By withdrawing from the Paris accord, Trump is offering a number of nations a helpful excuse for dodging commitments they had little intention of keeping.
O pposition to Donald Trump’s decision to take the U.S. out of the Paris climate accord (again) arises mainly out of the belief that America is not doing its part to avert an existential threat to humanity. More practical, if optimistic, sorts maintain that the U.S. risks falling behind in the competition to harvest the riches that decarbonization will supposedly deliver. Some worry that the U.S. will lose its climate “leadership,” which, if it ever existed in the political sense (in the real world, U.S. per capita CO₂ emissions have been declining, save for a post-pandemic bump, since 2001), is being ignored by, among others, China, India, Russia, and Indonesia.
Then again, how well are the participants in the Paris accord living up to their obligations?
The Financial Times is reporting that almost 200 countries are due to submit updated climate plans (including projected emissions reductions by 2035) to the U.N. next week. Most will fail to do so. And despite claims to the contrary, Trump is not really responsible. He was only elected a couple of months ago, by which time any serious planning ought to have been completed.
By withdrawing from Paris, Trump is offering a number of nations a helpful excuse for dodging commitments they had little intention of keeping. And so, blaming Trump, Indonesia appears to be preparing to quit Paris too. Other countries (many of which have excellent scientists capable of assessing climate dangers) might also use America’s withdrawal to let timing slide a bit — just for now, you understand. But climate change either threatens disaster or it doesn’t, and, whether inside or outside the Paris system, America’s CO₂ trajectory is unlikely to go into dramatic reverse.
According to the FT, China (which has top-notch scientists too) is “still assessing geopolitical developments after the election of Trump.” What nonsense. China has never had the slightest interest in being bound by the Paris accord. Beijing’s overriding climate policy is to exploit Western climate panic to its own advantage.
Investing in renewables and electric vehicles in a country with relatively meager oil and gas reserves makes sense for a regime that has always put a premium on self-sufficiency.
In addition, the green “transition” has given China an opportunity to turn climate into a device that may leave much of the West unhealthily dependent upon it for wind turbines, solar panels, and even autos, as it unleashes the know-how it has gained at home beyond its borders. But for the West to fall for this, China needed to don green camouflage, and this it has done, with promises here and pledges there, a charade convincing enough for the likes of John Kerry to be able to pretend that they believed it was for real.
And who is this among the laggards? Why it’s the EU: Well, well, well.
The FT:
EU officials say the bloc will be late submitting its plan, known as a nationally determined contribution (NDC), amid concerns that its ambitious green agenda will test its economy.
Rising political strains over EU sustainability rules have also caused a delay in setting an interim emissions target for 2040, from which the 2035 figure will be drawn.
Brussels and some of the EU’s national governments are clearly becoming alarmed over the economic consequences of racing to net zero, and what they could mean politically. As was demonstrated in last year’s elections to the EU parliament, populist parties are on the rise in much of Europe. The reasons vary from country to country but often include dislike of mass immigration (and related issues) and disquiet over climate policy. The harder that climate policy bites, the harder some voters will bite back. If racing to net zero hurts the EU’s anemic growth even more than it currently is, anger over immigration will then merge with anger over net zero’s soaring economic cost. At that point, the radicalized “centrists” of the EU’s establishment will have a massive problem to deal with.
Hysterical talk in Brussels about the perils of “dis/misinformation” indicates that one response will be tougher enforcement of the censorship regimes it and its member states have in place. A confrontation over and with X is coming. But the fact that the EU may also be edging closer to “pausing” the Paris timetable reveals that those in charge know that censorship alone will not be enough to contain dissent.
To be sure, some countries have handed in plans for 2035. For example, the Biden administration had targeted greenhouse gas (GHG) cuts in the U.S. of 61–66 percent below 2005 levels. That will now be withdrawn.
The most ambitious targets to be filed are those of the U.K., a self-styled “clean energy superpower” at times already finding it a touch difficult to keep the lights on. Britain is aiming at GHG emissions 81 percent below 1990 levels. That’s unachievable. But the accelerated effort to make it happen under Ed Miliband, Britain’s fanatical energy security and climate change minister, especially when combined with the effect of Labour’s more traditionally destructive policies, looks likely to lead to economic catastrophe.
The dispute within the government over the approval of two new oil and gas fields in the North Sea is another sign — after a spat over a third runway at Heathrow Airport — of growing anxiety over where things are headed.
That anxiety is fully justified. However, with a solid parliamentary majority and no requirement to call an election until 2029, Prime Minister Keir Starmer may feel that he can stick with Miliband (and most of his program) for now. Whether the financial markets — where Britain’s stretched balance sheet is raising eyebrows — will agree is a different matter.