Memorandum on the Effectiveness of the Paris Climate Accords
To: Donald Trump, President of the United States
From: Adam Steber, Secretary of State
Date: April 25, 2018
Re: The Effectiveness of the Paris Climate Accords
Introduction
The Paris Climate Agreement is an historic agreement which was proposed in 2015, and brought into effect in 2016. The United States originally ratified this treaty under President Obama, though you, Mr. President, have announced your intention to withdraw from the agreement, which would go into effect by November 2020. This would make us only one of three nations, alongside Nicaragua and Syria, to not be part of the agreement, as well as the only developed nation.
There is no purpose for the United States to abide at all by the agreement, while leaving the agreement would spare us a great many long-term political, economic, and environmental drawbacks. The United States has a $3 billion obligation to the Green Fund, in which they must give that money to developing nations so that they can invest it in cleaner energy or other environmental projects. This agreement is as of yet non-binding. The U.S. emits one-fourth of the world's greenhouse gases. However, while America has its own environmental issues, they can and must be debated on our own without the overhead of 195 other countries.
Evidence
As of yet, much of the framework of the Paris Agreement is ambiguous, to the extent that we cannot know what we are agreeing to.
Most concerning of all is the fact that there is no set definition outlined in the agreement of what constitutes a "developing nation." As such, it is unclear who must pay for the climate development of others. However, there are implications that the BRICS nations are considered "developing countries," despite all being in the top 10 in total GDP (with the exception of South Africa).
As of April 20, 2018, not a single BRICS nation, including China, has contributed any money to the green fund. This is despite the fact that China is the world's largest polluter, even beyond that of the United States, with India and Russia polluting at similar levels. Meanwhile, the United States currently pledges the highest annual contribution of any nation in the Green Fund, at $3 billion. This number is almost a third of the entire fund. Meanwhile, other "developed" countries such as Denmark, Ireland, New Zealand, Belgium, or Austria have all contributed less than $100 million apiece. These are all countries that are cleaner than the United States and can therefore afford to shell out more money for the fund. As a result, we end up with a NATO-type of situation where countries that can afford to pay into the fund do not do so, under the pretense that the $3 billion a year is "non-binding."
Beyond that, there is also the concern of where the money from the Green Fund actually goes. One should question, for example, the motives of countries like Palestine, North Korea, Saudi Arabia, or Iran for joining the agreement. These countries, especially Iran and North Korea, are difficult to enforce in terms of environmental protection, and they are already at odds with the U.S. with regards to nuclear development. To give them money is to risking potentially funding their nuclear weapons programs.
Finally, one of the clauses of the treaty is "Acknowledging that climate change is a common concern of humankind, Parties should, when taking action to address climate change, respect, promote and consider their respective obligations on human rights, the right to health, the rights of indigenous peoples, local communities, migrants, children, persons with disabilities and people in vulnerable situations and the right to development, as well as gender equality, empowerment of women and intergenerational equity." While these are all important concerns on their own, their inclusion seems somewhat out of place in a document primarily about climate change, as if climate change itself (and by extension these Accords) is merely a means to an end for a different political issue.
In short, the economic arrangements look like little more than wealth transfer away from the United States, while the political arrangements smack of an agenda being pushed against the United States.
Implementation
There is no reason for the United States to remain within the framework of the Paris Climate Accords, and there are too many things that would need to change for the U.S. to demand a reform. It would require other wealthy nations to drastically step up their spending, or a clarification on what constitutes a "developing" nation. It would require countries like China to be imposed with even more stringent requirements than America about reducing its carbon footprint. It would require powers like Iran or North Korea to be transparent about their environmental programs, while we already have problems with their transparency regarding their nuclear weapons programs. Too easily can these issues delve into UN-type geopolitical struggles that the U.S. cannot find itself leaving. The Paris Accords may prove to be another United Nations where nothing gets done because too many states, especially if the four other Security Council members cannot agree on any issues regarding money or "developing" status.
Therefore, it is imperative that you leave the agreement, and that you be sure to do so before the next inauguration in 2021. If you do not, then the U.S. will continue to artificially prop up the organization without any benefit to American interests, even ones which are environmental in nature.
Some may argue that pulling out of the Paris Accords would prove detrimental to America's image as a cooperative power. However, what would be even more detrimental to the U.S.' image abroad is either for you or your predecessor to decide to continue with the agreement even after we have announced our withdrawal. It demonstrates to the world a United States that is wishy-washy, especially with regards to a media which will take any opportunity to criticize you.
The unwillingness of countries like China, India, or Russia to pay for developing nations despite their heavy amounts of pollution, for the U.S. to foot a third of the bill on climate spending for 195 nations, and for the U.S.' need to reduce its own emissions (let alone those of potentially climate indifferent nations) means that the Paris Climate Accord is a bad deal that the United States simply cannot afford to be a part of right now.
From: Adam Steber, Secretary of State
Date: April 25, 2018
Re: The Effectiveness of the Paris Climate Accords
Introduction
The Paris Climate Agreement is an historic agreement which was proposed in 2015, and brought into effect in 2016. The United States originally ratified this treaty under President Obama, though you, Mr. President, have announced your intention to withdraw from the agreement, which would go into effect by November 2020. This would make us only one of three nations, alongside Nicaragua and Syria, to not be part of the agreement, as well as the only developed nation.
There is no purpose for the United States to abide at all by the agreement, while leaving the agreement would spare us a great many long-term political, economic, and environmental drawbacks. The United States has a $3 billion obligation to the Green Fund, in which they must give that money to developing nations so that they can invest it in cleaner energy or other environmental projects. This agreement is as of yet non-binding. The U.S. emits one-fourth of the world's greenhouse gases. However, while America has its own environmental issues, they can and must be debated on our own without the overhead of 195 other countries.
Evidence
As of yet, much of the framework of the Paris Agreement is ambiguous, to the extent that we cannot know what we are agreeing to.
Most concerning of all is the fact that there is no set definition outlined in the agreement of what constitutes a "developing nation." As such, it is unclear who must pay for the climate development of others. However, there are implications that the BRICS nations are considered "developing countries," despite all being in the top 10 in total GDP (with the exception of South Africa).
As of April 20, 2018, not a single BRICS nation, including China, has contributed any money to the green fund. This is despite the fact that China is the world's largest polluter, even beyond that of the United States, with India and Russia polluting at similar levels. Meanwhile, the United States currently pledges the highest annual contribution of any nation in the Green Fund, at $3 billion. This number is almost a third of the entire fund. Meanwhile, other "developed" countries such as Denmark, Ireland, New Zealand, Belgium, or Austria have all contributed less than $100 million apiece. These are all countries that are cleaner than the United States and can therefore afford to shell out more money for the fund. As a result, we end up with a NATO-type of situation where countries that can afford to pay into the fund do not do so, under the pretense that the $3 billion a year is "non-binding."
Beyond that, there is also the concern of where the money from the Green Fund actually goes. One should question, for example, the motives of countries like Palestine, North Korea, Saudi Arabia, or Iran for joining the agreement. These countries, especially Iran and North Korea, are difficult to enforce in terms of environmental protection, and they are already at odds with the U.S. with regards to nuclear development. To give them money is to risking potentially funding their nuclear weapons programs.
Finally, one of the clauses of the treaty is "Acknowledging that climate change is a common concern of humankind, Parties should, when taking action to address climate change, respect, promote and consider their respective obligations on human rights, the right to health, the rights of indigenous peoples, local communities, migrants, children, persons with disabilities and people in vulnerable situations and the right to development, as well as gender equality, empowerment of women and intergenerational equity." While these are all important concerns on their own, their inclusion seems somewhat out of place in a document primarily about climate change, as if climate change itself (and by extension these Accords) is merely a means to an end for a different political issue.
In short, the economic arrangements look like little more than wealth transfer away from the United States, while the political arrangements smack of an agenda being pushed against the United States.
Implementation
There is no reason for the United States to remain within the framework of the Paris Climate Accords, and there are too many things that would need to change for the U.S. to demand a reform. It would require other wealthy nations to drastically step up their spending, or a clarification on what constitutes a "developing" nation. It would require countries like China to be imposed with even more stringent requirements than America about reducing its carbon footprint. It would require powers like Iran or North Korea to be transparent about their environmental programs, while we already have problems with their transparency regarding their nuclear weapons programs. Too easily can these issues delve into UN-type geopolitical struggles that the U.S. cannot find itself leaving. The Paris Accords may prove to be another United Nations where nothing gets done because too many states, especially if the four other Security Council members cannot agree on any issues regarding money or "developing" status.
Therefore, it is imperative that you leave the agreement, and that you be sure to do so before the next inauguration in 2021. If you do not, then the U.S. will continue to artificially prop up the organization without any benefit to American interests, even ones which are environmental in nature.
Some may argue that pulling out of the Paris Accords would prove detrimental to America's image as a cooperative power. However, what would be even more detrimental to the U.S.' image abroad is either for you or your predecessor to decide to continue with the agreement even after we have announced our withdrawal. It demonstrates to the world a United States that is wishy-washy, especially with regards to a media which will take any opportunity to criticize you.
The unwillingness of countries like China, India, or Russia to pay for developing nations despite their heavy amounts of pollution, for the U.S. to foot a third of the bill on climate spending for 195 nations, and for the U.S.' need to reduce its own emissions (let alone those of potentially climate indifferent nations) means that the Paris Climate Accord is a bad deal that the United States simply cannot afford to be a part of right now.
I agree with the points that other countries should help to pay for developing countries but leaving the agreement is not in our best interest. I would disagree that there would be no benefit to American interests as this is a very important matter for not just the US but the entire world. Climate change is real and needs to be adressed sooner than later. Are we going to allow ourselves to act too late by pulling out? The time should be now to work towards reducing emmisions and we should be working together to combat it.
ReplyDeleteClimate change is something that effects the entire world, not just one country/one area. If the United States is to back out of the Paris Climate Agreement, we will set back the efforts made to address the problem of global warming. If anything, we should look to renegotiate our involvement in the agreement in terms of how much money we pledged to support developing countries if that is the biggest concern. Everyone needs to work together to reduce emissions, especially the US considering we are responsible for much of the world's total carbon emissions.
ReplyDeleteClimate change is something that needs to be looked at internationally. With the United States leaving, it makes it difficult not only for the United States but for the other countries as well, since the United States leaves a considerably large carbon footprint.
ReplyDelete