Yesterday, as was widely expected, President Donald Trump announced that the U.S. government would formally withdraw from the Paris Climate Agreement (see previous posts for what this agreement says and requires). In doing so, he stated that this extraordinary action was a “reassertion of America’s sovereignty,” and would undo the “unfair” burdens placed on American workers and eliminate the “draconian financial and economic burdens the agreement imposes on our country.” He justified this action by saying, in part, “I was elected to represent the citizens of Pittsburgh — not Paris.” The process of withdrawing from the Paris Agreement will take more than three years to complete, but in the interim, Trump made clear that his administration will cease implementation of its terms. With this action, he has led our country to join only two others in the entire world—Nicaragua and Syria—that are not signatories to the Agreement.
I generally do not use this blog to opine about political matters or take sides on specific public policy initiatives. In this case, however, I believe that the stakes are too high for me to remain on the sidelines.
There are so many things wrong with this decision that it is difficult to know where to start and challenging to condense these flaws into a short-format presentation. I will do my best, summarizing what I think are the most significant points, many of which have already been raised by world and business leaders and other concerned parties.
The factual premise for withdrawing is wrong. Trump claims that the Agreement places unreasonable burdens on American businesses and gives developing nations an unfair advantage. In reality, the Agreement has very weak enforcement provisions and allows each country to set its own emissions reduction targets. Trump could have revised (downward) the ambitious targets set by the Obama Administration and remained in full compliance with the Agreement. Instead, he has chosen a much more radical alternative based on a premise that is simply untrue.
The decision is morally bankrupt and irresponsible. Although the U.S. is now the world’s second largest emitter of greenhouse gases (GHG), during the last century our country has released more GHGs than any other country. Accordingly, it is only reasonable that we own our fair share of solving the problem of global climate change, which is without reasonable doubt occurring due to past and ongoing GHG emissions. The bill for the fossil-fuel based prosperity of the 20th century is coming due, and we have to pay our share. By yesterday’s action, and others along the way, Trump explicitly disclaims this responsibility.
It makes our country look weak, foolish, and untrustworthy. The Paris Agreement took years to negotiate, and reflects many features insisted upon by our own negotiators. These features include full participation by all developing countries and the ability of each country to set its own emission reduction targets. Having extracted these concessions, our country is now reneging on the deal due to political considerations. It’s not much of a stretch to think that other countries will think twice before supporting us again in a risky multinational venture, particularly after Trump’s interactions with our closest allies in Europe last week. As noted extensively in the media, this is yet the latest sign that American leadership in the world is on the decline. You can bet that the people in the Kremlin are all smiles.
As further evidence of the geopolitical impact of Trump’s action, I was watching CNN’s “Erin Burnett Outfront” last night, and noted with interest the statement made by David Gergen, a former Reagan Administration official and Wall Street Journal editorialist, and no wild-eyed liberal. He said:
“Some 70 years ago, the United States entered an international agreement called the Marshall Plan, when we came to the aid of Europe, and it was one of the noblest acts in human history.”
“Today we walked away from the rest of the world, and it’s one of the most shameful acts in our history.”
Indeed.
The decision is out of step with the direction set by other levels of government. Thirty states and dozens of cities around the country have established aggressive targets, requirements, and programs to both reduce GHG emissions and move to non-fossil fuel power generation. And in a display of adroit timing, New York Gov. Cuomo unveiled a plan for investing $1.5 billion in renewable energy and energy efficiency shortly after Trump’s announcement. These and many other ongoing policy initiatives suggest that the strong momentum toward cleaner energy and reduced GHG emissions will continue, despite this retreat at the federal level. And Pittsburgh’s Mayor, Bill Peduto, tweeted that notwithstanding Trump’s applause line noted above, his city “will follow the guidelines of the Paris Agreement for our people, our economy & future.”
This backdoor attempt to promote coal use will not succeed. Trump has chosen to keep a very unwise campaign promise, presumably to give him a badly needed “win” for his core constituency. On the campaign trail, Trump was very vocal and persistent in promoting the idea that making America great again included reviving industries subject to foreign competition, technology change, and other disruptions. The coal industry was a particular focus, and his message was undoubtedly a factor in helping Trump secure the voter support in the upper Midwest that enabled his election. To the extent that Trump sees withdrawing from the Paris Agreement as a means of restoring coal to its glory days, he and his supporters will be very disappointed. Demand for coal in the U.S. and internationally has been steadily declining for years, and this trend will almost certainly continue. In contrast, renewable energy technology is growing very rapidly in this country and around the world. In fact, more jobs were added in the solar power industry in the U.S. last year than the total number of domestic coal mining jobs. If he really wanted to help out-of-work coal miners and their communities, Trump would support more job skills training and community redevelopment rather than cutting them and other features of the social safety net.
Those allegedly helped opposed withdrawing. Many prominent members of the business community urged Trump, through both private and very public communications, to not renounce the Agreement. In addition to the Pope and many foreign heads of state, these people included the leadership of several very large oil companies (including ExxonMobil, BP, Chevron, and ConocoPhillips), precisely the types of people who have the most at stake if carbon emissions are constrained. Yet they joined with many other corporate leaders and Trump’s own Secretary of State, the former CEO of ExxonMobil, to plead with Trump to not take this action. As reported in the Washington Post, Elon Musk (Tesla) and Bob Iger (Disney), both resigned from the president’s advisory council after Trump’s announcement. And Lloyd Blankfein, chief executive of Goldman Sachs, tweeted that Trump’s decision “is a setback for the environment and for the U.S.’s leadership position in the world.”
U.S. businesses will be hurt. American cleantech companies seeking to do business globally may face a chilly reception from this point forward. Prospective customers in other nations may reasonably ask why they should buy goods from a country that is not doing its fair share to address a serious global problem that it played a major role in creating. Already, in the wake of yesterday’s announcement, the leaders of Germany and China have conferred and released a statement declaring their intention to work together to promote cleantech solutions. Note that German and Chinese companies are the principal international competition for our domestic solar, wind, and other clean energy technology companies.
Finally, last but by no means least.
If accompanied by further policy and investment changes, disaster awaits. Without U.S. participation, or at least aggressive ongoing action to reduce emissions outside of the Agreement’s framework, it will be essentially impossible to reach the international consensus goal of limiting the ongoing rise in global temperature to less than 2° C by 2100. Temperatures above this level will unleash increasing, cascading effects on weather, ocean currents, rainfall patterns, and the health and productivity of natural and agricultural systems. Massive human population shifts, deaths, disease, and conflict will assuredly follow. If you believe that recent superstorms, droughts, floods, tornados, and other phenomena have been severe and caused substantial human pain and suffering, you haven’t seen anything yet.
