Leaving the Paris Climate Agreement doesn't change much

photo by pixabay from pexels.com

On November 4, the very first day on which countries could move to withdraw from the 2015 Paris climate agreement, President Donald Trump officially notified the United Nations that the United States will withdraw from the agreement in 2020, one day after the upcoming presidential election. This wasn’t an unexpected move—President Trump has made his plans to leave the agreement public many times in the past.

Under the Paris climate agreement, the United States committed to reducing carbon emissions by 26-28% of 2005’s levels by 2025. However, the agreement does not have any standards in place to enforce these promises, meaning that the deal was only a symbolic action. The commitment was voluntary from the beginning, and the progress being made by the U.S. is highly debatable. According to the Los Angeles Times, carbon dioxide emissions were at a record high in 2018.

So far, the United States is the only nation that has moved to leave the agreement, despite being instrumental in developing the Paris deal. Much like the Kyoto Protocol in the late 1990s, another climate agreement that America later backed out of, the U.S. worked to troubleshoot issues that smaller countries may have with the agreement and push for accountability and better results. America even agreed to help poorer countries fund their efforts to fight climate change while the Paris agreement was being negotiated. However, in both cases, the U.S. quickly pulled out of the agreement once it came time to actually make changes.

Although the Trump administration claims that the Paris climate agreement would place “an unfair economic burden” on the American economy, this reasoning ignores the economic growth available by exploring alternative energy forms, rather than clinging to fossil fuels despite their environmental and economic issues. As the country’s dependence on fossil fuels becomes less and less sustainable, the market for a safe and environmentally friendly alternative grows. Businesses and entrepreneurs could take advantage of these new fields, supporting both the economy and the environment. President Trump has already attempted to roll back other federal legislation related to helping prevent climate change, showing that he clearly doesn’t prioritize environmental concerns.

Although many Americans agree that action must be taken to prevent climate change from spiraling further, the Paris climate agreement isn’t necessarily the best way to accomplish that goal. Without any way to enforce the promises made by members, the agreement may not help reduce carbon emissions in any significant way.

A more promising solution would be passing actual enforceable legislation that would guarantee results and hold corporations and the government responsible for reducing emissions and seeking alternative, environmentally friendly energy sources. Re-entering the Paris climate agreement may help inspire lawmakers to make these changes, but it’s time to demand real, tangible changes, not meaningless promises that were never going to be met.