Financial Times - Donald Trump opts for isolation in exit from Paris accord
the media pirateJune 2, 2017 year.
America loses most from the decision to abandon multilateral action.
The decision to withdraw from the Paris accord on climate change is the clearest expression of Donald Trump’s contempt for a rules-based international order. It is both an abdication of responsibility for the single biggest threat the world faces and a deliberate effort to undermine the principle of multilateral action.
It is undeniably damaging. The task of limiting and mitigating climate change can only become harder without the US. Given the voluntary nature of the Paris accord, there is a risk that countries who were reluctant to sign up initially will now backslide on their commitments or set less ambitious targets for emissions cuts in future.
Nevertheless, the G7, EU and China have shown their resolve to press ahead with the transition to a low carbon economy — a shift that increasingly makes commercial sense. Whether one views leadership in clean energy in terms of job creation and industrial opportunity or as a source of geopolitical influence, America stands to lose most from this decision.
There are reasons to hope the practical effect of the US pullout will be limited. After all, Mr Trump was already unpicking his predecessor’s clean power plan, the main policy underpinning the US target to cut emissions from 2005 levels by 26-28 per cent by 2025. It is arguably better to have the US openly scrap its commitments than for it to stay in the accord and render it meaningless by its failure to act.
Moreover, state governments are stepping up their efforts to counteract federal policy. California and a number of smaller states already have their own emissions trading schemes and regulations to encourage decarbonisation. Their influence is considerable, because manufacturers often find it easier to work to a single standard, even if other states are less demanding.
In any case, market conditions tend to make more difference to emissions than policy. The improvement seen in recent years was chiefly due to slower economic growth and the switch to cheaper, cleaner natural gas. Now, the falling cost of renewable energy is driving a rapid shift to green technology that many companies view as a commercial opportunity.
The irony of Mr Trump’s claim to act in defence of American jobs is that the solar and wind industries now employ almost three times as many people in the US as coal mining and generation. Carmakers have invested heavily in the development of electric vehicles. Industrial titans such as GE, which now have big interests in green technology, fear the stigma of the US pull-out will deter investment and hurt their sales.
International opprobrium is the right response to Mr Trump’s act of vandalism, but it is not enough. The EU and China have declared their resolve to sustain international action even in America’s absence. They must now act on it, including by finding ways to keep poorer countries engaged, if US financial support is no longer forthcoming.
There is a case to go further and explore ways to penalise countries that fail to contribute to the global effort on climate change. Carbon border taxes — to be imposed on imports from climate laggards — may be desirable but they are practically problematic. Participants in the Paris accord should make it clear that they will not tolerate free riders. They should look at ways to encourage wider agreement on regulatory standards, and develop schemes to certify low-carbon intensity that could be adopted by companies or state and regional governments.
There will be no straightforward answers. But countries that ignore their responsibility on climate change will pay a price.
Read more paid articles free: https://t.me/media_pirate