The major talk of the day is President Trump’s decision to pull out of the Paris accords, and rightfully so. This was a major decision that will have large implications on the front to tackle climate change and some say America’s position as a world leader.
The White House and its allies may plan to put out talking points to defend Trump’s position, which sound like textbook language from the Koch-founded American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC) and from other corporate-leaning, ultra-conservative groups. Here are some points (in italics) you will be hearing about the reasons for the pullout…
According to a study by NERA Consulting, meeting the Obama Administration’s requirements in the Paris Accord would cost the U.S. economy nearly $3 trillion over the next several decades.
If you do a little digging into who NERA Consulting is (and thanks to DeSmogBlog, the work is done for you), NERA, or the National Economic Research Associates group, was founded by Irwin Stelzer, senior fellow and director of the right-wing Hudson Institute’s Center for Economic Policy. In October 2004, The Guardian described Stelzer as the “right-hand man of Rupert Murdoch,” the CEO of News Corp., which owns Fox News. So basically, it’s a fossil fuel-friendly, conservative-leaning group that puts out information against any environmental regulation.
By 2040, our economy would lose 6.5 million industrial sector jobs – including 3.1 million manufacturing sector jobs; it would effectively decapitate our coal industry, which now supplies about one-third of our electric power.
Almost any energy analyst you talk to say that coal is not being “decapitated” by the Paris accords, but by basic market forces. Natural gas is taking over as the fuel of choice for power due to the shale revolution. Solar and wind power have been getting increasingly less expensive and in some parts of the country, solar is on par with coal in terms of cost.
Do not put anything past these coal magnates either. The conservatives talk about the benefit of “free markets,” but do not be surprised if the coal executives and supporters try to manipulate the market to make coal more desirable – from both a cost perspective (by manipulating prices) and a public view perspective (through commercials and op-eds touting the “benefits” of coal over other sources, especially renewable ones).
The Obama-negotiated Accord imposes unrealistic targets on the U.S. for reducing our carbon emissions, while giving countries like China a free pass for years to come. Under the Accord, China will actually increase emissions until 2030.
China will use the U.S. pullout to take aim at taking the lead in clean energy manufacturing. The country may see this as a way to slowly wrestle the mantle of the “world’s leader” away from the U.S. both politically and economically. China has to move to more clean energy sources with the horrendous air quality the country has had to deal with over the last few years. Prime Minister Xi and the Chinese Communist Party will see this as a double win; corner the market on clean energy manufacturing while taking the mantle politically from the U.S. as a global leader. This will have implications far beyond climate change.
America has already reduced its carbon-dioxide emissions dramatically. Since 2006, carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions have declined by 12 percent, and are expected to continue to decline.
Yes, but that has been partly true due to the adoption of alternative energy sources. And though 12 percent is a nice-sounding number, the U.S. needs to drive down its emissions at an even faster rate to really make a significant difference. That 12 percent could be greater if the country dramatically ramped up zero-emission technologies and mandated the adoption of strong energy efficiency programs across commercial AND residential establishments. Furthermore, the presence of natural gas has its own problems. A study from the Environmental Protection Agency released in June 2015 showed that the chemicals use to frack the gas out of the ground could contaminate drinking water supplies. Pumping wastewater from natural gas drilling sites into wells buried deep underground has potentially resulted in an increased number of earthquakes in states like Oklahoma. And despite natural gas being less of a CO2 emitter than coal, it has resulted in an increase in methane emissions, which is an even more powerful greenhouse gas than carbon dioxide.
According to the Energy Information Administration (EIA), the U.S. is the leader in oil & gas production.
This has nothing to do with combating climate change and is intended to confuse and deflect.
President Obama committed $3 billion to the Green Climate Fund – which is about 30 percent of the initial funding – without authorization from Congress.
President Obama saw the significance of climate change as a world issue (the Defense Department has classified climate change as a major “threat multiplier”) and wanted the U.S. to be a leader in this threat to society. He knew that for other countries to get on board, that the country many considered to be the leader in the free world had to step up. Unfortunately, with a Congress (especially on the House side) that had a majority of its Republican representatives funded by monies from fossil-fuel friendly, climate change-denying superPACs and companies, he was stonewalled. It just shows how the ultra-conservative, corporate-friendly political establishment has influenced the political landscape at all levels of government.
With $20 trillion in debt, the U.S. taxpayers should not be paying to subsidize other countries’ energy needs.
First off, the majority of the country’s debt is owed by U.S. citizens and American entities. Secondly, $3 billion is less than 0.1% of the debt, whereas the country has spent many billions more on the conflicts in Iraq, Afghanistan, and other world hotspots. Furthermore, if the Green Climate Fund were fully funded, and encouraged other countries to invest in green technologies, the economic impact across the world – through job creation, entrepreneurial development, and so on – would be magnified many more times over the original amount in the fund. This point just reiterates the narrow, backward-thinking view of the administration.
According to researchers at MIT, if all member nations met their obligations, the impact on the climate would be negligible. The impacts have been estimated to be likely to reduce global temperature rise by less than .2 degrees Celsius in 2100.
After all the White House talking points above are discredited and torn apart by every other scientist and climate change expert, they will settle on this one – and frankly, can be a very effective reason not to pursue climate change reduction policies like the Paris agreement was meant to foster.
Two angles the climate-change deniers mean to support the argument for getting out of the Paris agreement and ceding leadership on the issue. The first is religious. If God is in control, then why should humans do anything? That was the remark of a congressman from Michigan. This plays into the belief system of Christianity – which is the dominant faith in America – and can cause many people to think that they are just one person and cannot change anything at a significant level, so just live my life as usual. The second argument is by science – the Royal Society stated that even if humankind stopped all emissions of greenhouse gases, that carbon dioxide would “take many thousands of years for atmospheric carbon dioxide to return to ‘pre-industrial’ levels due to its very slow transfer to the deep ocean and ultimate burial in ocean sediments.”
That being said, without the support from the federal side, will the impetus be there to fund innovative technologies that could lead to carbon dioxide and or methane being removed from the air? It is not possible now, but can there be studies done on the option if there is no support? This includes already demonstrated, but not commercially-scalable technologies like carbon capture and storage. Already there have been pullbacks in venture capital-supported clean technology firms as specified in a recent Brookings report. It is of the fear that the Paris agreement pullout could accelerate the drop even more.
So What Now?
Despite the news of the pullout, the push to develop new climate change policies and technologies will not stop outside of the U.S. The European Union, China, India, and other countries originally in the deal have planned to stay on. This pullout could have major severe consequences for America’s standing and the citizens of the country. Even major companies like Apple and Google suggested Trump not pull out. But when President Trump only caters to his base and the industries that support – he is far from a unifier – this decision is not surprising.
Major groups have come against this pullout and offered their take on why Trump is completely wrong. Look here, here, and here for example.
Ultimately the United States will feel major political, economic, and social fallout – and that is not good. The push forward however, will come from the local side. American cities are already integrating clean technologies and rebuilding infrastructure to be climate friendly and equitable for their populations. Environmental groups and nonprofits are out in public educating people from all political affiliations and walks of life about the threat of climate change and the benefits of adapting an environmentally-sound, low carbon lifestyle. The movement will be slow and difficult, but it is happening. Make sure you contribute to it.
Leave a Reply