As a result of this announcement, the US joins a select group of three countries that haven’t signed the agreement: Nicaragua, Syria and now the United States of America.
And Nicaragua’s reason for not joining the Paris agreement is as a symbolic protest because they don’t think it is strong enough. It’s going to do tough reductions of emissions but not within the agreement.
Also, in the case of Syria then as the Washington Post put it: “Given the nature of the conflict during Paris negotiations, the Assad government was in no position to commit to limiting Syria's climate emissions.”
So really they are in a club of One.
His announcement was full of either confusion or spin. He doesn’t seem to understand that the Paris agreement is voluntary. The US set its own conditions. It doesn’t need to renegotiate to change its targets, just say it has set new targets for itself. The whole thing is voluntary.
He said he was acting for Pittsburgh rather than Paris. But Pittsburgh is one of many US states and cities that are involved in their own climate initiatives which they have the ability to do under the US constitution no matter what Trump says US as the whole is going to do. They aim to eliminate 1.3 million tons of CO2 emissions by 2023. It seems rather ironical that he would choose such a city as his named city in the speech, and say he is representing them by withdrawing from the Paris agreement. It’s no wonder that the Mayor of Pittsburgh tweeted his protest to that.
Fact: Hillary Clinton received 80% of the vote in Pittsburgh. Pittsburgh stands with the world & will follow Paris Agreement @HillaryClinton https://t.co/cibJyT7MAK
— bill peduto (@billpeduto) June 1, 2017
As the Mayor of Pittsburgh, I can assure you that we will follow the guidelines of the Paris Agreement for our people, our economy & future. https://t.co/3znXGTcd8C
— bill peduto (@billpeduto) June 1, 2017
Another thing he didn't seem to have grasped is that a small change in global temperature is just the average temperature - it means parts of the world will get a lot hotter, sometimes also colder in winter, stronger storms, precipitation concentrated into fewer but stronger storms with longer droughts in between, much larger changes in the polar temperatures, rises in sea level, acidification of oceans etc - it's those things that the countries are concerned about. So, it's not the average temperature change as such which would be fairly small overall - but the effects of that change.on the climate which is why "climate change" is a better word than "global warming".
If he honestly doesn't understand that, then his grasp of what the climate change agreement is about is minimal. If he does understand that then it is spin.
The whole thing was an utter shambles, and showed no understanding of the Paris agreement. And he is opposed not just by all the other countries worldwide except Syria, but also, by heads of industry and many States and cities in his own country and some of his own administration and by many Republicans as well as Democrats.
US AS ONE OF THE COUNTRIES MOST AFFECTED BY CLIMATE CHANGE
The strange thing is that the US is one of the countries likely to be most impacted by climate change, especially with the flooding, likely to affect New York, New Orleans, and Miami, and to put large areas of Florida under water. Potentially, 20 million US citizens may find their homes under water as a result of a 4 C rise. This is a middle of the range projection, conservative even. See my answer to If all the ice in the Antarctica melts, which countries in the world will be entirely covered in water? Also will be affected in many other ways including reduced crop yields, longer periods of drought and more severe storm damage.
In the US the main changes projected include: (quoting from the US Environmental Protection Agency report Future of Climate Change) -
- “Summertime temperatures in the United States that ranked among the hottest 5% in 1950-1979 will occur at least 70% of the time by 2035-2064“
- “Heavy downpours that currently occur about once every 20 years are projected to occur between twice and five times as frequently by 2100, depending on location“
- “The intensity of Atlantic hurricanes is likely to increase as the ocean warms.“
- “Cold-season storm tracks are expected to continue to shift northward. The strongest cold-season storms are projected to become stronger and more frequent“
- “Permafrost is expected to continue to thaw in northern latitudes, damaging buildings, infrastructure, and ecosystems in Alaska.“
Note that it doesn’t say that there will be more hurricanes. There’s too much uncertainty there - we may get more of them, or we may get the same amount or fewer. But the intensity of the hurricanes is likely to increase with a warmer ocean.
There they aren't saying that every summer from 2035 onwards will be as hot as the hottest 5% in the US for the period 1950-1979. Maybe summer 2035 turns out to be unusually cold in some of the runs of the model. But when they do the models many times, then by 2035-2064 then more than two thirds of the summers are so hot that back in 1950-1979 only one summer in twenty was that hot. So, if you get a cold summer, or a cold winter, or even a cold year, that doesn't mean the models are wrong. You need to take a longer term view than that.
You can also look up the effects for individual states, e.g. this climate change report for Nebraska
And this is the projection for New York city which experiences higher sea level rises than the global average:
- Projections for sea level rise in New York City are 11 to 21 inches by the 2050s, 18 to 39 inches by the 2080s, and the highest estimates (shown as + in the diagram above) could reach as high as 6 feet by 2100.
New York City Panel on Climate Change 2015 Report Executive Summary
Other projections include:
- “The frequency of heat waves is projected to triple by the 2080s, and extreme cold events are projected to decrease.
The US is also one of the countries that has most to gain from clean energy. And the agreement is voluntary, so the US could choose to commit as much or as little as it wanted to, which makes the talk about “renegotiating” puzzling.
ONLY A POLITICAL ISSUE NOW IN THE US
I go into the science in some detail here
Climate change is only a political left versus right issue in the US. Outside of the US, the political debate is over.
President Elect Trump - Why Climate Change Is No Longer A Political Issue Outside The US
As I say there - it was signed by our own Tory government - now headed by Theresa May, previously by David Cameron. It has support from governments of all political persuasions, unless you think Saudi Arabia, and Iran have left wing governments!
It also has support from the most capitalist countries as well as the most communist ones. This is the 2015 list of the most "economically free" countries. in the Economic Freedom of the World (EFW) annual survey by the Fraser Institute
They say
"The cornerstones of economic freedom are personal choice, voluntary exchange, freedom to enter markets and compete, and security of the person and privately owned property"
which sounds pretty much like the basics of capitalism. So they say that the ten most economically free countries are
"Hong Kong and Singapore, once again, occupy the top two positions. The other nations in the top 10 are New Zealand, Switzerland, United Arab Emirates, Mauritius, Jordan, Ireland, Canada, and the United Kingdom and Chile, tied for 10th."
All of those have now ratified the agreement.
GREEN CLIMATE FUND IS VOLUNTARY
The only financial commitment that the US had was to a fund to help poorer countries to develop their green energy solutions. But that also is a voluntary fund too. The US made the largest pledge, $3 billion of which it has paid around $1 billion so far. The UK, a much smaller country, pledged $1.2 billion and Japan pledged 1.5 billion, France and Germany also both pledged $1 billion - and the UK and Japan have both paid significant amounts into the fund so far.
The highest per capita pledge for this fund is from Sweden, pledging $60 per person and the UK has pledged £15 per person.
To see how voluntary it is - neither India nor China have put forward anything into it yet. The US could just say that they aren't going to put anything more into it, so joining China and India, and remain within the Paris agreement. None of this was imposed on the US by anyone else, indeed, the whole Paris agreement was instigated mainly by the US as one of the key players who got the ball rolling.
Reality Check: What do countries spend on climate fund? - BBC News
SEE ALSO
For the Green Climate Fund see Washington Post article: Perspective | Trump will stop paying into the Green Climate Fund. He has no idea what it is.
About the Author
