Concerned by environmental issues since a child and pursuing these interests later with study and work, those that know memay be surprised when I say that I support America's decision to pull out of the Paris Agreement. The reason why, it appears the science behind it suggests that the Paris Agreement does not do enough to address the problems we face by climate change and that by focusing our attention to a plan that is designed to fail, we are ironically causing further harm to our planet as a result. Additionally, America (and the West in general) has been getting a raw deal.
The Paris Climate Agreement intends to keep global warming to under 2 degrees Celsius and to “pursue efforts” to limit it to 1.5. To accomplish this, countries have submitted Intended Nationally Determined Contributions (INDCs) outlining their post-2020 climate action. All sounds well and good, right?
Where it all starts to fall down is well-illustrated by a paper in the journal Nature published on 30 June 2016 entitled Paris Agreement climate proposals need a boost to keep warming well below 2 °C. From the abstract we can read that this study revealed t the INDCs collectively lower greenhouse gas emissions compared to where current policies stand, but still imply a median warming of 2.6–3.1 degrees Celsius by 2100. It then concludes that substantial enhancement or over-delivery on current INDCs by additional national, sub-national and non-state actions is required to maintain a reasonable chance of meeting the target of keeping warming well below 2 degrees Celsius. Links to references given by the paper are given at the bottom of this post.
So as it is, the current Paris Climate Agreement seems about as effective as the #prayfor... we see everywhere each time innocent civilians in the West are forced to "reap the rewards" of multiculturalism.
The US President however, appears to be basing the decision to pull out on economic and political grounds. Politically, he wants to keep his election promises regarding the US coal industry. This seems fair enough; I'm no fan of fossil fuels but America is still a democracy. Besides US coal jobs, the economic argument seems to be against the fact that he resents the fact that the US along with developed countries such as EU member states, which themselves use cleaner burning methods of fossil fuel energy production, have to make major contributions to subsidise big polluters such as China. The latter does seem a little nonsensical considering China's economy is due to overtake that of the US in a year or so.
It appears harder to predict political change than climate change these days. I sincerely hope that the nations signed up for the Paris Agreement increase their pledges to something that will actually be effective when they meet in 2020, because as it is it's simply not fit for purpose. Furthermore, I hope that smaller economies that have been trying to do things cleaner for some time already do not have to keep subsidising larger economies which in turn are heavier polluters. Perhaps then America might jump back in again?
Finally, we need to remember that the mainstream media is not mentioning that coal will be burnt in America to stricter emissions standards than that burnt in China and that even fossil-derived energy has a lower carbon footprint if the fuel has less to travel prior to generation. Nevertheless, I hope America can make a speedy transition to clean energy in the near future because the clock is ticking.
References:
UNFCCC. Adoption of the Paris Agreement. Report No. FCCC/CP/2015/L.9/Rev.1, http://unfccc.int/resource/docs/2015/cop21/eng/l09r01.pdf (UNFCCC, 2015)
UNFCCC. United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change. Report No. FCCC/INFORMAL/84, https://unfccc.int/resource/docs/convkp/conveng.pdf (UNFCCC, 1992)
Knutti, R., Rogelj, J., Sedlácˇek, J. & Fischer, E. M. A scientific critique of the two-degree climate change target. Nat. Geosci. 9, 13–18 (2016)
Randalls, S. History of the 2°C climate target. Wiley Interdiscip. Rev. Clim. Change 1, 598–605 (2010).
An introduction to the roots of the 2 °C climate target and its development over the past decades
Collins, M. et al. in Climate Change 2013: The Physical Science Basis. Contribution of Working Group I to the Fifth Assessment
Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (eds Stocker T. F. et al.) 1029–1136 (Cambridge Univ. Press, 2013)
Matthews, H. D. & Caldeira, K. Stabilizing climate requires near-zero emissions. Geophys. Res. Lett. 35, L04705 (2008)
Knutti, R. & Rogelj, J. The legacy of our CO2 emissions: a clash of scientific facts, politics and ethics. Clim. Change 133, 361–373 (2015)
IPCC. Climate Change 2014: Synthesis Report. Contribution of Working Groups I, II and III to the Fifth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC, 2014).
Meinshausen, M. et al. Greenhouse-gas emission targets for limiting global warming to 2 °C. Nature 458, 1158–1162 (2009)
Rogelj, J. et al. Differences between carbon budget estimates unravelled. Nat. Clim. Change 6, 245–252 (2016)
Friedlingstein, P. et al. Persistent growth of CO2 emissions and implications for reaching climate targets. Nat. Geosci. 7, 709–715 (2014)
Rogelj, J., McCollum, D. L., Reisinger, A., Meinshausen, M. & Riahi, K. Probabilistic cost estimates for climate change mitigation. Nature 493, 79–83 (2013)
Luderer, G. et al. Economic mitigation challenges: how further delay closes the door for achieving climate targets. Environ. Res. Lett. 8, 034033 (2013)
Rogelj, J. et al. Energy system transformations for limiting end-of-century warming to below 1.5 °C. Nat. Clim. Change 5, 519–527 (2015)
Clarke, L. et al. in Climate Change 2014: Mitigation of Climate Change. Contribution of Working Group III to the Fifth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (eds Edenhofer O. et al.) 413–510 (Cambridge Univ. Press, 2014)
Rogelj, J. et al. Zero emission targets as long-term global goals for climate protection. Environ. Res. Lett. 10, 105007 (2015).