For the US economy, it’s going to harm the US economy in the long term. The future is not coal, despite what Donald Trump indicated in his speech. All of the other countries in the world are moving to clean technologies, and as an innovation-driven and innovation-dependent economy, it’s in America’s long-term interest to be at the front of this revolution – getting the intellectual property, investing in the R&D and setting itself up for a low-carbon future. Leaving the agreement isn’t going to help.
Biggest losers and winners from the withdrawal decision
Finally nobody can win from the world’s second-largest greenhouse gas emitter pulling out of the world’s only multilateral agreement to address climate change. But thinking beyond climate change, in terms of soft power, global leadership and the international rules-based order, this does leave a leadership vacuum, and we are seeing signals from China that there’s appetite for it to step up and fill that space. President Xi’s speech at Davos at the start of the year, talking about defending the international rules-based order, the WTO and the Paris agreement indicates that China is willing to assume a leadership role – which is in part opportunistic as it will be beneficial for China’s influence in the world.
The important characteristic of Paris Agreement is that it confirms the international cooperation in responding to climate change and the consensus on promoting low-carbon and green development. In the context of global climate governance, the Paris Agreement confirms the concept of “doing everyone's best and achieve a win–win scenario” (Chao et al., 2016). The withdrawal of the U.S. from the Paris Agreement will likely shock international governance and cooperation systems for climate change. The long-term and general developing trends indicate that green, low-carbon, and sustainable development continues to advance on a global level. However, the withdrawal of the U.S. from the Paris Agreement could be seen as a fluctuation in this constant upward trend.
Future trends of the global responses to climate change
1. Non-reversal of the general structure of global climate governance
1.1. Progress in combating climate change will not drastically change
The withdrawal of the U.S. from the Paris Agreement received criticism from countries, international organizations, city mayors, and industry leaders. Almost all the countries that issued a statement on the withdrawal resolved to continue the implementation of Paris Agreement. This reaction reflects a high degree of the awareness of climate science findings. The international resolution to actively respond to climate change is not going to change.
Trump said that the U.S. might rejoin the Paris Agreement if is “fair” to the US. Climate justice is the foundation of the international climate regime. Everyone is inviolable on the basis of this justice. Climate justice provides equal rights and opportunities to every individual to seek a high quality of life under the impacts of global climate change. Climate justice also provides countries with equal rights and opportunities to seek sustainable development. Reviewing the progress of international negotiations and climate science research reveals key elements for the evaluation of the degree of climate justice, including historical responsibility, developmental stage, capacity, and national circumstance. Trump simply does not see climate justice on a global scale.
In a global way, the two main political groups of North and South, and the three poles of powers in the climate regime (EU, the Umbrella Group and G77 + China) will not change although the trade, economy, and emissions of developing countries, especially the emerging economies, have grown rapidly. However, many aspects of global climate governance lack consensus. These aspects include the differentiation between developing countries and developed countries; the contribution of each country to meet the targeted 2 °C through global stocktaking and transparency mechanism; the support from developed countries on the finance, technology, and capacity building to developing countries; and the balance between existing and new emergent gaps and needs among mitigation, adaptation, finance, technology, and capacity building. Nevertheless, the obligations of developed and developing countries under international climate cooperation will not change. Developed countries still need to response for a large proportion of historical emissions and per capita emissions. And they are also leading the global economy, technology, and setting standards for discourses. Developing countries will continue to prioritize poverty reduction and social development.
1.2. New model of global climate response will be enforced
The efficiency of the global climate regime could be understand from the aspects of economic performance, distribution impacts, environmental performance, and institutional capability. Institutional development is multilateral, complex, and influential in the context of the UNFCCC. In the Paris Agreement, the top-down structure is broken down. National Determined Contributions (NDC) effectively motivates the capability of parties. Although climate governance among country governments remains the core of global governance, the participation of sub-national entities, including cities, NGOs, enterprises, and local governments in climate governance has become more intensive. Multiple stakeholders bloom the elements of equity and rationality into global climate governance. Several articles in the Paris Agreement also encourage various stakeholders to join in the climate regime. Part V of the decision of the COP21 emphasized that non-party stakeholders are welcome to participate the international climate actions. Global climate governance broadly includes participants by using public power to leverage private resources and taking advantage of existing market mechanisms instead of top-down policies. Therefore, national entities and their positions will likely be weakened. The withdrawal of the U.S. from the Paris Agreement will facilitate this trend.
2. Fluctuating impacts
2.1. Impact on the efficiency of the multilateral climate change response mechanism
The U.S. is the second-highest amount of GHG emitter. U.S. climate policy heavily influences global climate governance. There is a view (Kemp, 2017) that the withdrawal of the U.S. from the Paris Agreement will trigger new global leadership and will remove obstacles set by the U.S. to the implementation of Paris Agreement. However, in reality, U.S. withdrawal will impact the flourishing international climate regime as never before.
First, the withdrawal of the U.S. from the Paris Agreement shows that the U.S. has turned into a consumer rather than a support supplier of responses to global climate change governance. The transition of the U.S. from consumer to supplier will greatly weaken the supply of global public goods and affect the willingness of other suppliers (Bloomberg, 2016), thus negatively affecting the efficacy of the implementation Paris Agreement. In the global context, the withdrawal of the U.S. from the Paris Agreement is not merely a climate issue but an issue linked with geological political relationships among main economies. Therefore, it has crucial implications in international political economics and will greatly influence the environmental political balance between China and the U.S., the U.S. and the EU, and China and the EU.
According to the Financial Budget of the U.S. in its 2018 Fiscal Year, the budgets for international climate activities by the Department of State and USAID have been cut by US$ 10.9 billion or by 28.7% together. The financial support to Global Climate Change Initiatives has been canceled. The Global Climate Change Initiatives support all climate-related bilateral actions that track and reduce emissions and enhance the capacity of developing countries to develop renewable energy, as well as provide financial support to the UNFCCC and IPCC. In addition, the contribution of the U.S. to the Green Climate Fund has been canceled. The Obama administration previously committed US$ 3 billion to help developing countries mitigate climate impacts. The Obama administration has paid US$ 1 billion. The remaining funds have been canceled.
Third, although the withdrawal of the U.S. from the Paris Agreement impacts the effectiveness and extensiveness of global climate governance, it is not enough to change the global emission structure. However, if the U.S. refuses to fulfill the commitments in its NDC, it will be a bad example for other countries. Other countries might reverse their positions in international climate change or take no actions, thus harming the cooperation established among countries and shocking the global cooperation mechanism. Analysis has shown that India and China have provided great contributions to reduce GHG emissions in light of their active mitigation policies. In 2030, global carbon emissions will be reduced by 2–3 billion tCO2. This figure is considerably higher than the 400 million tCO2 claimed by Trump (Höhne et al., 2017). If Trump's climate policy is fully implemented, U.S. emissions will remain constant instead of decreasing.
2.2. Impact on the political reputation and international cooperation of the U.S.
The withdrawal of the U.S. from the Paris Agreement opposes climate justice and sustainable development. Denying the climate policy of the former president will harm the international image of the U.S. as a responsible country. This move will further break up the confidence of the alliance between the U.S. and the EU. In fact, the Prime Minister of Germany, Merkel, has already claimed the time has ended when the U.S. and the EU could completely believe each other. She also called for EU citizens to hold their fates in their own hands. Therefore, the U.S. will lose its leadership in climate issues because of its withdrawal from the Paris Agreement.
2.3. Impact on the long-term economic development of the U.S.
The withdrawal from the Paris Agreement will improve the U.S. economy for the short- but not the long run. The support on domestic traditional fossil fuel sector could lead to the short-lived prosperity of the sector. However, the coal industry of the U.S. is overloaded. Renewable power is as cheap as or cheaper than coal power. To rebuild the coal industry is not sustainable. The global energy market has greatly changed in the past 10 years. Wind and solar energy have become cheaper. In many countries, renewable energy is as cost effective as fossil energy. Since 2015, most newly installed power plants have provided renewable energy. Though the overall investment value has decreased by 1/4, investment in renewable energy has increased by 9% in 2016 compared with that in 2015 (IEA, 2016). State governments and the market mechanism in the U.S. have strong influence on the development of renewable energy. Despite the lack of support from the federal government, the renewable energy sector still has support from almost 30 states, including the states of New York and California. In addition, Apple, Amazon, and Microsoft also support climate change actions. Therefore, what Trump called America First is probably only an election slogan.
2.4. Impact on the climate change response of developing countries
One of Trump's reasons for withdrawing the U.S. from the Paris Agreement is that developing countries lack mitigation effort. In addition, he can still link environmental and trade issues to make developing countries take on environmental responsibilities and obey environmental standards similar to that of developed countries. Hence, the equity and space for development in developing countries will be narrowed down and crowded out. On the other hand, without the U.S.'s commitment, to fully implement the targets of the Paris Agreement large developing countries will be forced to take on more burden. From a third aspect, the U.S. has cut off or decreased financial support to international cooperation and organizations on climate change, such as UNFCCC and IPCC. Large developing countries will have to provide more financial support. Fourth, from the strategic aspect, climate cooperation between the U.S. and China, as a highlight of overall China–U.S. relations, will be weakened. To some extent, it will also negatively affect science and technology cooperation between China and the U.S. Finally, some developing countries might be expected to do more. For example, the world has a great expectation for China to take the leadership in global climate governance. However, the capability of China to take on such a responsibility, even it is the biggest developing country, should first be evaluated.
An Outside view (from India)
India’s views on climate change have little to do with the US, or any other country. In the past, issues of “who’s to blame” underpinned all negotiations. The current leadership is focused on growth and action, and, in fact, treats sustainability (especially growing renewable energy, or RE) as “an article of faith.” Whatever calculations India has on its NDCs remain independent of U.S. actions, and there are direct negative implications or virtually no immediate for India, and there are no global carbon prices to jump or fall.
Some may argue that India is no longer bound to undertake undue or heroic efforts, but with falling prices for clean tech, it’s possible that much of India’s actions are more market driven than a costly choice just to “do the right thing.” In fact, it’s possible that any reduction in U.S. clean tech deployment may make more technology and funding available for India. India welcomes global capital for its scale and low interest rates.
United States and India collaborate extensively on energy and clean energy, including through the U.S.-India Clean Energy Finance Task Force, which also draws in the private sector through complementary mechanisms. These efforts will likely continue as India represents an enormous (and now even more important) market for U.S. suppliers. The energy market is far more important in India as overall demand is still growing by some 6-7% annually, and RE is targeted to grow by 25 percent annually, based on Indian plans announced even before the Paris Accord.
Is the United States leaving a vacuum? Numerous analysts talk of Chinese leadership, in which case India may not publicly embrace them, despite the fact that Chinese manufacturing fuels much of Indian solar panels (no solar cells are made in India, just assembled in to panels in India). India is also positioning itself as a sustainability leader, with Prime Minister Modi spearheading the International Solar Alliance (ISA) at Paris. Again, this effort benefits from U.S. support, but isn’t dependent on it.
Conclusions and discussions
1. Global response to climate change is in the right direction and remains the main theme of international cooperation
The international climate regime is dealing on requires scarce strategic resources allocation and public goods. It influences international politics and economic structure. The evolution of the climate regime combines efforts from scientific studies, international political and economic development, stakeholders, and other aspects (Richard, 2017). The Paris Agreement has proposed a long-run goal to fight for. It also encourages all possible entities to join and protects the rights and obligations of parties. Its mechanism of implementation and compliance emphasize transparency, non-confrontation, and non-punishment. It shows that the art of negotiation requires compromise and practice. Thus, it allows the NDC to be implemented without the influence of any other countries. The importance of the U.S. is decreasing as its total contribution to total global emission is decreasing. From a global view, although the effectiveness of the Paris Agreement is not as high as before because of the withdrawal of the U.S., other parties will still make active efforts to implement its policies and fulfill their commitments.
2. Climate governance has entered an era in which non-parties start count
IPCC AR5 has summarized the structure of the Paris Agreement and mechanism on global climate change and proposed that the UNFCCC acts as the axis, whereas non-UNFCCC institutions act as the spikes (IPCC, 2014). Climate negotiation is entering a new era. Although conflicts remain, the essence of negotiation is the effort of taking responsibility for important global affairs. The objectives of climate negotiation are to set up proper global climate governance (Du, 2014; Zou et al., 2015). The substance of responding to climate change is to lead the global society to a complete transformation to a low-carbon and green society. Hence, achieving sustainable development will benefit all human beings. Climate negotiation should make various parties come to a consensus in building a global climate regime. Despite some present difficulties, global climate governance is in the right direction of seeking on-confrontational and win–win cooperation. Governments, companies, and civil societies are gathering together and sharing the benefits of green transformation.
Putting aside the withdrawal of the U.S. from the Paris Agreement and the fluctuation in climate negotiation, global climate governance is stepping into a new era. It is different from that in 1992, when the UNFCCC was first started and lead by the U.S. and EU. There was a big gap then between the North and the South. It is also different from what it was in 2001, when the U.S. refused to sign the Kyoto Protocol and the EU hesitated to take the lead. It is still different from what it was in 2009, when EU could not balance all powers and negotiation broke. The single and double polarizations of the global climate governance have lost their positions. Multiple countries and country groups are taking the floor together. Despite country parties, sub-national entities are also making their efforts e.g. local governments, cities, companies, NGOs, individuals, and other non-parties. The participants are diversified in global climate governance.
3. Strengthening technological innovation becomes more realistic
The core issue in the framework of the sustainable response to climate change is not to exert negative impacts on economy and society. Through technological and institutional innovation, people could reduce GHGs to achieve low-carbon or non-carbon development (Thomlinson et al., 2008). A low-carbon technology system is being formulated and is a crucial signal for promoting national competitive power. Therefore, strengthening cooperation among companies, cities, universities, and academics is the right direction for international climate governance to take. Although the U.S. government has stepped back on climate policies, climate technology and research in the U.S. remain strong. Local governments and civil communities substantially cooperate on pilot projects and technology research and development. The carbon-driven standard system should be established. Policies should be used to stimulate investment in low-carbon technology. Different policy tools and financing models should be used given that technologies in different countries are in different stages and types. International cooperation on climate technologies should be promoted.
4. Enforcing the capacity building of climate scientific research and public awareness
Climate change deniers will always exist and are one of the obstacles to the mitigation of climate change. The main tasks for improving the international response to climate change include the enforcement of the study on basic climate science; the enhancement of the awareness of climate change; and the reduction of the uncertainties on climate change forecasts, attributions, and risk assessment. In addition, the potential economic benefits of green and low-carbon technologies are another important aspect for policy making. The economic analysis on green and low-carbon technologies and energy transformation will support decision making and actions.
Related Questions
drjack9650@gmail.com
Navigate
Integrity-first tutoring: explanations and feedback only — we do not complete graded work. Learn more.