Donald Trump continues to do all the most destructive things he said he'd do. 2016's legacy of political madness continues to resonate. So now he's taking the USA out of the Paris climate agreement.
Does this matter? Of course it does. It matters for the planet, our children, for the ability of states to cooperate. It matters for the long term over the short. And it matters for life itself. As one of the authors of the 2008 Green New Deal, whose language and ideas impacted Obama at the time, I am committed to climate reform. So of course it matters.
But maybe it does not matter for the reasons we think. Trump may actually be delivering unintended consequences.
At a gut level billions of people will think Trump wrong. Bizarrely, his move will increase their conviction that climate change is important.
Many of them will realise that leaving fossil fuels in the ground us now vital to our survival.
Across the world the investment communities saying no to carbon will take some reassurance from that, even if we have yet to see a reaction in the vastly over-valued fossil fuel stocks.
And, more importantly, those businesses that are building the alternative - the world where less carbon is burnt - will be boosted as people realise they have to take responsibiluty where Trump won't.
Clouds can have silver linings. I am not for a moment saying Trump should have pulled out of Paris. But people, right across the world and with a wide range of interests,will realise what he is doing threatens their well-being. And they will react to that. Green is not just here. It is here to stay. Trump will make people realise that they really think that is the case. And the result will be a rejection of those who promote such follies.
It's one step back today, but I think there will be two forward.
Thanks for reading this post.
You can share this post on social media of your choice by clicking these icons:
You can subscribe to this blog's daily email here.
And if you would like to support this blog you can, here:
Well lets hope it increases the pressure to drop fracking in the UK.
Unlikely to have much of an impact on UK fracking – which for reasons of civil resistance are unlikely to proceed.
In the case of Trump, the train has already left the station. In most regions of the world PV & Wind cost less than fossil (or nuclear) generation. This applies as much in the USA as in other countries. The corporate sector (US and elsewhere) is mostly committed to “going green” – in large part due to customer pressure. Looking at transport – +/- 4 years & EVs globally will tear the heart out of the fossil industry. Change is a coming and Trump cannot stop it – ban EVs? ban On-shore wind? or PV? he can’t. Trump – they name is irrelevance.
It’s quite funny realise
Trump can’t stop the revolution…
There`s a song there somewhere….
I saw a post of some text in the Paris climate accord relating to withdrawal. This suggested that the earliest the US could actually leave the agreement would be the day after the next US presidential inauguration.If this is the case then the next election could well be fought on climate change and presumably the revocation of the Paris withdrawal.
Interesting
Why?
Two answers depending on what the ‘why’ is referring to.
The text of the Paris agreement (Article 28) states:
1. At any time after three years from the date on which this Agreement has entered into force for a Party, that Party may withdraw from this Agreement by giving written notification to the Depositary.
2. Any such withdrawal shall take effect upon expiry of one year from the date of receipt by the Depositary of the notification of withdrawal, or on such later date as may be specified in the notification of withdrawal.
This would imply that the earliest possible date of full withdrawal is 4 years from the signing of the document, which for the US was 4th Nov 2016. Implying that the earliest date of leaving would be 4th November 2020. I concede hear that my timings were slightly misinformed and that this would be pre-inauguration but certainly significant in terms of the US election schedule.
As to why it might lead to the election being fought on climate change (at least partly), any presidential candidate could state that they would re-enter the Paris agreement. Admittedly, this is somewhat different from a revocation of the withdrawal notification.
That’s actually quite funny…
As I understand it, that date – 4 November 2020 – is the day after the polling day for the 2020 US presidential election (rather than the day after the inauguration).
I have heard that Trump could simply refuse to implement the US obligations under the Paris Agreement anyway. There is no enforcement mechanism. It then becomes somewhat hypocritical for the US to object to other countries breaching their international obligations (North Korea, say).
It is amazingly counterproductive for the US to waste its political capital, and make Russia and China look like the good guys. Trump does not appear to understand soft power. Or moral leadership.
I think that you are right to be optimistic.
The US Government (and not ordinary Americans I might add) has always been highly duplicitous in the way it works.
Look at the development of GATT for example – a system it enforced on others but did not actually follow itself.
At least now, rather than pretending to be interested in climate change, or pretending to help other countries with dollar loans that are really just a way of obtaining power over other countries (including the UK) this public rejection of the Paris accord will just polarise what the American government has always done for years well before Trump: putting America first.
By making this self evident, Trump has done the world a favour. But the effect on America itself is going to be very interesting. We might see its influence wane as it becomes a pariah. No bad thing in my opinion.
My only worry is that as America becomes more isolated it may become more dangerous as it has been a rogue state for as long as I remember – certainly since Vietnam anyway (and maybe Korea).
USA cuts off nose to spite face. Simply hands the advantage in developing green technology to China and EU. Plucky UK (soon to be England) goes it alone and fracks the guts out of our green and pleasant land.
May’s response has simply been to say Trump’s decision is up to him.
I saw a report that Myron Ebell has been a recent visitor to number 10. He is leading climate change denier.
The whole point is that in a global world facing a global threat that is not true
Trump’s decision seems entirely rational. He had to decide between creating a few jobs in a dying industry or saving future generations from rotting in a toxic soup of man-made hell. It’s a no-brainer.
What have future generations ever done for us? – Nothing.
Will future generations get a vote when Trump stands for re-election in 2020? – No.
Let them sort out their problems. We’ll sort out ours.
What does disgust me however is the UK government’s refusal to join the French/German/Italian condemnation of this decision. It seems clear that May’s vision for an independent (lol) post-brexit UK is to be part-vassal, part-lap-dog to an ignorant, self-righteous, self-obsessed bully.
Pennsylvania employs 65,000 people in the renewables sector, more than the fossil fuel industry combined I believe. I also recall the renewables jobs pay more on average. Trump is getting revenge on those nasty EU leaders who he thinks made him a laughing stock over the past week without realising his pushing, shoving and grabbing did it to himself. It’s like watching a Twitterfied Caligula intent on burning Rome because his feelings got hurt and he has to lash out like a petulent child.
The fire was Nero, surely. Trump is far too old to be little-boots Caligula.
Trump could have [quietly 🙂 ] stymied Climate Change progress, but he’s made a big deal of it. Why because he’s a ‘Blowhard’, but it brings into the open the stupidity of ignoring evidence. Anyway he’s just terrorised his professional scientists by cutting the Environmental Protection Agency’s budget by 31%, effectively finishing off any climate research whilst also [unintended consequence] affecting public health programmes e.g. air pollution, water and food monitoring programmes; thus raising long terms death rates caused by poorly monitored pollution.
USA has 4% of the world’s population but creates about 1/3 of the CO2 emissions. In Trump speak “This is not fair on” — who? Certainly this is not unfair to the USA. Trump could have empowered the USA’s fantastic engineers, scientists and industries to harness Green technologies – what an under utilization of all that talent and resource with the possibly for building communities through Green programmes requiring local cooperation.
It would surely be a simple matter for the company’s in US that are already adapting to cleaner technology to continue to do so. In theory they would have a moral advantage at least (and a Unique Selling Point) over the industries that do not wish to change. In practise exporters that do not change may well find their markets diminished.
Just a point: So Japan s slow six year destruction of the entire Pacific Ocean via their inability to stem the nuclear reactor leak caused by the Fukushima tsunami ( compounded by egregious silences from Tepco) recently manifesting itself in tangible geiger pollution readings right along the Canada/US/LatinAmerican West coastlines can be conveniently ignored as an input to the world pollution situation as it is not classified under ” climate change” — is that right?
I have no clue what you are seeking to say
With respect I think Pat is right. No climate science is unpoliticised. Environmentalists have gotten so obsessive about global warming that no other issues, even if they are harming people and systems right now, have even made it onto the table for discussion. It doesn’t seem right.
I worry enormously about nuclear
But it doesn’t mean I put my climate change worries aside
That was my point and I felt the opposite was being made
I may be wrong
Global CO2 emissions have been flat for over 2 years. The ability of the earth to incorporate CO2 increases as the concentration of CO2 increases. So if we change nothing then a new equilibrium will be reached, perhaps at 600-800 ppm or thereabouts. We are not going to have runaway or catastrophic effects.
There will though be effects that need dealing with, in particular rising sea levels, and the reduced land required to produce food – but the Paris Accord is not about that. It is about the need to control people’s lives to a greater extent than now because of the catastrophe narrative.
With the greatest of respect I trust the vast majority of scientific opinion – not your libertarian dogmatic nonsense
It is a pity that Trump cannot be influenced by you in the way that Obama clearly was by your wisdom in the Green New Deal. We cannot know if your words led him directly to the Paris accord but the world may well look back and condemn Trump for not following the path you set out.
Never give up, never surrender.
I watched the MSM news yesterday, (by chance, not choice, this in the waiting room of the hospital where they’ll be doing my hip later this month) where they were discussing this. Something in the smooth assurance with which these well groomed entities criticised Trump made me suspicious. It reminded me of how Corbyn’s been relentlessly misrepresented in the corporate-owned media. Can the same thing be happening to Trump, I wonder? On and on they went, glib assurance following glib assurance. TINA but in a different context, I thought. Evidence-free too, I noticed. Maybe Trump quit, or more properly gave notice of quitting when the opportunity arises, because the famous Paris Accords are no more than a cosmetic scam and he wants no part of them. I gather this is a perspective which will be new to many. Give it time!
Thanks
Good luck with the hip
Thanks in return, and here’s an article from the non-corporate media which seems to agree with me http://www.cnbc.com/2017/05/31/trump-paris-accord-exit-is-good-for-the-environment-commentary.html
Although CNBC is corporate, I belatedly realise 🙂
Even in the US his actions are a joke, Richard. Witness the highly insightful interview with the Governor of California on the Rachel Maddow Show on Thursday. California is the 6th largest economy in the world – larger than France – and they’re simply carrying on setting the pace on renewables and pollutions control as they’ve done in the US since the 1980s. They’re also forming alliances with other US states and with countries too, one being China.
Perhaps more importantly for the longer term is that it’s widely accepted in the US that this policy has all the hallmarks of Steve Bannon over it (indeed Trump’s speech announcing this had passages the were almost identical to his maiden speech as President). Thus it signals that given all the problems Jared Kushner is now facing Bannon is back at the helm steering the intellectually empty pot that is Trump. That may be far more worrying than this one policy, although I still maintain Trump will be gone by 2018, in which case so will Bannon.
We can hope
Except that Pence is another nightmare