Reluctant Reaction

In this post I’m reacting, reluctantly, to President Trump’s announcement yesterday that the U. S. would begin the process of withdrawing from the Paris Agreement, the global agreement-in-principle on reducing carbon emissions. I’m commenting because it’s obviously yesterday’s biggest news story and has elicited substantial comment. Reluctant because of how little of the commentary on the move heretofore has been objective, fair-minded, empirical or, frankly, anything other than putting down markers on what you think about Trump (or the United States) and I find the entire subject a thankless task.

I think the president erred. Of the available alternatives I think the best would have been to do nothing. We could have maintained the kabuki put in place by President Obama indefinitely. As it is we’re getting the worst international press without getting much benefit from it. The editors of Le Monde are basically saying that we’re throwing in the towel on climate change and abrogating leadership:

Le monde assiste à une séquence diplomatique sans précédent. Sur l’un des sujets les plus graves de l’heure pour l’avenir de la planète – le réchauffement climatique –, l’Amérique se retire. Elle renonce à l’exercice de son « leadership ». Elle ne sera ni un exemple ni un guide. Elle rapetisse, pays continent replié sur lui-même et accusant les autres de lui vouloir du mal. Par la voix de Donald Trump, c’est l’Amérique du Charles Lindbergh de 1940, du nom du pionnier de l’aviation civile et ardent opposant à l’entrée des Etats-Unis dans la deuxième guerre mondiale, qui s’est exprimée, jeudi 1er juin à Washington.

L’Amérique, reniant les engagements pris et ardemment défendus par Barack Obama, quitte l’accord de Paris sur la lutte contre les émissions de gaz à effet de serre. Elle fuit la bataille pour le climat. Elle ne participera pas aux efforts décidés par les 194 autres pays signataires. Elle estime ne plus avoir d’obligations à cet égard – ni techniques ni financières. Elle juge que son développement économique en serait entravé, a dit M. Trump.

They characterize the move as “defeatist”. The Der Spiegel columnist Thomas Fricke follows suit:

Die Welt reagiert mit Entsetzen auf Donald Trumps Entscheidung, die USA aus dem Pariser Klimaabkommen herauszulösen. Staatschefs schimpfen, Umweltorganisationen drohen mit Klagen, selbst große Energiefirmen können nicht fassen, dass der Präsident diesen Schritt wirklich gegangen ist.

Es ist ja auch richtig: Trumps Wende ist eine Bankrotterklärung der Vereinigten Staaten in vielfacher Hinsicht. Sie ist zynisch, weil der Präsident bei einem Thema, in dem es um Leben und Tod geht, agierte, als wäre er der Macher einer Gameshow. Sie ist gefährlich, weil sie offenlegt, wie groß Trumps innerer Drang ist, der Weltgemeinschaft den Mittelfinger zu zeigen, egal, was es kostet. Sie ist verantwortungslos, weil der Präsident so tut, als sei die Haltung zum Klimawandel nicht mehr als ein Chip im Poker um geopolitischen Einfluss. Vor allem aber ist sie dumm, weil die Wende im Kern darauf basiert, die Kohleindustrie zu stärken, eine sterbende Energie. (Lesen Sie hier mehr zu den möglichen Auswirkungen der US-Entscheidung.)

calling the move a declaration of moral and political bankruptcy on the part of the U. S. The Guardian reports:

Trump’s move has been met with a chorus of disapproval from global leaders and blue chip companies including Facebook, Apple, Ford and Microsoft.

A number of the governors of US states have vowed to ignore Washington. The mayor of Pittsburgh also fired back against Trump, who told reporters on Thursday: “I was elected to represent the citizens of Pittsburgh, not Paris.”

Bill Peduto wrote on Twitter: “Fact: Hillary Clinton received 80% of the vote in Pittsburgh. Pittsburgh stands with the world and will follow Paris agreement. As the mayor of Pittsburgh, I can assure you that we will follow the guidelines of the Paris agreement for our people, our economy and future.”

The German chancellor, Angela Merkel, said Trump “can’t and won’t stop all those of us who feel obliged to protect the planet”. She said the move by the US to join just Nicaragua and Syria outside the accord was “extremely regrettable and that’s putting it very mildly”.

Li Keqiang, the Chinese premier, and Jean-Claude Juncker, the European commission president, also spoke together on Friday morning of the importance of continued international cooperation to defeat global warming.

I fail to see what the U. S. gains from the announcement.

The Paris Agreement is not a good one and never has been—mostly an exercise in feelgoodery. It relies on countries to adhere to “nationally determined contributions” on a strictly voluntary basis. The U. S. communique on its first NDC is here.

For it to have any legal standing in the United States, it should have been formally submitted to the Senate where two-thirds of the senators would have needed to vote in approval. President Obama never saw fit to expend political capital on the agreement, to lobby for it, or even to attempt to strike bargains to achieve approval.

Although the United States is frequently singled out as an offender, that’s not entirely fair. Per capita carbon emissions in the U. S. are about what they were 50 years ago. On an overall basis (the only really important statistic) China emits a total of about twice as much carbon as does the U. S. We emit carbon on a per capita basis at a high rate but our rate is lower than Australia’s and not much different than Canada’s. Our total emissions are high because we’re the most populous rich country and our per capita emissions are high because we’re rich and geographically large. Our emissions are trending in the right direction; China’s, Russia’s, and India’s aren’t.

My own views are that I think that human-produce carbon emissions probably have some effect on climate, the models tell us directionality but probably not quantity or timing, and the neoliberal strategies that have been proffered to date are both regressive and ineffective. To me the record seems to show that carbon emissions increase geometrically with income. Few would find the most obvious solutions appealing: don’t import anything from China, reduce the U. S. population, impose draconian taxes on the mega-wealthy. That’s why I tend to turn to technological solutions.