An American (No Longer) in Paris
The Paris Climate Agreement, an historic and groundbreaking international game plan for mitigating climate change, recently took effect on November fourth. Now, just days later, the world is reeling after American voters chose Donald Trump, a serial denier of anthropogenic climate change, to be their president-elect. Throughout his campaign, Trump pledged to abandon the Paris deal in favor of deregulating the domestic fossil fuel industry. Many experts worry that his rash intentions may dissuade other nations from working toward carbon neutrality. As the planet hangs in the balance, Trump and his newfound Republican counterparts maintain a distorted view on energy policy, one that is warped by socioeconomic privilege, corporate influence, and a convenient ignorance of climate change’s perilous ramifications in the developing world.
Evidence of human-caused climate change is nearly incontrovertible, and societies around the world have come to acknowledge this fact. A recent Pew Research Center study found that, when asked if governments should limit greenhouse gas emissions in accordance with the Paris Agreement, a global median of 78% agreed. Yet, the study also exposed a stark partisan divide on climate policy in the United States and internationally. How can such an increasingly convergent society be reconciled with partisan divergence? The answer is money.
During the 2012 election cycle, oil and gas special interests spent over $79 million to fund campaigns, parties, and political action committees. Eighty-nine percent of their direct donations poured into Republicans’ pockets. During the 2016 election cycle, Republicans again received nearly 90% of these donations. Money buys access, and access shapes policy. So, the fossil fuel sector continues to dominate Republican lawmakers, largely inhibiting the advancement of any rational environmental legislation.
As corporate donations flood the bank accounts of Washington’s climate change deniers, vulnerable nations around the world face the very real threat of flooding due to rising seas, among other environmental crises. But just how bad is this disconnect? The aforementioned Pew report recorded a significant variation in “concern that global climate change will harm me personally” from citizens around the world. Regions like Latin America, Africa and Southern Asia have rates of personal concern far above the global median, while the US, Australia, China, Europe and the Middle East have rates of personal concern below the global median. Tellingly, those areas with the highest reported rates of concern align strongly with areas that Verisk Maplecroft, a global risk analytics firm, recently deemed most vulnerable, as is shown in the index below.
Fossil fuel companies are privatizing their gains and socializing their losses on an international scale. Adding insult to injury, developing nations with the least political and economic clout will be the most affected by climate change, as is evidenced by global poverty data from the World Bank Group:
Because the threat of climate change is far less tangible for developed nations, special interests can more easily perpetuate legislative inaction.
The future of the planet depends on bold international action, which has a wide basis of support across the globe. Unfortunately, moneyed interests have lined the pockets of politicians to force an erroneous divide on climate change policy. As has been shown, those with the greatest reason for concern have the least power to address the climate crisis; the United States government has a moral, economic, and humanitarian obligation to work in their interest.
Donald Trump must not back out of the Paris Climate Agreement.
