"We're getting out." It was with these words that Donald Trump signified the United States' break from the Paris Agreement on Climate Change.
In a statement from the Rose Garden in Washington DC, Trump announced that the United States would be withdrawing its support from the Accord, but would begin negotiations to re-enter the Paris Agreement or an “entirely new transaction” that would be more "fair" to the U.S economy.
"As someone who cares deeply about the environment, I cannot in good conscience support [the deal]," Trump said, noting that the Paris Agreement was blocking the development of clean coal in America.
In 2016, the Paris Agreement marked a turning point in the battle against climate change. World leaders from across the globe united for the first time in history to legally ratify action against pollution through the United Nations Framework Convention. Throughout his presidential campaign, however, Donald Trump had promised to reverse the United States' green energy policies.
Trump's decision goes against the urgings of the EU and the Chinese government, which both solidified their commitment to the deal in light of the United States' decision. Several prominent US firms, including Microsoft, Apple, Google and Facebook, also pleaded with Trump to remain in the agreement. Elon Musk, meanwhile, said he's leaving Trump's advisory councils due to the decision.
Theresa May said she was "disappointed" with Trump's decision and reaffirmed the UK's commitment to the agreement, but she didn't go as far as other leaders. Jeremy Corbyn called it "reckless and regressive", while the French, German and Italian governments issued a strongly worded joint statement.
Stephen Hawking has since commented that the decision could be catastrophic, and lead to permanent damage to the climate. “We are close to the tipping point where global warming becomes irreversible,” he told the BBC. “Trump's action could push the Earth over the brink, to become like Venus, with a temperature of two hundred and fifty degrees, and raining sulphuric acid." He added that Trump’s decision would cause “avoidable environmental damage to our beautiful planet, endangering the natural world, for us and our children".
The EU has rejected Trump's idea of re-working the deal around its own industry demands. On Wednesday 14 June, European Commission president Jean-Claude Juncker told the EU Parliament in no uncertain terms that “the European Union will not renegotiate the Paris agreement,” and that “the 29 articles of the agreement must be implemented and not renegotiated".
When Trump announced his decision, only two countries weren't signatories to the agreement: Syria and Nicaragua. However, Nicaragua signed the agreement in October and, according to Climate Tracker, Syria has pledged to sign the agreement as of November 7th, 2017. Thus, if the US were to leave the Paris Agreement, the US would be the only country in the world (yes, even North Korea has signed) that wasn't a signatory.
Read more: What is climate change? The definition, causes and effects
The ultimate purpose of the Paris Agreement was to strengthen the global response to climate change by creating an international network of government bodies, all dedicated to lowering emissions. Syria and Nicaragua were the only countries who did not join the Agreement.
Those who did pledged to work towards a long-term goal of keeping the increase in global average temperature to well below 2°C above pre-industrial levels, ideally aiming to limit the increase to 1.5°C. This level of temperature change may sound insignificant, but would, in fact, put massive strain on food production, clean water sources and energy production.
The Paris Agreement was a hard-fought achievement, developed with a loose-fitting framework so as to allow individual countries to develop their own climate strategies.
It was designed not to spook the world's biggest polluters away from the table and to open a dialogue between nations on an international issue. And, while it was criticised for being too lax, it was a step towards a unified front against climate change.
China and India, countries that were initially assumed to be against such a climate deal, have become some of its more steadfast supporters - now more than ever, in contrast with the United States' decision.
In a statement released by a foreign ministry spokesperson, China has maintained its support for the Paris Accord:
"The general trend of green, low-carbon and sustainable development advocated by the Paris Agreement coincides with China's policy of promoting ecological advancement. However the other countries may change, China will continue to pursue innovative, coordinated, green, open and shared development, bear in mind its domestic requirements for sustainable growth, step up concrete efforts to deal with climate change and faithfully implement the Paris Agreement."
While the Paris Agreement holds no legal obligation, Trump's decision to rescind the pledge of his predecessor, Barack Obama, leaves the United States in a tenuous position on the world stage. It joins a select group of countries that have refused to sign the Accord - Nicaragua, as it believed the deal wasn't strict enough, and Syria, which, at the time of signing, was divided by civil war.
Trump has proposed two options for environmental action in America: to either re-enter the Paris Agreement, or create an 'entirely new' environmental deal. But, these deals are as yet just ideas as key scientific roles in the Trump administration have yet to be determined.
Trump has yet to appoint a head of the Office of Science and Technology (OSTP), a post that traditionally acts as a science adviser to the President. Furthermore, the President’s Council of Advisers on Science and Technology has seats that remain unfilled - with no sign of being filled. In an interview with Fox News, Trump said that "A lot of those jobs, I don’t want to appoint, because they’re unnecessary to have.”
So far, other international leaders have shown little appetite to appease Trump's desire for a new deal. Most have expressed sadness at the decision, but many are also defiant. The German, French and Italian leadership said: "...we firmly believe that the Paris Agreement cannot be renegotiated, since it is a vital instrument for our planet, societies and economies".
Trump faces significant opposition in his own country, too. The Washington Post reports thirty states plan to press ahead with their existing climate policies and reduce emissions. Pittsburgh has become a particular focus of opposition, having been stated in Trump's decision: “I was elected to represent the citizens of Pittsburgh, not Paris." It was perhaps a reference to the Rust Belt voters who had carried him to the White House, on promises of booms to coal and steel industries that used to dominate the region. However, Donald Trump was not, in fact, elected by the citizens of Pittsburgh. In actuality, the Trump administration lost every district in that state during the election and is now facing renewed opposition from its residents.
Pittsburgh Mayor Bill Peduto has emphatically stated his support for the Paris Agreement. Renewable energy in Pittsburgh has created an estimated 13,000 jobs, with investment in green development transforming it from its roots as a polluted, steel-mill-driven city to one of the largest growing tech and healthcare centres in the country. Pittsburgh residents have taken to the streets in a "March for Truth" in support of the Paris Agreement, at which time Peduto committed the city to a goal of reaching 100 per cent renewable energy adoption by 2035.
Peduto is one of 246 Mayors who have said they will independently adopt the Paris Accord – calling themselves the US Climate Mayors.
Elsewhere, academics have expressed their concern for Trump's decision – in particular, John Reilly, co-director of the MIT Joint Program on the Science and Policy of Global Change. Reilly's study, How much of a difference will the Paris Agreement make?, formed a key part of Trump's announcement on June 1. Reilly's study demonstrated that, if countries maintained their commitment to the Paris Agreement over the next five to 10 years, global warming would slow by 0.6 to 1.1 degrees celsius by the end of the century. However, when Trump cited this study, he stated the Paris Agreement would only lead to a change of 2/10 of a degree by 2100 - a "tiny, tiny amount."
Reilly has since told CNN he believes the White House is "probably immune to fact" and that "the whole statement seemed to suggest a complete misunderstanding of the climate problem."
A separate study by Yale University in May 2017 found that a majority of Americans in every state supported the Paris Agreement. Seven in ten registered voters stated that the U.S. should participate in the Accord, compared with only 13 per cent who say the US should not. The Climate Opinion maps series also demonstrates support amongst Trump voters, with 47 per cent expressing support, 28 voicing objection and 25 per cent stating they 'didn't know' - suggesting that, even amongst loyal voters, Trump's decision on the Paris Accord is a point of contention.
A coalition of US cities, states and businesses, calling themselves We Are Still In, announced on June 5 it would create a separate political entity to pursue climate action once the US withdraws from the Accord. This move would effectively break away from Trump administration policies in regards to climate change, creating a national network with an independent climate framework. In a statement released by the group, they describe themselves as "mayors, governors, college and university leaders, businesses, and investors [who] are joining forces for the first time to declare that we will continue to support climate action."
Furthermore, We Are Still In claim that the decision to pull out of the Paris Agreement is "out of step" with what is happening in the United States:
"In the U.S., it is local and state governments, along with businesses, that are primarily responsible for the dramatic decrease in greenhouse gas emissions in recent years. Actions by each group will multiply and accelerate in the years ahead, no matter what policies Washington may adopt.
"In the absence of leadership from Washington, states, cities, colleges and universities, businesses and investors, representing a sizeable percentage of the U.S. economy will pursue ambitious climate goals, working together to take forceful action and to ensure that the U.S. remains a global leader in reducing emissions."
Keeping the temperature rise to 1.5°C would significantly reduce the risks and the impacts associated with climate change. The rising temperatures are the result of anthropogenic activity - human pollution trapped in the atmosphere that alters the natural functions of the climate. Countries across the world, such as China, the United Kingdom, Egypt, France and Germany, pledged to make rapid reductions to their infrastructure policies in accordance with the best available science, in the hopes of reducing their overall emissions to a long-term goal of zero-net emissions overall - carbon neutrality.
A significant element of reduced emission policies was the focus on climate taxes on companies. Simply put, the world's worst polluters would be financially accountable for their chemical contribution to climate change. The greater the polluter, the higher the cost - the typical rate set at $150 per tonne of CO2. These rates, designed to improve the quality of air whilst simultaneously creating a new source of revenue, contradict Trump's focus on industrial expansion.
Read more: Climate change has pushed Earth into 'uncharted territory'
Having famously stated that climate change is a "hoax", Trump promises to resurrect the United States' mining industry, creating a new avenue through which to reverse not only the evolution of modern economies, but the hopes for cleaner air, rivers and lakes across the United States.
Speculation had been rife as to whether Trump would pull out of the Paris Agreement. Trump openly criticised Obama's Clean Power Plans (CPP) throughout his presidential campaign, and promised to retract the sway of the green movement in the United States. CPP was designed to cut the power industry's carbon emissions by 32 per cent by 2030, a vital step towards the Paris Agreement's goals.
In light of changes to the Environmental Protection Agency, with climate change denier Scott Pruitt now at the helm, the EPA's webpages relating to climate change have either been altered since the Obama administration or have disappeared entirely.
Those who expressed concern over the situation include Elon Musk, cofounder of Tesla and SpaceX, who said he's leaving Trump's economic and manufacturing advisory councils due to the decision.
Furthermore, Apple CEO Tim Cook also reportedly made a call to the White House on May 31 to try to convince Trump to remain in the Paris Agreement, but to no avail.
The international framework of the Paris Agreement had a key focus on transparency. It ensures the public has insight into the actions being taken against climate change. This transparency comes in the form of meetings every five years to adjust plans according to new science and technologies. Governing bodies in attendance can also relay any issues to one another, and the public is given the opportunity to engage in this dialogue. This process ensured accountability.
The framework also gives countries with stronger GDPs the chance to help structure the plans of other countries at different stages of development. This was a point of contention during the negotiations, and was moved into the non-legal framework - largely due to the United States and a Republican-controlled senate that would not push through a cash pledge to developing countries.
Read more: Earth Day 2017: what is it and why is it important?
Five years ago India, one of the countries to sign the Paris Agreement, had an economy largely driven by coal. It has now made significant steps towards adopting solar energy and recently scrapped 13.7 GW of planned coal power projects. These shifts towards renewable energy can be seen in stark contrast to the United States' current position.
At the time of its ratification, the Paris Agreement drew unprecedented attention to climate change issues. Since 2016, a consensus of published climate scientists found that 97 per cent agreed climate change was caused by anthropogenic activity. Having a strong scientific foundation to stand upon, the framework put in place by the Paris Agreement was a vital link between the facts presented by science and the power of politics to address the issues they revealed.
Not exactly. A report published earlier this year found that climate change had pushed the Earth into uncharted territory, with glacial melting in Antarctica at higher rates than had been previously anticipated, raging forest fires across the United States and Australia, and other extreme climate events on a dizzying rise. In short, the climate change problem is surpassing that of a crisis point - and needs mitigation through a binding legal framework.
The Paris Agreement was an assurance of these changes - a way to hold countries accountable for future generations and the needs of a changing world. It stipulated a need for strategies to reduce the loss and damage induced by climate change through new warning systems, emergency preparedness strategies and risk insurance for climatological events that would adversely affect the global economy. While no financial claims could be made by countries against one another for the effects of climate change, it held the greatest polluters to a new standard.
Read more: How long do you have left to live? A new AI could have the answer
It will take four years for any country to withdraw from the Paris Agreement. It means that the United States would only be legally removed from the Agreement once Trump's presidency had ended, creating a high level of uncertainty around the country's future environmental policies.
If the US were to pull out of the UN's climate body - the UNFCCC - however, it could remove itself from the agreement in just one year.
Currently, there is no sign other countries will follow suit. China, a strong supporter of the stipulations set about by the Paris Agreement has maintained its commitment.
Looking towards the future, it is certain that this decision will take a toll on environmental health. Pollution flourished during the industrial revolution, when the links between carbon emissions and climate change were unknown and uncared for. Now, climate change is at a new crossroads - and the march of progress looks set to shift once again.
This article was originally published by WIRED UK
