Polluting the Paris agreement
Developing nations will now be even less inclined to curb their greenhouse gas production
The writer has a master’s degree in conflict-resolution from Monterey Institute of International Studies in California and tweets at @ksabina
Many Americans expressed their disappointment and outrage as Trump stated his intent to withdraw the US from the Paris climate agreement. However, before we go any further, it is important to realise that the US can’t formally leave the agreement till November 20, 2020, which is after the next presidential election. Although Trump’s first term doesn’t end until the following January, he may only be able to pull the US out of the agreement for a matter of weeks if he doesn’t secure a second term. Details aside, should Americans be upset about the move, or are there valid reasons to have second thoughts about their commitments laid out in the accord?
The Paris climate agreement focuses on reducing greenhouse gas emissions, which scientists almost unanimously believe is the leading cause of global warming. China is the highest emitter of carbon dioxide (CO2), producing 30% of the global output, but it has nearly 1.4 billion people compared to 325 million for the US which is second on the list with 15% ownership stake. The EU and India trail behind at 9% and 7%, respectively.
Both India and China have played a game with words and committed to reducing ‘carbon intensity’ by 2030. The intensity is based upon a ratio of CO2 produce per the gross domestic product of each nation. Using 2005 as a baseline, a year that had dramatic carbon emissions in respect to their GDP, means they can keep cruising at their current pace and meet the so called ‘carbon intensity’ commitment with zero effort. Both countries have been criticised for setting easily achievable goals based on their current trajectories. China, to their credit, did additionally commit to peak total CO2 output by 2030. India’s most meaningful contribution was a promise to produce 40% of power from non-fossil fuel sources by 2030, which would be an improvement of 7% over present day levels. Meanwhile, Pakistan’s pathetic participation was remiss of any quantifiable pledge. The rest of the world must have looked the other way since Pakistan has at least ensured that 1/3 of the population doesn’t have access to any power, regardless of the source.
As with most developed nations, the US set a goal of reducing net greenhouse gas emissions. Its promise is to reduce CO2 levels by 26% to 28% from 2005 levels by 2025. It is hardly an easy mark to hit, but the US net emissions are already down about 9% due to market and policy-related factors, including a shift from coal to natural gas, growth in renewable energy and improved vehicle efficiency. The majority of US emissions reductions to date have been a result of switching from coal to natural gas in power plants and because the government actively incentivises green energy. Trump is signalling a reverse to this trend by promoting coal and oil production and consumption again.
Ultimately though, Trump’s attempt to pull the US out of the Paris agreement doesn’t mean it will intensify their impact on the environment. The reduction in US carbon emissions will likely continue, whether he likes it or not. Individual US states are already stepping up and sidestepping Trump, for instance California signed an agreement with China to reduce emissions and Hawaii has taken steps to stay in the Paris accord on their own. The larger impact is fracturing of a symbolic agreement amongst almost all nations that action needs to be taken to prevent irreparable man-caused climate change impacts. Developing nations will now be even less inclined to curb their greenhouse gas production when a world power, responsible for a century of high CO2 output, refuses to make good on their own commitments.
Published in The Express Tribune, June 13th, 2017.
The Paris climate agreement focuses on reducing greenhouse gas emissions, which scientists almost unanimously believe is the leading cause of global warming. China is the highest emitter of carbon dioxide (CO2), producing 30% of the global output, but it has nearly 1.4 billion people compared to 325 million for the US which is second on the list with 15% ownership stake. The EU and India trail behind at 9% and 7%, respectively.
Both India and China have played a game with words and committed to reducing ‘carbon intensity’ by 2030. The intensity is based upon a ratio of CO2 produce per the gross domestic product of each nation. Using 2005 as a baseline, a year that had dramatic carbon emissions in respect to their GDP, means they can keep cruising at their current pace and meet the so called ‘carbon intensity’ commitment with zero effort. Both countries have been criticised for setting easily achievable goals based on their current trajectories. China, to their credit, did additionally commit to peak total CO2 output by 2030. India’s most meaningful contribution was a promise to produce 40% of power from non-fossil fuel sources by 2030, which would be an improvement of 7% over present day levels. Meanwhile, Pakistan’s pathetic participation was remiss of any quantifiable pledge. The rest of the world must have looked the other way since Pakistan has at least ensured that 1/3 of the population doesn’t have access to any power, regardless of the source.
As with most developed nations, the US set a goal of reducing net greenhouse gas emissions. Its promise is to reduce CO2 levels by 26% to 28% from 2005 levels by 2025. It is hardly an easy mark to hit, but the US net emissions are already down about 9% due to market and policy-related factors, including a shift from coal to natural gas, growth in renewable energy and improved vehicle efficiency. The majority of US emissions reductions to date have been a result of switching from coal to natural gas in power plants and because the government actively incentivises green energy. Trump is signalling a reverse to this trend by promoting coal and oil production and consumption again.
Ultimately though, Trump’s attempt to pull the US out of the Paris agreement doesn’t mean it will intensify their impact on the environment. The reduction in US carbon emissions will likely continue, whether he likes it or not. Individual US states are already stepping up and sidestepping Trump, for instance California signed an agreement with China to reduce emissions and Hawaii has taken steps to stay in the Paris accord on their own. The larger impact is fracturing of a symbolic agreement amongst almost all nations that action needs to be taken to prevent irreparable man-caused climate change impacts. Developing nations will now be even less inclined to curb their greenhouse gas production when a world power, responsible for a century of high CO2 output, refuses to make good on their own commitments.
Published in The Express Tribune, June 13th, 2017.