De-linking the UN negotiations from the backward institution of the US Congress might not be so bad for Planet Earth.
For many Americans—and most liberal Democrats, the news that President Donald Trump had decided to unilaterally withdraw the United States from the Paris Agreement on climate change felt like a dagger through the heart. Trump’s action was not only a short-sighted and backward political blunder, but an abdication of American leadership, incompatible with the very core of the American identity. Trump, a small-minded, grudge-carrying narrowly loyal billionaire (the poster child of greed and unfettered capitalism with a carbon footprint to match), has turned inward and by so doing declared war on the planet.
Der Spiegel characterized Trump’s Rose Garden speech as “a break from centuries of Enlightenment and rationality.” Long-time climate activist Bill McKibben called the move “a repudiation of two of the civilizing forces on our planet: diplomacy and science.”
The shock was understandable, but also misguided. First, the perception of the US as a promoter of these great civilizing forces of diplomacy and science in the area of climate change is a dangerous fiction cooked up by Liberal America and (most recently by the Obama administration), and accepted too willingly by many Obama supporters. Any real work to fight climate change must first involve a rolling back of this notion.
Second, the Paris Agreement was toothless document. At one point the UNFCCC negotiations process aimed for a global agreement of wider scope, legally binding with deadlines and targets. But the United States eroded everything meaningful that once existed. While the vast majority of the world’s countries were on board with the more ambitious global treaty (similar to the Kyoto Protocol), the US saw it as encumbering America’s diplomatic dexterity and unfairly taxing its economy. Moreover, there was no way an international deal with hard targets and deadlines would be ratified by the science-denying, petroleum-doused Congress.
Realizing the US would never be able to join such a deal (even if Obama personally thought the US should), the former president played a bit of a trick on everyone. He set his negotiators to work to chisel away at the guts of the deal. Then he signed the whittled down version. The world was happy because the US was “on board.” And the US Congress and its corporate friends were happy because they got the best possible deal: it looks good on paper but doesn’t require the US to actually do anything. In essence, it was a green rubber stamp. No wonder so many US corporations lobbied against Trump’s withdrawal! Paris was a win-win for corporations. More to the point, the alternatives – either a stricter international agreement or the emergence of state instead of federal regulations, with potentially 50 different sets of regulations to which corporations much adhere — were far worse! Because of this, for our own scientists and well-informed citizens deeply concerned about the climate, the Paris Agreement was not our life raft. Even as a starting point, it was inadequate.
In fact, the US has long been at worst a hostile and at best an unwilling participant. The Kyoto Protocol of 1997 was signed by China, the EU, Russia, Australia and Canada – a total of 84 signatories and 194 party nations. But the US was so delinquent (under Clinton and later Bush43) in the eyes of participating countries that its delegates were booed at subsequent conferences. Once, in an outburst supported by many others around him, a delegate from Papua New Ginua shouted at the Americans, “If you're not willing to lead, get out of the way.”
Newly elected President Obama promised his administration would restore American leadership on climate change. But in reality, his administration worked diligently to dismantle exactly what made the Kyoto Protocol a powerful tool. US delegates to the UNFCCC opposed key parts of the Kyoto Protocol. Of primary significance was the idea of “common but differentiated responsibilities and respective capabilities,” [CBDRRC] which acknowledges, 1. Some countries are more responsible than others for the greenhouse gas emissions in the atmosphere; 2. That some countries have more resources than others to mitigate and adapt to climate change; and 3. These countries should be required to respond in measures that accord with these determinations.
By eliminating the CBDRRC clause, the US effectively eliminated the possibility for any discussion of climate justice, namely, that the poorest nations are often the most vulnerable and least responsible for the current crisis and the richest nations are often the least vulnerable and the most responsible. Further, the way we count greenhouse gas emissions matters. For example, while China is now the number one emitter, historically emissions from the US and Europe and their respective industrial revolutions and subsequent affluent qualities of life of its citizens have been the major cause of the changing climate. Additionally, on a per capita basis, US emissions are about four times higher than those coming from China. Finally, the elimination of the CBDRRC clause effectively halts any attention to the important difference between “subsistence” vs “luxury” emissions. Thus, emissions coming from the poorest nations getting access to electricity and safe drinking water for the first time becomes effectively equated with emissions generated by second and third homes, luxury hotels and yachts, and vacation centers. This is wrong. The issues that underpin the CBDRRC clause – issues that were carefully considered by thoughtful negotiators decades ago – must return to the center stage if the UNFCCC process is going to be successful.
Perhaps, the de-linking of the UNFCCC process from the US Congress is not such a bad thing.
There is general consensus that the emissions trajectory of the US and other countries won’t change much whether the US stays in or out of the deal. Some are saying that in or out of the agreement we will meet our Paris commitment. Others say in or out of the agreement, we will fall short. Either way, the agreement had no bearing on these results. Scrapping the deal is only the first step. Now we must rebuild a stronger deal, with or without the US. Perhaps with China at the helm. Perhaps the US will join later under another administration. One thing is clear: Trump had no mandate to do what he did. Over 70% of Americans believe the US should participate in a Paris-like agreement. That means we need to start rebuilding now. With or without the Donald.