New Atlanticist by Margaret Jackson and Jorge Gastelumendi
Related Experts: Margaret Jackson, Jorge Gastelumendi
COP25 High Level Climate Champion Gonzalo Munoz holds the copy of The Paris Agreement as he poses with Britain's former Minister of State for Energy and Clean Growth and newly appointed COP26 President, Claire Perry, Italian Environment Minister Sergio Costa and Spanish State Secretary of Environment Hugo Moran (not pictured) during the U.N. Climate Change Conference (COP25) in Madrid, Spain December 13, 2019. REUTERS/Susana Ver
The United States finalized its formal withdrawal from the Paris Agreement on climate change on November 4, exactly one year after it began the process. Today, with the presidential election outcome still undetermined, the United States is the first country to step away from the historic climate accord.
US President Donald J. Trump first announced his intent to withdraw on June 1, 2017. Article 28 of the Paris Agreement stipulates that a country must wait three years after the agreement went into force on November 4, 2016, to withdraw, at which point the country may do so by submitting written notification to the Secretariat, and then wait one year until the withdrawal takes effect.
When former US President Barack Obama spoke about the success of the Paris Agreement in December 2015, he said, “Together, we’ve shown what’s possible when the world stands as one.” The Parties of the Paris Agreement—then 195 nations—agreed on a bottom-up approach to combat climate change and hold the global average temperature below two degrees Celsius, with best efforts to keep it below 1.5 degrees. The climate accord presents a framework for transparent reporting and monitoring of greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions, a pathway towards a climate-resilient development, as well as a mechanism to increase climate ambition on mitigation and adaptation every five years through the resubmission of Nationally Determined Contributions (NDC).
The urgency to address climate change-induced impacts keeps increasing. While immediately stopping GHG emissions is essential, legacy emissions mean that a heated planet, now at 1.0 degrees Celsius (~1.8 degrees Fahrenheit) warmer is currently subject to stronger and more frequent and devastating storms, floods, and fires. Communities, especially cities, are forced to adapt and withstand these climate-fueled disasters.
Climate change affects every country around the world and can only be solved through a coordinated, multilateral effort. The Paris Agreement has been the most effective platform to bring countries together around this issue. Despite its shortcomings, the countries involved are willing to come to the table year after year to make collective progress during the annual Conference of the Parties (COP).
The United Kingdom will host COP26 in Glasgow in 2021 after postponing a year due to the coronavirus pandemic. The UK is using this year to increase pressure on countries, businesses, cities, and regions to aim for net-zero carbon emissions by 2050 and to make the commitment before the next COP, as well as mobilizing an adaptation and resilience global action agenda jointly with Egypt. In addition to the frequency and severity of extreme weather and extreme heat events around the world that raised awareness of the risk of climate change, this kind of geopolitical pressure led to unprecedented momentum across the public and private sectors in a race to net-zero carbon emissions by mid-century.
The European Union launched the Green Deal with a promise to make Europe the first climate-neutral continent by 2050, and the recent carbon neutrality statements of China, Japan, and South Korea indicate that the world is moving ahead in the fight against climate change, with or without US leadership. Last week, two US allies—Japan and the Republic of Korea—announced carbon neutrality commitments by 2050, one week before the US presidential election, and two weeks after Chinese President Xi Jinping announced China’s 2060 carbon neutrality target. President Trump’s “America First” agenda and the US absence in climate and the global COVID-19 response have left the door wide open for China to step in as a leader in international climate governance.
The US withdrawal from the climate accord could be short-lived if former Vice President Joe Biden is elected. Biden stated he intends to rejoin the Paris Agreement and implement an ambitious climate agenda under his “Build Back Better” campaign, including a target of 100 percent clean electricity by 2035, a commitment to net-zero emissions by 2050, and the promotion of green infrastructure and climate resilience as components of a global economic recovery.
However, a Republican-led Senate could hinder his progress and present obstacles to reinstating the environmental and climate regulations that the Trump administration rolled back over the last four years. The work to regain confidence in the United States as a climate leader will start at home with more ambitious policy action, a commitment to clean energy innovation and deployment, and improved resilience measures.
Another four years of a Trump presidency would hinder international efforts to fight the causes and impacts posed by climate change and make the goal of peaking global carbon emissions by 2030, as recommended by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, nearly impossible. The United States is the second-highest greenhouse gas emitter after China and the highest emitter in per-capita emissions. The Climate Action Tracker labels US climate policies as “critically insufficient” and attributes most of the reductions in emissions over the next few years to the economic slowdown from the pandemic.
However, the momentum to decrease emissions will not wane at the US subnational level, whatever the outcome of the election. Coalitions like We Are Still In are leading the charge for climate ambition in statehouses, city halls, tribal governments, and campuses across the country. Together, they aim to reduce US GHG emissions by 37 percent from 2005 levels, though decisive federal government action could accomplish much more. The United Nations and other countries are committed to working with US stakeholders who share the determination to meet the objectives of the Paris Agreement, regardless of the position of US federal leadership.
The pandemic illustrated the critical role for strong national leadership in combating a crisis and what happens when countries—including the United States—fail to cooperate on a multilateral level to find a solution. The global influence of the United States will decline if the next president does not commit to a 2050 net-zero target, bolster worldwide adaptation and resilience efforts, and rejoin the Paris Agreement. Climate change is emerging as a central pillar of key multilateral forums such as the Group of Seven (G7) and the Group of Twenty (G20) and will be an integral part of foreign policy from trade to health to security. The pressure to act will not abate.
Margaret Jackson is deputy director for climate and advanced energy at the Atlantic Council’s Global Energy Center.
Jorge Gastelumendi is director of global policy for the Atlantic Council’s Adrienne Arsht-Rockefeller Foundation Resilience Center.
Either way, this election is a major turning point for our climate future
Elections 2020 by Kathy Baughman McLeod
View on Thursday April 23 2020 not far from Fienstorf, Germany. (REUTERS)
As the nation braces for the presidential election next week, there’s arguably no issue beyond the COVID-19 crisis for which the stakes are higher than climate change policy. The increasingly alarming and measurable impact of global warming in the United States alone—as evidenced by the four hurricanes that have smacked the state of Louisiana since August and the recent devastation wrought by the California wildfires, which have scorched more acreage than in any year since CalFire began keeping records in 1932—means that the outcome on November 3 will mark a true make-or-break moment for climate change policy in the United States.
This hot-button topic is one on which the two candidates couldn’t be further apart—and also one that’s front and center in the minds of the American public. According to a survey conducted this summer by Pew Research Center, 68 percent of voters feel that climate change is an important issue in their voting decision. So, what can we expect on this issue from a second Trump term or a Biden administration?
The current administration’s view of the impact of climate change is reflected in its record and messaging over the last four years, during which the US environmental policy has been characterized by a denial of science and a steady dismantling of environmental policies governing clean air, water, wildlife, and toxic chemicals. The administration has rolled back seventy-two regulations—including limits on planet-warming carbon dioxide emissions—with twenty-seven more in progress.
These rollbacks include weakening fuel economy and greenhouse gas standards for cars and light trucks, lifting a freeze on new coal leases on public lands, and changing how the Endangered Species Act is applied, thus making it more difficult to protect wildlife from the long-term threats posed by climate change (like significant changes in habitat).
Conversely, the Trump administration issued an executive order to support the One Trillion Trees Initiative, which aims to promote and build resilient forests by restoring and conserving a trillion trees around the world by the end of the decade. Some ecologists estimate that this initiative would significantly lessen heat-related impacts by sequestering about 25 percent of the carbon that is currently in the atmosphere.
On the other hand, many of the Trump administration’s actions have positioned climate action as a threat to the US economy, while championing and facilitating the growth of the coal, oil, and gas industries (despite the fact that renewable energy presently represents the greatest area of job growth in the energy sector), and repeatedly labeling climate activists as alarmists. There is little reason to expect a change in this stance should President Trump be reelected.
Former Vice President Biden, meanwhile, has proclaimed climate change to be a national priority, promising unprecedented executive action out of the gate to both mitigate the impact of a warming planet and position the US as the global leader in pioneering environmental policy. He has vowed not only to immediately recommit to the Paris Agreement, but also to rally the rest of the world to ramp up their own domestic climate targets.
Elections 2020 by Kathy Baughman McLeod
View on Thursday April 23 2020 not far from Fienstorf, Germany. (REUTERS)
As the nation braces for the presidential election next week, there’s arguably no issue beyond the COVID-19 crisis for which the stakes are higher than climate change policy. The increasingly alarming and measurable impact of global warming in the United States alone—as evidenced by the four hurricanes that have smacked the state of Louisiana since August and the recent devastation wrought by the California wildfires, which have scorched more acreage than in any year since CalFire began keeping records in 1932—means that the outcome on November 3 will mark a true make-or-break moment for climate change policy in the United States.
This hot-button topic is one on which the two candidates couldn’t be further apart—and also one that’s front and center in the minds of the American public. According to a survey conducted this summer by Pew Research Center, 68 percent of voters feel that climate change is an important issue in their voting decision. So, what can we expect on this issue from a second Trump term or a Biden administration?
The current administration’s view of the impact of climate change is reflected in its record and messaging over the last four years, during which the US environmental policy has been characterized by a denial of science and a steady dismantling of environmental policies governing clean air, water, wildlife, and toxic chemicals. The administration has rolled back seventy-two regulations—including limits on planet-warming carbon dioxide emissions—with twenty-seven more in progress.
These rollbacks include weakening fuel economy and greenhouse gas standards for cars and light trucks, lifting a freeze on new coal leases on public lands, and changing how the Endangered Species Act is applied, thus making it more difficult to protect wildlife from the long-term threats posed by climate change (like significant changes in habitat).
Conversely, the Trump administration issued an executive order to support the One Trillion Trees Initiative, which aims to promote and build resilient forests by restoring and conserving a trillion trees around the world by the end of the decade. Some ecologists estimate that this initiative would significantly lessen heat-related impacts by sequestering about 25 percent of the carbon that is currently in the atmosphere.
On the other hand, many of the Trump administration’s actions have positioned climate action as a threat to the US economy, while championing and facilitating the growth of the coal, oil, and gas industries (despite the fact that renewable energy presently represents the greatest area of job growth in the energy sector), and repeatedly labeling climate activists as alarmists. There is little reason to expect a change in this stance should President Trump be reelected.
Former Vice President Biden, meanwhile, has proclaimed climate change to be a national priority, promising unprecedented executive action out of the gate to both mitigate the impact of a warming planet and position the US as the global leader in pioneering environmental policy. He has vowed not only to immediately recommit to the Paris Agreement, but also to rally the rest of the world to ramp up their own domestic climate targets.
A man rides a bike on a flooded street following Hurricane Irma in North Miami, Florida, US, September 11, 2017. REUTERS/Carlo Allegri
His overarching goal stateside is to ensure the United States achieves a 100 percent clean energy economy and reaches net-zero emissions no later than 2050. To set the country on the right track, he plans to advance legislation during his first year in office that establishes an enforcement mechanism that includes milestone targets by his first term’s end in 2025; makes a historic investment in clean energy and climate research and innovation; and incentivizes the rapid deployment of clean energy innovations across the country. Such innovations will focus especially on areas most vulnerable to climate change, including the coastal communities suffering from the effects of sea level rise, salt water intrusion and sunny day flooding, as well as the storms that increasingly hammer vulnerable areas, where 40 percent of Americans make their home.
To address the nation’s crumbling infrastructure—underfunded for decades and further strained by the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic as new work-from-home patterns test utility systems and underscore the need for widely accessible broadband internet and reliable transportation—Biden has also vowed to take action. In July he announced a plan to spend $2 trillion over four years on clean energy and climate resilient initiatives to rejuvenate the transportation, electricity, and building sectors, which he believes will create millions of new jobs—including one million jobs developing and manufacturing electric cars—for what he hopes is a foundation for sustainable growth and improved public health.
Former Vice President Biden’s goals include achieving a carbon pollution-free power sector by 2035, upgrading four million buildings over four years to meet the highest energy-efficiency standards, and providing every American city with more than 100,000 residents with high-quality, zero-emissions public transportation options. Furthermore, it promises to make communities that have suffered disproportionately from pollution—including low-income rural and urban communities and communities of color—the first to benefit from these far-reaching initiatives.
Predictably, there are factions of the climate change movement that believe Biden’s strategy to mitigate global warming isn’t aggressive enough. Climate advocacy groups have argued that the former vice president’s plan doesn’t provide a sufficiently clear and short path for the United States to decrease its dependency on fossil fuels. However, it stands to reason that in order to go further, he must first cross the election finish line—which depends in part on winning over undecided and moderate voters in swing states. And to do so, he needs to walk a careful line, especially in regard to energy policy in crucial states like Pennsylvania, where the fate of fossil fuel-based fracking weighs heavily on many voters’ minds.
As we move forward into the next presidential administration, the science and data are clear: the United States needs new policies and investments to avoid the worst human and economic impacts of climate change to our country. Next week’s election is arguably the most important in our history in regard to climate change and its increasingly traumatic—and expensive—ramifications, for both our country and our world.
Kathy Baughman McLeod is senior vice president and director of the Adrienne Arsht Rockefeller Foundation Resilience Center at the Atlantic Council.
His overarching goal stateside is to ensure the United States achieves a 100 percent clean energy economy and reaches net-zero emissions no later than 2050. To set the country on the right track, he plans to advance legislation during his first year in office that establishes an enforcement mechanism that includes milestone targets by his first term’s end in 2025; makes a historic investment in clean energy and climate research and innovation; and incentivizes the rapid deployment of clean energy innovations across the country. Such innovations will focus especially on areas most vulnerable to climate change, including the coastal communities suffering from the effects of sea level rise, salt water intrusion and sunny day flooding, as well as the storms that increasingly hammer vulnerable areas, where 40 percent of Americans make their home.
To address the nation’s crumbling infrastructure—underfunded for decades and further strained by the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic as new work-from-home patterns test utility systems and underscore the need for widely accessible broadband internet and reliable transportation—Biden has also vowed to take action. In July he announced a plan to spend $2 trillion over four years on clean energy and climate resilient initiatives to rejuvenate the transportation, electricity, and building sectors, which he believes will create millions of new jobs—including one million jobs developing and manufacturing electric cars—for what he hopes is a foundation for sustainable growth and improved public health.
Former Vice President Biden’s goals include achieving a carbon pollution-free power sector by 2035, upgrading four million buildings over four years to meet the highest energy-efficiency standards, and providing every American city with more than 100,000 residents with high-quality, zero-emissions public transportation options. Furthermore, it promises to make communities that have suffered disproportionately from pollution—including low-income rural and urban communities and communities of color—the first to benefit from these far-reaching initiatives.
Predictably, there are factions of the climate change movement that believe Biden’s strategy to mitigate global warming isn’t aggressive enough. Climate advocacy groups have argued that the former vice president’s plan doesn’t provide a sufficiently clear and short path for the United States to decrease its dependency on fossil fuels. However, it stands to reason that in order to go further, he must first cross the election finish line—which depends in part on winning over undecided and moderate voters in swing states. And to do so, he needs to walk a careful line, especially in regard to energy policy in crucial states like Pennsylvania, where the fate of fossil fuel-based fracking weighs heavily on many voters’ minds.
As we move forward into the next presidential administration, the science and data are clear: the United States needs new policies and investments to avoid the worst human and economic impacts of climate change to our country. Next week’s election is arguably the most important in our history in regard to climate change and its increasingly traumatic—and expensive—ramifications, for both our country and our world.
Kathy Baughman McLeod is senior vice president and director of the Adrienne Arsht Rockefeller Foundation Resilience Center at the Atlantic Council.
No comments:
Post a Comment