Events &Issues
New Delhi, 7 June 2017
US
Climate Exit
FUTURE LOOKS GRIM
By Dhurjati Mukherjee
The decision of the US to withdraw from the Paris climate accord is definitely a big
setback to its progress in combating climate change. The exit of the United States,
the world’s largest economy and second-largest greenhouse gas polluter, would
not dissolve the 195-nation pact, which was legally ratified last year, but it
could set off a cascade of events that would have profound effects on the
planet.
However, President Trump has stated
that it would “begin negotiations to re-enter either the Paris
accord or an entirely new transaction on terms that are fair to the United States”.
The President indicated that his country would immediately cease all implementation
of this non-binding accord as it had “draconian financial” and other burdens on
the country.
In a reference to India and China,
he observed: “India makes
its participation contingent on receiving billions and billions of dollars in
foreign aid from developed countries”, further adding that “India will be
allowed to double its coal production. Think of it: India can double their coal
production. We’re supposed to get rid of ours”.
The decision may inflict lasting damage
on American foreign policy efforts, well beyond collaboration on
environmental issues. The agreement is in many ways emblematic of how
leaders in Washington — on both sides of the
aisle — have long viewed America’s
role in the world. It does not commit the US to a go-it-alone effort. Meanwhile,
from New York to California,
from academics to people on the streets, the country is in a state of rebellion
against the President’s decision to withdraw the US from the globally endorsed
climate change accord.
Moreover, it leverages promised US emissions cuts to win pledges from the
world’s fastest-growing carbon polluters, China
and India,
as well as other Western and developing countries. Thus, by exiting Trump
would obviously forfeit that leverage. He would return the US to its days of being distrusted by the
international community on the issue, and further the belief, particularly in
Europe, that America
is an unreliable partner.
Already world opinion has gone against Trump’s
decision as in a statement backed by all 28 European Union States, the EU and China agreed to
full implementation of the Paris Climate Agreement. The joint statement, the
first between China and the EU, committed to cut back fossil fuels, develop
more green technology and help raise $100 billion a year by 2020 to help poorer
countries cut emissions.
Considering the fact that fighting global
warming is a global consensus and an international responsibility, the European
Council President and the European Commission President along with Chinese
premier recently stated their agreement to work towards enforcing a clean
energy transition. France
and Russia
joined the chorus speaking in favour of the climate accord. In fact, French
President Macron recently stated that "to all scientists, engineers,
entrepreneurs and responsible citizens who were disappointed by the decision of
the President of the United States,
I want to say that they will find in France a second home".
The importance of the accord and its
adherence by member States cannot be doubted at such a juncture when global
warming has been increasing at a fast pace. It is only a step toward the
reduction in global greenhouse gas emissions that scientists roundly agree is
necessary in order to reduce the most catastrophic risks of climate change. But
it is a crucial step, won through years of diplomatic grunt work, including a
sustained effort to rebuild American climate credibility that had been torched
by the Bush administration.
Several studies -- mostly in the Western
world -- have revealed the disastrous consequences if global emissions are not
controlled. A study a few years back found that more than 100 million people
will die and global economic growth will be cut by 3.2 per cent of gross
domestic product (GDP) by 2030, if the world fails to tackle climate change,
according to a report commissioned by 20 governments.
As global average temperatures rise
obviously due to greenhouse gases, the effects on the planet such as melting
ice caps, extreme weather, drought and rising sea levels, would threaten
populations and livelihoods, stated the report conducted by humanitarian
organization DARA. And, as is well known, more than 90 per cent of those deaths
would occur in the developing countries as the report calculated the human and
ecological consequences of climate change of 184 countries between 2010 and
2030.
For the the global poor, the reduced
ambition could prove disastrous. The World Bank estimates climate effects could
push the nations to worldwide into poverty over the next 15 years.
A recent report from the Climate Impact Lab projects that the most
damaging effects of climate change will be concentrated in “hot, poor
countries” in regions such as Latin America and Southeast Asia, and in
sub-Saharan Africa, where climate change is
already associated with falling crop production due to record-setting drought.
‘In our benchmark estimate,” the authors
wrote, “average income in the poorest 40 per cent of countries may decline
75 per cent by 2100 relative to a world without climate change.” Richer,
cooler countries in Europe tend to fare better, but, notably, not the United States.
It would suffer economically -- and on the international arena.
A positive of the accord would be that
pressure on China and India would be
reduced. The oft repeated charge that their total emissions are very high is
obviously due to their large population though the figures are not even
one-tenth of the per capita emissions of the US. As per reports, both the
countries have been trying to cut emissions and particularly India which is
going ahead at a fast pace in solar and wind power investments.
However, current indications point to the
fact that controlling emissions would be a tough task, specially for the Third World countries as most of them would not be able
to get the necessary financial support as also transfer of technology. On the
other hand, it is indeed difficult to understand how America would benefit from this
withdrawal and would stand isolated in the global forum.
Even if a future administration rejoins
the agreement after negotiations, the prospect of which appears quite
remote -- the damage will linger, specially for China
and India as the US wants
tougher sanctions against these countries. It may be pertinent to mention here
that in Copenhagen
in 2009, efforts to forge an international climate deal were hampered, in part,
by the deep-rooted suspicion Obama’s team faced from European, Chinese, and
other negotiators in the wake of the Bush administration’s foot-dragging on
emissions reductions.
Though Modi stated recently :”We should
leave to the new generation an earlier that is clean and beautiful, the future
looks bleak amid projections of the pollution problem worsening in the coming
years. As more carbon accumulates in the atmosphere, and global average temperatures
continue to rise, the odds of calamitous future environmental outcomes
increase. Swamped and hot and humid cities, scorched crops, melting
glaciers and floods, pandemics — nothing you would wish upon your
children, or anyone else’s. But there is no indication of this scenario
being avoidable. ---INFA
(Copyright, India
News & Feature Alliance)
|