ELI5: America Withdraws from the Paris Agreement
When I read the news yesterday about the US formally withdrawing from the Paris Agreement (ok, I listened to the news in podcasts), I realized how confusing the climate accord can feel. In today’s Explain Like I’m 5, we’re breaking down the headlines to see what exactly the White House is withdrawing from, and what the implications are for America and the global climate.
Is the Paris Agreement the same thing as the Paris climate accord?
Yes. In French, it’s called the “Accord de Paris,” and it’s easy to see how that would be translated to Paris Accord. The official English name used by the UN is the Paris Agreement, but all of these names refer to the same thing.
What does the Agreement say?
The Agreement is an effort by the United Nations that was made in 2015 to address climate change on a global scale. Specifically, its main goal is to make sure that the global temperature rises less than two degrees Celcius (compared to pre-industrial temperatures) by the year 2100. That’s 3.6 degrees Farenheit for us Imperial System folk. The Agreement actually says that countries should push for the even bigger goal of a +1.5 change, instead of a +2 change. I know the “bigger” goal has a smaller number, but remember that we’re trying to fight against climate change, so we want the smallest temperature change possible. +2 degrees C is a cutoff point where most climatologists agree that egregious, irreversible effects of climate change set in.
“The Paris Agreement central aim is to strengthen the global response to the threat of climate change by keeping a global temperature rise this century well below 2 degrees Celsius above pre-industrial levels…”
https://unfccc.int/process-and-meetings/the-paris-agreement/the-paris-agreement
Every country who signed on had to submit a Nationally Determined Contribution, or NDC. These are basically individual plans for how each country will contribute to fighting climate change. Some countries have more ambitious goals than others, and each country is responsible for enforcing its own NDC. In 2018, every party to the agreement had to take a look at their NDC, determine if they were on track for their goals, and adjust their NDC if necessary. Additionally, there will be an evaluation every 5 years after 2020 to take stock of global progress and discuss the actions of parties. By “mid-century,” which is an intentionally vague deadline, the world should be at net-zero emissions of greenhouse gases.
Who all is part of the Paris Agreement?
There are 193 member nations in the UN, and 196 countries agreed to the pact in 2015 - a resounding success. Aside from Nicaragua who wanted a more ambitious agreement and so boycotted the accord, and Syria who declined to participate due to civil war and ongoing crisis, every other country wanted in on the deal, including the USA under the Obama administration (and Syria has since signed on). Now the United States is the only country trying to get out of the Paris Agreement. Russia, China, Palestine, even North Korea are all committed to the Paris accord. America is truly the odd man out.
So is America part of the Paris Agreement or not? I thought we withdrew already?
If you are experiencing deja vu about America’s withdrawal, I can’t blame you. The Trump Administration announced its plan to withdraw from the Paris accord back in 2017. The reason this story is making headlines again is that yesterday (Monday, November 4, 2019) was the first day that the US could begin the formal process of withdrawing from the deal. Even though the current administration has been planning this for a while, they couldn’t officially start until now. The process of withdrawing takes 12 months, so we will officially be out in one year - one day after the 2020 election. The US would have the option of re-entering the following year, assuming the administration wanted to re-enter.
Are the rest of the countries on track to meet the +2 goal?
Not yet. Even though some countries have made more extreme NDCs, the truth is that the earth is on track for more than a +2 change. We’re counting on technology that doesn’t exist yet to save our rumps. That’s kind of the whole idea behind the Paris Agreement - having an (almost) global pact acts as an incentive for countries to keep pushing for climate technology and innovation. In order to meet the goals of the Paris Agreement, every country has to continually make profound changes over the course of the next 80 years.
How are countries supposed to reduce their carbon emissions?
You’re asking great questions! Different approaches are more feasible for different countries. For example, the infrastructure and culture in Germany really lend themselves to wind and solar power. In China, the main renewable push is for wind and hydro power. Wind, solar, and hydro power are good for supplying the grid, but the transportation sector is a whole other beast. Public transportation, bicycle-friendly infrastructure, and electric cars are a few ways to reduce GHG emissions, but there is still a lot of work and research to be done. It’s not realistic for the world to totally eliminate the use of fossil fuels this century, and certainly not by the “mid-century” deadline, but by reducing our dependency on fossil fuels and pushing hard for things like carbon capture technology, there’s some hope that we can at least take as much GHG out of the air as we put into it and thereby reach net-zero emissions.
All these changes sound expensive. What if a country can’t afford the new technology?
The Paris Agreement takes care to mention that there are special considerations for developing countries. These countries will need more financial support to address their immediate and long-term needs, and it will take longer for them to make the transition away from fossil fuels into more environmentally-friendly sources of energy. The Agreement also says that developing countries, especially small island nations, have special considerations (hello, sea level rise that threatens to bury entire countries like they’re Atlantis). In fact, small island nations are the ones who pushed hardest for a +1.5 change instead of +2. That was such a fantastical goal that the UN deemed it too unlikely to be the official goal, but the Agreement still says that +1.5 would be an ultimate ideal to work towards. The Agreement also says that every country should take special care to consider the effects of climate change on developing countries, who are likely to be the hardest-hit. By my count, developing nations are mentioned 43 times in the text of the official Paris Agreement.
Why does America want out?
Without getting too political, I will say that the current administration does not have a reputation for being an outspoken advocate for the environment. In a statement, Secretary of State Mike Pompeo said that the US is formally withdrawing because the Paris Agreement is “quintessentially unfair to the American people.” His statements include tons of loaded language - sometimes subtle like “unfair,” but sometimes explicit like in this quote:
“The President made a decision a little while back that we would leave the Paris climate accords for the simple reason that it was America that would suffer the straight jacket”
The Administration claims that there would be a catastrophic loss of jobs in America - jobs like mining coal or refining crude oil, which coincidentally are common jobs among Trump’s base. Pompeo also states several times that the Paris Agreement would place a burden on American businesses, taxpayers, and the economy by extension. This statement is a little less controversial in my opinion. No one disagrees that the Agreement calls for major changes that have the potential to disrupt normal economic activity. Changes are expensive and there’s no two ways about it. Oil and gas are big business in America, and moving away from them is going to be a radical adjustment. That’s just a fact. But here’s another fact: the climate is changing whether we like it or not. And if humans want to stick around and have a reasonable level of global stability, we’d better do our damnedest to slow it down and mitigate the effects. I’ll refer you to Bill Nye to illustrate this point (strong language included):
Would American jobs be lost if we stayed in the Paris Agreement?
This is a big argument used by those who want to leave the Agreement. The short answer is yes and no. Fossil fuel production would decrease, and that means that there would be some loss of jobs in the fossil fuel industry. HOWEVER, something has to fill the vacuum left when fossil fuels decrease. America still needs energy, and we need people to help produce it! We can expect a boom in the renewable energy sector that would be fueled by policies that mandate the use of renewable energy. In fact, if America gets in on the ground level, we can exercise a lot of control over global markets, supply chains, and international regulatory cooperation. For example, solar panels were invented in America, but global manufacturing and the supply chain for solar panels is controlled by Germany and China, who have progressive climate policy and are simply more interested. Whether America stays in the Agreement or not, it’s clear that the rest of the world is committed and ready to move forward with renewable sources of energy. Whether you want to agree with the specifics of the accord or not, it’s hard to deny that America is going to miss out on the market share that it could have in the global energy business. If everyone moves on while we dig our heels in, where is that going to leave us? Who will we sell our coal to after we fought so hard to save coal mining jobs? Who are we going to have to buy renewables from when other countries have put in the work to develop them and we’re behind the times? The American economy is in for some changes whether we withdraw from the Agreement or not. Mike Pompeo is absolutely right when he says the American job market would go through big changes. But to use that line of argument as justification just seems short-sighted to me.
Obviously at this point we’ve strayed into my personal opinions, and I encourage you to draw your own conclusions. I also want to say that just because the US withdraws from the Paris Agreement doesn’t mean I think America’s days as a superpower are numbered, or that we’re going to burst into flames as a country, or that every single sector of the economy wants to double down on fossil fuel. I am not here to preach fire and brimstone, but I will admit that I see our decision to withdraw as problematic. I do not feel that it is the best decision for America’s long-term economic prosperity, global status, or environmental well-being.
I hope that this article allowed you to learn something new as well as reflect on your personal beliefs and values. I’d love to hear your opinions (remember to stay civil and constructive) here or in the Troop 7B Facebook group.
UPDATE: Thank you to the Scouts that alerted me to the United States Climate Alliance! The USCA is a group of 25 governors who have affirmed their commitment to the goals of the Paris Agreement and includes both Democrats and Republicans. For more information, check out their website.
https://www.businessinsider.com/195-countries-that-signed-paris-climate-agreement-accord-deal-2017-5
https://unfccc.int/process-and-meetings/the-paris-agreement/the-paris-agreement
https://www.foxbusiness.com/energy/un-us-paris-climate-agreement
https://www.nrdc.org/stories/paris-climate-agreement-everything-you-need-know
Lastly, if you want to take a deeper dive into the details of the Paris Agreement, check out the Essential Elements here on the UN website.
