Photo by Markus Spiske via Uplash.

It’s been almost two months since President Donald Trump was inaugurated, and the United States has already experienced drastic changes. From pulling out of the World Health Organization to changing the Gulf of Mexico’s name, America’s new president has made interesting modifications to the country as a whole. However, one of the most notable of these orders is the withdrawal from the Paris Climate Agreement. 

The European Bank defines the Paris Climate Agreement as an international treaty that aims to “hold the increase in the global average temperature to well below 2°C above pre-industrial levels and pursue efforts to limit the temperature increase to 1.5°C above pre-industrial levels.” Trump’s abandonment of this agreement was predicted during his first presidency in 2017 when he stated that the U.S. would eventually leave the treaty. However, even though this decision was viewed as a foreseen circumstance, there are still concerns about what this means for Americans battling climate change. 

An article published by The New York Times, “Yes, There Has Been Progress on Climate. No, It’s Not Nearly Enough,” says that scientists believe that more drastic action is needed to keep global temperature at a safer increased limit of 1.5 degrees Celsius. In the same article, Fatih Birol, the executive director of the International Energy Agency, stated “we really don’t have much time left to shift course.” By most scientific accounts, the world is reaching the  point of no return regarding the global climate, but is it an active emergency? Many climate activists and scientific experts say yes. 

CEO of the European Climate Foundation, Laurence Tubiana, says, “The impacts of the climate crisis are also worsening.” He follows this by discussing the wildfires sweeping across Los Angeles and how America withdrawing from the exchange was unfortunate. However, he also says not to worry because the effort to slow climate change “is stronger than any country’s politics and policies.” 

While this might sound scary to Americans, solutions are still being explored to help the country slow climate change. In his new book, How to Avoid a Climate Disaster, former CEO and chairman of Microsoft Bill Gates writes that the best way forward is to lower the Green Premiums. Green Premiums refer to the difference in cost between carbon-emitting products and non-carbon-emitting products. Therefore, if America wants to see a difference in its carbon emissions, it must focus on lowering prices and adopting healthier, greener technology. 

Pulling out of the Paris Climate Exchange has been criticized by both sides of the political spectrum. However, President Trump stands behind his actions as he did back in 2017 when he stated, “The Paris Climate Accord is simply the latest example of Washington entering into an agreement that disadvantages the United States to the exclusive benefit of other countries…” With this statement and the country’s leadership, it’s up to the American people to decide if they are up against a climate challenge or a crisis. 

The Hilltop Monitor thanks Dr. Gary Armstrong for providing insight and sources to help further the exploration of the topic at hand.

Landmark policies and actions Obama supported and created include the Syrian red line, the support of a two-state solution to the Israel-Palestine problem and diplomatic agreements, including the Trans-Pacific Partnership and the Paris Climate Agreement. Trump’s major foreign policy moves include the proliferation of military and nuclear arsenals, support of a single-state solution to the Israel-Palestine conflict and general isolationism.

In Syria, Obama famously declared that the U.S. would enforce a “red line” with regard to chemical weapons in Syria. He said that if Bashar Assad, Syria’s President, used chemical weapons, the U.S. would respond with military action. The red line was a hardline threat to Syria, but when Assad used chemical weapons on his rebel forces, the U.S. did not respond with swift military action.

At the end of his presidency, Obama reiterated the need for a peaceful solution to the Israel-Palestine conflict in which both states maintain peace and claims to their land. Trump is open to supporting a one-state solution to the conflict. In support of this position, Trump has advocated moving the U.S. Embassy from Israel to Jerusalem.

Further, Obama was supportive of civilian control of the military. His cabinet was largely diplomats, political scientists and academics. In contrast, Trump has filled his cabinet with current and former military personnel. This move effectively increased the power and funding of the military.

Trump has promoted isolationist policies such as withdrawing from international agreements, like the Paris Climate Agreement and the Trans-Pacific Partnership. Both moves were controversial, and Trump used them to emphasize his nationalist agenda that attempts to protect American jobs and people by avoiding “unfair” international deals.

Generally, Trump is very nationalistic and isolationist, pushing a “protect America” agenda. He focuses on internal policy in order to promote national strength and increase international power. Obama, on the other hand, was diplomatic and more in favor of working with other nations on peaceful ground. Trump couples his domestic focus with a competitive outlook on foreign affairs and international cooperation.

The policies are similar on the issues of decreasing North Korean aggression, combatting China in the South China Sea and responding to countries threatening nuclear war.

Additionally, Trump and Obama both resist China’s increasing status as a world power and specifically oppose Chinese action in the South China Sea. China has claimed power and ignored agreed to restrictions in the area. It has even created man-made islands for artillery bases. Trump is more vocal about his opposition to China. However, his foreign policy approach to China does not differ significantly from Obama’s.

Finally, both Trump and Obama refuse to negotiate or talk with countries that threaten nuclear war. For instance, both presidents present a hardline to North Korea that essentially states that North Korea must give up its nuclear arsenal before the U.S. will open talks. Obama favored economic sanctions and international cooperation in order to deter North Korea, and Trump has favored increasing the U.S. nuclear arsenal for deterrence. Trump used more vitriolic and aggressive language in reference to North Korea, yet he, again, has not altered the U.S.’s fundamental approach to the situation.

Photo Courtesy of ABC News.

However, because of legal processes put in place by the UNFCCC, the U.S. will not be officially withdrawn from the Paris Agreement until Nov. 4, 2020, one day after the next presidential election in the U.S. The next administration will either finalize or reverse President Trump’s decision.

The UNFCCC, founded in 1992, has historically placed most of the financial responsibility on developed countries like the U.S., France and Germany. The Paris Agreement was specifically designed to encourage developing countries, like China and India, to contribute.

When the U.S. entered the Paris Agreement, the Obama administration pledged to pay $3 billion to the UNFCCC’s Green Climate Fund and to cut carbon emissions by 26 to 28 percent below 2005 levels by 2025. The U.S.’s pledge was one of the largest, and to achieve it, the Obama administration passed the Clean Power Plan to reduce coal and fossil fuel production and invest in alternative energy sources.

Those who oppose the Agreement believe it is unfair to the U.S. and will take American jobs. However, the Paris Agreement does not set any goals, restrictions or obligations for any country. Each does this for itself. Therefore, this argument is actually directed towards Obama’s pledge, not the Paris Agreement. The Paris Agreement was written to outlive the Obama administration and can be adjusted to accommodate a more conservative administration such as Trump’s or any that follow.

It is true that the Clean Power Plan would temporarily cause a negative impact on coal miners and fossil fuel producers. However, the plan will ultimately create more jobs than it displaces. The U.S. Department of Energy’s 2016 report says that only 22 percent of Americans working in energy are employed by coal or fossil fuel production while the growing solar energy industry employs 43 percent of energy workers. Solar energy is projected to grow and traditional energy production jobs are projected to dwindle as more machinery slowly replaces workers with or without the Clean Power Plan.

Proponents of staying in the Paris Agreement argue it is imperative for the U.S. to maintain global respect. One month after President Trump’s announcement, he attended the Group of Twenty, or G20, Summit in Hamburg, Germany. The second most discussed topic at the summit was the U.S.’s withdrawal from the Agreement and its implications for U.S. participation in international diplomacy. German Chancellor Angela Merkel publicly called the U.S. leaving the Agreement “deplorable,” and other leaders expressed similar disapproval. The U.S. has historically benefitted from its international influence, and many believe loss of respect will make it difficult for the U.S. to accomplish anything on the global stage.

Many believe it is immoral for the U.S. to withdraw. While China was first in carbon emissions in 2016, the U.S. alone is responsible for one-third of the excess carbon in the atmosphere. The Paris Agreement does not ask the U.S. to do more than other developed countries, but a prevalent argument for staying in the Agreement is that the U.S. has a moral obligation to participate in mitigating the effects of climate change.

Most Americans are in favor of taking steps to preserve the environment, and many believe that the Paris Agreement is the right way to do so. Thus, several states have committed to reach the U.S.’s Paris Agreement commitments whether or not the U.S. is officially involved.

Within the past 25 years, the Paris Agreement has been the only climate change plan written to promote sustainability and global safety in achievable terms for all 195 nations involved. The arguments to stay in the Agreement claim the consequences of neglecting climate change and international diplomacy would have a far greater impact than the benefits of withdrawing from it.

Photo Courtesy of NPR.