Background.
The
global media have reacted with a combination of disappointment and
dumbfoundedness, in the wake of the decision by the United States of America to
abrogate its curbing of carbon emissions1, as set forth in the Paris
Agreement, at the COP21 United Nations Climate Change Conference2 in
December 2015. Thus, the US joins a rather exclusive club, consisting of Syria
(whose energies and considerations have been more pressingly occupied by the
civil war which has raged there for the past 6 years) and Nicaragua, a nation so
successful in providing its energy from low-carbon sources that it does not
need to sign up for any further amelioration of its emissions, but rather sets
a pristine example to much of the rest of the world1. China, now at
overcapacity against demand for coal-fired power production3, has emphasised
to the US that fighting climate change is a global responsibility4,
and around 40 other independent nations5, along with the United
Nations, the European Union and the African Union, have expressed their concern,
disappointment or outrage, and reaffirmed their own commitments5 to
abide by the treaty. Even major oil companies such as ExxonMobil and Chevron,
are against the US decision, and have vowed to hold to the agreement,
irrespective of it6. It is indeed true that the agreement is not legally
binding, but more a citizens’ charter of individual nations, who will receive no
further retribution than to be named and shamed2 should they ultimately
fail to comply, as the US may profoundly demonstrate.
The purpose of the Paris Agreement7
is to limit “the increase in the global average temperature to well below 2 °C
above pre-industrial levels and [pursue] efforts to limit the temperature
increase to 1.5 °C above pre-industrial levels", primarily
through limiting greenhouse gas emissions (Figure 1), to which the US became a
signatory in April 2016, and accepted it by executive order in September of the
same year. Donald Trump, of the Republican Party, was elected into office as
President of the United States on November 8th 2016, just 4 days
after the Paris Agreement entered into force in the US: during his election
campaign, Trump had voiced his intention to revamp the US coal industry, which
in his opinion has been disadvantaged by environmental regulations8.
Trump issued an executive order to reverse the Clean Power Plan (which was
inaugurated by his predecessor President Obama), and other environmental regulations,
during the early stages of his presidency9. Obama had also committed the US to providing
$3 billion for the Green Climate Fund (intended to assist developing countries
in coping with the effects of climate change, by means of raising an annual
$100 billion by 2020) which Trump has criticised as a scheme to redistribute
wealth from rich to poor countries10. Prior to his announcement, President
Trump had been urged to revoke the U.S. commitment to the Paris Agreement, in a
letter11 signed by 20 Members of the European Parliament, 10 from the
UK Independence (UKIP) Party12,
on the grounds that:
“We believe that the Paris agreement is potentially damaging, especially
to developed western economies. We also believe that an early decision by
your Administration to pull out of the Paris agreement will effectively neuter
it, to the benefit of us all.
At the same time, we would urge you to take action
to withdraw the carbon dioxide endangerment finding, which has no sound basis
in science, but which provides a pretext for damaging and extreme environmental
policies.”
Trump had
similarly been exhorted by 22 US Republican senators, to pull out of the Paris
Agreement, although it has been stressed that most of the signatories on the
letter are from states with an economic reliance on the combustion of fossil
fuels13, and claimed14 that the
group of 22 senators had, between them, benefitted from contributions to their
election campaigns to the tune of over $10 million from companies dealing in
oil, gas and coal, during the past three elections. However, a group of 40
senators13 from the Democrats had also written to the President
counselling him to abide by the Agreement, emphasising that, "a withdrawal
would hurt America's credibility and influence on the world stage."
The Announcement itself.
As
a prelude to the announcement, at the G7 summit in late May 2017, President Trump
stood alone in refusing to confirm commitment by the United States to the Paris
Agreement, and a communication was issued at the end of the conference stating
that the US "is not in a position to join the consensus" of other G7
countries regarding policies on climate change and the Paris Agreement15.
Then, on June 1st, 2017, he announced that the US would cease all participation1,16
in the 2015 Paris Agreement, but that he was prepared to negotiate for "a
better deal". However, European and UN leaders made the point that the
pact "cannot be renegotiated at the request of a single party"17.
In his announcement, Trump affirmed that "In order to fulfil my solemn
duty to protect the United States and its citizens, the United States will
withdraw from the Paris climate accord." He averred that implementation of
the agreement would lose the United States $3 trillion worth of GDP and result
in the loss of 6.5 million jobs18. He further remarked that it would
"undermine our economy, hamstring our workers," and "effectively
decapitate our coal industry"19.
According to its Article 28, the
United States cannot depart from the Agreement before November 4th, 2020, and
until then, it may be obligated to maintain its agreed commitments, including that
it continues to report its emissions figures to the United Nations. However,
since the agreement has not been ratified by the Senate, it has been speculated
that this may not prove binding20.
Global reactions.
As
already noted, the reactions from the world’s governments have been almost universally
hostile5 to the prospect of the US withdrawing from the Paris
Agreement. Similarly, the overall reaction from the scientific community is one
of great disappointment, if not outright appal, as was reported21 in
the journal Nature. However, in the journal
Nature Climate Change, Luke Kemp of
the Australian National University has written a commentary22 in
which he concludes that, “Continued
US membership in the Paris Agreement on climate would be symbolic and have no
effect on US emissions. Instead, it would reveal the weaknesses of the
agreement, prevent new opportunities from emerging, and gift greater leverage
to a recalcitrant administration.” In part, the basis of this argument is that,
“the
greenhouse gas emissions of the US are divorced from international legal
obligations." Kemp does,
nonetheless, conclude that should the US abandon contributing to the Green
Climate Fund, it would make it more difficult to maintain activities globally
to ameliorate climate change and to cope with its consequences. Kemp also noted
that, "a rogue US can cause more damage inside rather than outside of the
agreement." He concludes by saying22, "A withdrawal could
also make the US into a climate pariah and provide a unique opportunity for
China and the EU to take control of the climate regime and significantly boost
their international reputations and soft power.”
In an interview by the Washington Post23,
a colleague of Kemp, Frank Jotzo, accords with his view that it could be
more damaging for the US to remain, or in any case that the consequences of its
withdrawal will be less severe than has been feared by some, saying, “The US
leaving the Paris agreement is unlikely to have a domino effect. And it is a
long game: the next president might decide to rejoin the agreement, or join a
successor agreement.” Indeed, should the US desist from its participation in
the Agreement at this stage, it could reunite at some future point; as was
remarked upon by Kemp23, “A future president could rejoin Paris at
the flick of a pen.” In accord with this option, in Trump’s written statement24, is the phrase “…the United States will withdraw from the Paris Climate Accord but begin
negotiations to re-enter either the Paris Accord or a really entirely new
transaction on terms that are fair to the United States…” So, the US divorce
from the Paris Agreement is not yet “absolute”; however, Senator John Kerry is
highly sceptical25 that the president has any intention of acceding
to any such agreement. An independent report has warned of the likely adverse
consequences should the international community delay in its actions to combat
climate change26.
The reaction from the commercial world is mixed,
but a number of large organisations6 have expressed their opposition
to Trump’s decision, and confirmed their intention to pursue low-carbon
policies, including Apple, General Electric, Google, Facebook, Goldman
Sachs, Tesla, Morgan Stanley, PepsiCo, Walmart and Walt Disney, ExxonMobil and Chevron,
along with ConocoPhillips27 and Microsoft27. A bipartisan
group of US states formed the “US Climate Alliance”28, and this was followed rapidly by the “We
Are Still In” (WASI)29 campaign, created by a group which includes 125
cities, 9 states, 902 businesses and investors, and 183 colleges and
universities, all motivated by a collective support for the Paris
Agreement, on the basis that taking action against climate change is both
good for America and is the nation’s obligation to the world28. Meanwhile,
the state of California has signed a climate agreement29 with China.
Possible
consequences.
Of
concern is the prospect that other nations could follow the US example, and
similarly withdraw from the Paris Agreement. Indeed, one analysis26
suggests that should the rest of the world delay taking action by 8 years, the
result would be a doubling of cumulative CO2 emissions over the next
century, rendering the 2 oC target unattainable. As an example from
history, we may note that although the US signed the Kyoto Protocol, it did not
formally ratify the agreement: this led to the adoption of the Marrakech
Accords by the international community, but further actions stalled. In 2007,
the Bali Road Map was introduced, so marking the abandonment of Kyoto, and the
inauguration of a new treaty which involved the US, i.e. the Paris Agreement22.
It seems unlikely that the Paris Agreement will be derailed by a US withdrawal,
in the short term at least, since the international community has emphasised
almost universal commitment to it. However, even if the US remains as a club
member, given its economic power and significance as a principal global CO2-emitter
(Figure 1), should it fail to deliver on its agreed targets, other parties
might feel less inclined to honour their own.
Leading climate change scientists, James
Hansen and Michael Schellenberger have co-authored an article30, in
which they make a case that it is necessary to build more nuclear power
stations, since solar and wind energy cannot replace fossil fuels entirely. The
US is the world’s second largest CO2 emitter, meaning that its promised
carbon reductions would have accounted for over one fifth of the Agreement’s total
emissions cuts by 203031. A truly “worst case” scenario of the
effects of climate change has been presented in an article published in New
York Magazine , with the self-explanatory title “The Uninhabitable Earth”, which
has evoked mixed responses32.
Global Trends in Carbon
Emissions.
Part
of the increase in CO2 emissions from developing countries such as
China and India is a result of richer Western nations “outsourcing” their
manufacture to these Eastern nations, effectively exporting the emissions and
importing the goods. While, during the early 2000s, such transfers were
increasing at 11% per year, it is now domestic growth that is the cause of
rising emissions in Asia: 97% of the steel and 99% of the concrete made in
China is actually used in China33. Moreover, there is now a trend in
outsourcing emissions within Chinese borders, since the richer coastal
provinces consume more than the poorer hinterlands, where the manufacturing is
done34. There has been a “flattening” in global CO2
emissions, over the past few years35, which is attributed by the
International Energy Agency (IEA) to “growing renewable power generation, switches
from coal to natural gas, improvements in energy efficiency, as well as
structural changes in the global economy.” The United States experienced a 1.6%
decrease in its energy-related emissions in 2016, as a result of substituting
natural gas for coal, and an expansion of wind and solar energy production. CO2
emissions in Europe remained flat in 2016, while in China, the effect of moving
away from heavy industry has apparently led to a smaller consumption of coal,
though one commentator has raised a question mark over the reliability of the
statistics for this35.
The BP Statistical Review of World Energy
2017 was published in June 2017, and reckons the actual quantities of fossil
and other energy resources for the year 2016. In summary, the following picture
emerges36:
·
The use of Oil (Crude oil + Condensate +Natural Gas
Liquids) was static.
·
The use of gas was static.
·
The use of nuclear energy continues to recover.
·
The installation of hydroelectric power continues
to rise.
·
The installation of wind, solar and other renewable
energy sources are all increasing.
·
The use of coal continues to decline.
How can we best deal with
the “changing climate”?
It is worth asking the question, that
irrespective of a US withdrawal from the Paris Agreement, what strategies might
be best adopted for dealing with a “changing climate”37, of which
“climate change” is merely one symptom? Indeed, it has been argued38
that the emissions pledges outlined in the Agreement are insufficient to
restrain the further global temperature rise to below the ceiling of “well
below 2 oC above pre-industrial levels” that it stipulates. Indeed,
if we are to address the manifold changes that are occurring, in terms of the
depletion and deterioration of natural resources - fossil, mineral, water,
soil, biodiversity – and the products of their use, e.g. CO2, it is
probably necessary to adapt away from traditional models of economic growth39.
It has been argued that various methods of geoengineering might offset the
continued emission of CO2 by human civilization, but
these would need to be implemented on a gargantuan scale, e.g. “bio-energy with
carbon capture and storage” (beccs), which would necessitate planting tree
plantations with a total acreage equal to three times the area of India, and
occupy one-third of the arable land on the Earth’s surface, seriously
compromising food production. It has been estimated40 that achieving
a 50% probability of keeping to within the 2 oC limit, will require
the industrialised nations to reduce their carbon emissions by 8-10% per year,
from 2015, reaching a net zero in 2050; in contrast, by the combined effect of
increased renewable energy installation, and improved energy efficiency
technologies, a mere 4% per year is likely to be possible. It is concluded that
this deficit can be dealt with by reduced economic activity, also known as
“degrowth”39,40, with the industrialised countries curbing their
economies by 4-6% per year, beginning in 2015, while the poorer nations begin
scaling down their economies, in 2025, by close to 3% per year. In short, it
implies the end of global capitalism, which depends implicitly on relentless
growth.
In a recently published book, Dieter
Helm argues that technological adaptations, including the internet of things
(IoT) will drive an unabated decline in our use of oil, gas and renewables, and
which will be more effective than current efforts to avert climate change41,
as has been reviewed in this journal42.The Drawdown project has
identified 80 different “solutions”, and more than 20 potential innovations,
all with the ability to either reduce carbon emissions or to sequester CO2
that is already in the atmosphere, and a book has been published about it43.
The methods are highly various, and include clean (low-carbon) energy production
(including nuclear fission and hydrogen-boron fusion), a kind of seaweed which when
fed to cattle reduces their methane emissions, providing education to girls and
encouraging family planning, green roofs, high-speed/high-efficiency
transportation methods (with reduced energy demands compared with driving or
flying), industries based on using recycled feedstocks, ocean farming, farmland
regeneration, forest protection, managed grazing and conservation agriculture.
Some of the latter concepts are also described in a paper previously published
in this journal entitled44 “The Imperative for Regenerative
Agriculture”, which also emphasises the need for waste minimisation via methods
of permaculture and the circular economy. Dealing with the changing climate will
involve a climate resilience model which incorporates the inter-connected elements of climate resilience, climate
change, adaptability, and vulnerability, as is summarised by the graphic shown in
Figure 2. If we define resilience to mean the ability to recover from an
adverse circumstance (in the present context, climate change), then it is vital
to prepare in advance of the event, and to plan strategies (adaptations) that
will enable recovery to be made, and also to identify vulnerable populations
that are less capable of devising and putting into action a strategy of resilience.
In the above, it is taken implicitly that the impacts of climate change will be
detrimental to ecosystems and ecosystem services.45
References.
(1)
Siddique, H. (2017) The Guardian, June 1st. https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2017/jun/01/us-would-join-syria-and-nicaragua-on-climate-accord-no-list
[Accessed July 19th, 2017].
(2)
Rhodes, C.J. (2016) Sci. Prog. 99, 97.
(3)
Chen, K. and Stanway, D. (2017) Scientific
American, https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/china-to-halt-construction-on-coal-fired-power-plants-in-15-regions/
[Accessed July 19th, 2017].
(4)
Johnston, I. (2017) The Independent,
June 1st. http://www.independent.co.uk/environment/china-donald-trump-climate-change-responsibility-paris-agreement-global-warming-fossil-fuels-a7766451.html
[Accessed July 19th, 2017].
(5)
Wikipedia (2017) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_withdrawal_from_the_Paris_Agreement
[Accessed July 19th, 2017].
(6)
Dahlmann, F. (2017) The Conversation,
June 6th. https://phys.org/news/2017-06-opinion-companies-trump-paris-climate.html
[Accessed July 19th, 2017].
(7)
Conference of the Parties (2015) United
Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change, December 12th. (http://unfccc.int/resource/docs/2015/cop21/eng/l09r01.pdf
[Accessed July 17th, 2017].
(8)
Brewer, C. and Golden, J. (2016) CNBC, June
2nd.
http://www.cnbc.com/2016/10/12/in-this-swing-state-coal-country-is-trump-country.html
[Accessed July 19th, 2017].
(9) Guskin, E. (2017) The Washington Post, March 29th.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2017/03/29/trumps-rollback-of-obamas-environmental-legacy-is-all-kinds-of-unpopular/?utm_term=.ec04032d5f76
[Accessed July 19th, 2017].
(10)
,
A.J. (2017) New York Times, June 1st.
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/06/01/world/europe/climate-paris-agreement-trump-china.html?_r=0
[Accessed July 19th, 2017].
(11)
Logan, R. (2017) The Daily Express, April 7th. http://www.express.co.uk/news/world/789177/MEPs-love-letter-Donald-Trump-scrap-Paris-agreement-climate-change
[Accessed July 19th, 2017].
(12)
Helm, R. (2017) Express, April, 7th.
https://rogerhelmermep.wordpress.com/2017/04/20/call-for-trump-to-dump-the-paris-climate-deal/
[Accessed July 19th, 2017].
(13) Associated
Press (2017) Fox News Politics, May
25th. http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2017/05/25/22-gop-senators-want-us-to-pull-out-paris-climate-accord.html
[Accessed July 19th, 2017]
(14) McCarthy,
T. and Gambino, L. (2017) The Guardian,
June 1st. https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2017/jun/01/republican-senators-paris-climate-deal-energy-donations
[Accessed July 19th, 2017].
(15) G7
Taormina Leaders’ Communiqué (2017)
http://www.g7italy.it/sites/default/files/documents/G7%20Taormina%20Leaders'%20Communique_27052017.pdf
[Accessed July 19th, 2017].
(16) Cama, T. and Henry, D.
(2017) The Hill, June 1st. http://thehill.com/policy/energy-environment/335955-trump-pulls-us-out-of-paris-climate-deal [Accessed July 19th,
2017]
(17) Liptak, K. and Acosta, J.
(2017) CNN, June 2nd. http://edition.cnn.com/2017/06/01/politics/trump-paris-climate-decision/index.html
[Accessed July 17th, 2017]
(18) BBC News (2017) June 2nd.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-40127326 [Accessed July 19th,
2017].
(19) Associated Press (2017) June
2nd.
https://www.voanews.com/a/ap-fact-check-trump-climate-claims/3884022.html [Accessed July 19th, 2017].
(20) https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/2017/06/01/the-u-s-cant-quit-the-paris-climate-agreement-because-it-never-actually-joined/?utm_term=.4b7d9ee0a4a9
[Accessed July 19th, 2017]
https://www.nature.com/news/how-scientists-reacted-to-the-us-leaving-the-paris-climate-agreement-1.22098
[Accessed July 19th, 2017].
(22)
Kemp. L. (2017) Nat. Clim. Change, 7, 458-560.
(23)
Harvey, C. (2017) The Washington Post,
May 31st. https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/energy-environment/wp/2017/05/31/these-experts-say-it-may-actually-be-best-if-the-u-s-left-the-paris-climate-agreement/?utm_term=.9334c1acf55b
[Accessed July 19th, 2017].
(24)
Garden, R. (2017) The White House,
June 1st. https://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2017/06/01/statement-president-trump-paris-climate-accord
[Accessed July 19th].
(25)
Abramson, A. (2017) Fortune, June 4th.
http://fortune.com/2017/06/04/john-kerry-trump-paris-agreement-oj-simpson/
[Accessed July 19th, 2017].
(26)
Sanderson, B.M. and Knutti, R. (2017) Nat.
Clim. Change, 7, 92-94.
(27) Abrams, A. and Shen, L. (2017) Fortune, June 1st. http://fortune.com/2017/06/01/paris-climate-agreement-business-leaders-react/
[Accessed July 19th, 2017].
(28)
Hausfather, Z. (2017) Resilience,
June 27th. http://www.resilience.org/stories/2017-06-27/analysis-us-states-cities-meet-paris-climate-goals-without-trump/
[Accessed July 19th, 2017].
(29) Andrews, R. (2017) IFLScience, June 6th. http://www.iflscience.com/environment/california-signed-climate-change-agreement-china/
[Accessed July 19th, 2017].
(30) Hansen, J. and Shellenberger, M. (2017) Scientific American,June 6th.
ttps://blogs.scientificamerican.com/observations/after-trumps-withdrawal-from-paris-nukes-are-more-crucial-than-ever/
[Accessed July 19th, 2017].
(31)
Hartmann, M. (2017) New York, June 2nd.
http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2017/06/what-quitting-the-paris-deal-does-to-the-us-and-the-planet.html
[Accessed July 19th, 2017].
(32)
Romm, J. (2017) Resilience, July 12th,
2017. http://www.resilience.org/stories/2017-07-12/we-arent-doomed-by-climate-change-right-now-we-are-choosing-to-be-doomed/
[Accessed July 19th, 2017].
(33)
Plumer, B. (2017) Vox, April 18th.
https://www.vox.com/energy-and-environment/2017/4/18/15331040/emissions-outsourcing-carbon-leakage
[Accessed July 19th, 2017].
(34)
Feng, K.,
Davis, S.J., Sun, L., et al. (2013), PNAS, 110, 11654–
11659. http://www.pnas.org/content/110/28/11654.full.pdf
[Accessed July 19th, 2017].
(35)
Plumber, B. (2017) Vox, May 21st.https://www.vox.com/energy-and-environment/2017/3/21/14998536/slowdown-co2-emissions
[Accessed July 19th, 2017].
(36)
Mearns, E. (2017) March 21st. http://euanmearns.com/the-bp-statistical-review-of-world-energy-2017/
[Accessed July 19th].
(37)
Rhodes, C.J. (2015) Sci. Prog., 98, 403-412. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/287261121_Permaculture_Regenerative_-_not_merely_sustainable
[Accessed July 19th, 2017].
(38)
Ladan, M.T. (2016) http://www.academia.edu/27278469/REVIEW_OF_THE_PARIS_AGREEMENT_-THE_HEART_OF_THE_POST_2020_INTERNATIONAL_LEGAL_REGIME_ON_CLIMATE_CHANGE_AND_ITS_IMPLICATIONS_FOR_SUSTAINABLE_DEVELOPMENT_GOALS_AND_THE_ENERGY_SECTOR
[Accessed July 19th].
(39) Hickel, J. (2017) The
Guardian, July 3rd. https://www.theguardian.com/global-development-professionals-network/2017/jul/03/paris-climate-deal-wont-work-our-future-depends-degrowth [Accessed July 19th].
(40) Anderson, K. and Bows-Larkin, A. (2013), kevinanderson.info, November 25th. http://kevinanderson.info/blog/avoiding-dangerous-climate-change-demands-de-growth-strategies-from-wealthier-nations/ [Accessed July 19th, 2017].
(41) Helm, D. (2017) Burn Out. Yale University Press. New Haven.
(42) Rhodes, C.J. (2017) Sci. Prog. 100, in press.
(43) Hawken, P. (ed.)
(2017) Drawdown, Penguin, New York. ISBN-13:
978-0143130444 http://www.drawdown.org/
(44)
Rhodes, C.J. (2017) Sci. Prog., 100, 80-129.
(45) Smit, B. and
Wandel, J. (2006) Global Env. Change,
16, 282-292. doi.org/10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2006.03.008
Captions to Figures.
Figure
1. Global CO2 gas emissions in the year 2015 by country.. Credit: Árni Dagur
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/c/ca/CO2_emission_pie_chart.svg
Figure 2. A graphic displaying the interconnectivity
between climate change, adaptability, vulnerability, and resilience; for
climate resilience. Credit: Quokka-roo.
No comments:
Post a Comment