Since the start of President Trump's term, American efforts for environmental protection have been taking hits, to say the least. From permitting the notorious Dakota Access and Keystone XL pipelines to allowing the continued use of the pesticide chlorpyrifos, the Trump administration has been indiscriminately weakening various aspects of the fight against climate change and environmental degradation, a fight the United States had been gaining footing in under the Obama administration.
Under President Obama, American proponents of clean energy and sustainability celebrated successes such as the Clean Power Plan, the Clean Water Rule, and federal tax incentives for wind and solar power. One of the most notable, if not the most momentous, of these actions has to be America's entry into the historic Paris Agreement.
To understand the Agreement's significance, we must first discuss the Kyoto Protocol. The parent plan of the Paris Agreement, the Kyoto Protocol, adopted in 1997 in Kyoto, Japan, sets targets for greenhouse gas emissions reduction as well as several measures aiming to assist Parties in more easily implementing the Protocol and staying on track with their targets. One such mechanism is the use of international emissions trading. Essentially, if a country beats their target, or produces less emissions than its set maximum amount, it may sell "assigned amount units" (AAUs) to countries over their targets. This procedure of trading AAUs works as a constant correction mechanism, allowing countries to work together and observe exactly how well or poorly they are following their goals. Parties no longer need to wait years down the line to accurately evaluate the collective effort of the countries involved. Secondly, by making carbon more of a commodity in this context, Parties are economically incentivized to reduce emissions even more. Although the Kyoto Protocol was a crucial step, it was really just that – a step. The protocol, held by 192 parties, exhausted its first commitment period in 2012, and world leaders were already itching to do more just as the protocol was coming into force.
After the disappointing summit in Copenhagen in 2007, during which details of a new Accord were not adequately fleshed out or given a quantified aggregate target for greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions reduction, the Paris Agreement was nothing short of a miracle. The United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) hosted 197 parties in Paris, France to craft the Paris Agreement, a landmark plan to combat climate change. This is the first universal, legally-binding climate agreement, and not only is it revolutionary in nature, but it is also incredibly ambitious in content. Most notably, the Paris Agreement set the global temperature increase limit to not 2˚C above that of pre-industrial times, the standard number that is often quoted, but 1.5˚C instead. To one-up the Kyoto Protocol, the Paris Agreement also asked that states submit Intended Nationally Determined Contributions (INDCs), which are customized plans by respective countries to help keep the global temperature increase below 2˚C. Formulated in December 2015 and opened for signature on Earth Day, April 22, of last year, the Agreement reached the threshold for entry into force in a mere six months and officially entered into force November 4, days before the U.S. presidential election.
What is particularly monumental about the United States' involvement with the Paris Agreement is that although the state signed the Protocol in 1998, the U.S. never actually ratified the protocol or entered it into force. So, the US immediately signing the Paris Agreement and having it ratified by September was definitely a cause for celebration.
The Paris Agreement, unfortunately but unsurprisingly, has found little encouragement since then. As a presidential candidate, Trump famously vowed to dissolve the "war on coal" and specifically promised to retract U.S. commitment from the Paris Agreement. As of this past Thursday, President Trump has decided to make the final call in May. The reality of the situation is that staying in or withdrawing from the Agreement is not the issue. The formal process for withdrawing can take years, and the Trump administration can just choose to flout our INDC. The real question is this: when one of the highest carbon emission producers in the world, per capita and over all, refuses to embrace clean energy, what happens?
No comments:
Post a Comment