One Deal is Better than No Deal: The Meaning of Trump’s Apparent Decision to Deny the Paris Climate Change Accord
President Donald Trump’s plan to withdraw the United States from the Paris climate agreement hinders the global community’s efforts to save planet Earth. While such wording seems straight out of an Onion article, the matter turns even more outrageous when one considers the only two other countries outside the deal: Syria, currently in the middle of a disastrous war, and Nicaragua, who believes countries should take even more strict measures towards curbing global warming. The United States is denying a pact already deemed vague by some, and when it comes to environmentalism, one deal is better than no deal.
Indeed, most of the protest around the Paris agreement argues that it sets the bar too low for success. While President Obama called it our “best chance” for saving the Earth, more than 65,000 people gathered at the Eiffel Tower when the deal was first ratified in 2015. Here are three of their complaints:
- Legality: The document is not legally binding. It relies on “nationally determined contributors” (NDCs), which represent each country’s self-defined goals.
- Clarity: The agreement is not clear about how the goals will be achieved. The United Nation’s climate science panel states that, by 2070, net zero emissions must happen for dangerous warming to be curbed. This entails a transformation of the energy markets.
- Weakness: Some consider the current deal is weaker than the 2009 Copenhagen Agreement, which included aviation and shipping emissions. Moreover, it seems that the current accord is inconsistent with some scientific facts.
The question of whether the Paris agreement is a triumph or all talk and no action still remains. Still, a 195 country agreement to protect the planet is remarkable in itself. For the most powerful man to deny it is likely to be disastrous for the future of the planet.
Not only is the United States is the world’s second-largest greenhouse gas polluter, but Trump’s apparent decision puts the country at odds with virtually every other nation in the planet. It is highly likely to hinder the efforts of other emerging economies getting serious about ecology, clean energy, and sustainability.
Sources
