Memorandum on Paris Agreement
To: Donald Trump, President of the United States
From: Drew Nelson, Foreign Policy Expert
Date: 26 April 2018
Subject: Re-enter the Paris Agreement
Introduction
Trump recently stepped out of the Paris Agreement to fight climate change. However, he should rejoin it to ensure that the United States holds up their end of the deal. Instead of aiding developing nations, they should focus on fixing the problem that they have caused then help out when they are able to.
Context
In 2015, former President Barack Obama joined the Paris Agreement to combat climate change with every country in the world, excluding Syria and Nicaragua. This was due to the fact that 2016 was the warmest year to date, with the other warmer years in the past decade. The ramifications of climate change are staggering and need to be curtailed to protect the environment. One major cause of climate change is carbon emissions which are currently at a high. Trump has recently stepped out of the agreement fearing that it would cost too much for business and the job market. One issue he had with the Agreement is the $3 billion that would be spent on countries that are developing and not able to support themselves as easily during this fight. The United States causes 1/5 of the problem and wants to focus on themselves.
Task
The task here is to make sure that the United States is reducing their carbon emissions and do their part to mitigate and prevent human-caused climate change. The United States also has to make sure that this is not detrimental to our economy and business.
Solution
The solution to this issue is to rejoin the Paris Agreement. The United States is concerned with donating money to developing countries and aiding them in combating climate change. My solution to this would be to renegotiate the Agreement and use the money for themselves to fix the surmounting effects the United States has on carbon emissions. Once the US has found a way to fix this problem, maybe then they can revisit aiding developing countries as they will not be able to foot the bill on their own. By stepping out of the treaty, the United States has rid the Agreement of accountability. If they are not in it, what is preventing other countries from stepping out? The United States should be a role model and help lead the fight against climate change.
Conclusion
Since climate change has become a significant issue globally, the United States should stay in the Paris Agreement. This will ensure that they hold up their end of the bargain and fight climate change.
Although I can see the merit of the United States rejoining the Paris Agreement, I do find a problem with the belief that the United States will not do anything if they are to step out. The United States has, many times, taken initiative outside of international agreements. Climate change is an issue that affects everyone, so by stepping out its not as if the United States has no reason to abide by the standards. Also, trying to renegotiate the deal may not be as simple as you propose. The aide the United States initially intended to provide is needed by many countries, but the US cannot at this time foot that bill. WE must first work on and fix the problems in our own nation before we can attempt to solve those in other nations.
ReplyDeleteI commented this on Billy's post as well, but why is the economic aid to developing countries not right. Considering that it takes pollution to develop substantially economically at the stage in the world, shouldn't the United States, who polluted heavily in its development, pay for them in some part? We pollute more than any nation in the name of economic well being, so we have an obligation to not only help ourselves but fix what we have caused other countries to have to take up themselves. We also are not fixing the problems of other nations, we are allowing them to do that themselves. We're just incentivizing themselves to do that. Many times these countries are very poor, and they need to develop as best they can. To expect them to do so would be ignorant of the facts on the ground in those countries.
ReplyDeleteI agree with your argument, but I also agree with Aran's critique that we should reconsider the pros and cons of monetary aid to developing countries. Climate change is still climate change no matter where the emissions are coming from, and any effort the United States can contribute to combat that is helpful no matter what. Even if we focus on our own emissions, providing monetary aid to other developing countries would still help combat the larger issue of climate change, and ultimately benefit us in the long run. However, I also question the feasibility of this plan-- even if we do rejoin the Paris Agreement, we still need to evaluate the beliefs of the current administration toward Climate Change. The fact that our president does not prioritize the issue reflects poorly our our international standing, whether we are a member of the agreement or not.
ReplyDelete