Memorandum on US Involvement in the Paris Agreement
To: Donald J. Trump, President of the United States of America
From: William D. Troast, Foreign Policy Advisor
Date: 26 April 2018
Subject: Should the US Re-enter the Paris Agreement?
Intro
It is an undeniable fact that the world’s climate is changing. Since the beginning of the 21st century, the mark for the hottest world temperature has been set in four different years, most recently in 2015, which is what lead to the creation of the Paris Agreement. Although climate change is a problem which affects all nations equally, the United States does not need to be an official member of the agreement to make a change. It is in the United States best interests to act independently.
Context
In recent years, the effects of climate change have become much more obvious. The hottest world temperature has been reset in four different years, the temperature of the oceans has risen by .8 degrees Celsius, and if the world temperature reaches 2 degrees Celsius the world will face dire consequences. In 2015, all the nations of the world, except for Nicaragua and Syria, signed the Paris Agreement. This agreement was designed to create a global initiative to reduce greenhouse emissions, and ultimately preventing the world from reaching an average temperature of 2 degrees Celsius. The agreement does have its pitfalls, though. The first being that no section of this agreement is binding. Although every nation is required to set goals and check back every five years, they have no requirement to fulfill these goals. In addition to the non-binding aspect, the United States is required to donate $3 billion to the cause in support of other nations. On June 1st, 2017, Donald Trump removed the United States
Reasoning
Although in theory, the Paris Agreement is a very good idea, when implemented, it is a very unfair deal for the United States. The issue is that the United States should not be focused internationally when there are many issues that we must first solve domestically. For example, 1/5th of all the worlds emissions are from the United States. Instead of pledging $3 billion dollars to aid other nations, the United States should use this money to begin addressing their own issues. The money could be put towards improving current public transportation systems which have become run down in recent years, or it could be used as an incentive for companies to reduce their current level of emissions.
Solution
Even though we have left the agreement, the United States cannot simply ignore the problem of climate change. The United States should stick to the goals that they promised to fulfill through the Paris Agreement, but they should act independently and fix the issues at home first. The United States has proven many times that they are able to effectively accomplish their goals without pressure from the international community. We do not need an agreement to hold us accountable. The structure of the Paris Agreement is more to ensure that nations which do not normally conform to international standards will.
Conclusion
Climate change is not an issue that will go away soon. It will require constant action by the entire world to ensure that the world temperature stays at a relatively low level. The Paris Agreement is, in theory, a fantastic initiative, but for the time being the United States should not be a member. If in five years other nations prove that they are working to reduce their emission levels and are meeting the goals they promise then the United States could rejoin, but in the meantime it is in America’s best interest to act independently.
I find it to be incorrect to believe that it is not possible to both aid other countries and take care of ourselves. Specifically, the aid of 3 billion I believe is critical because there are developing countries that need alternatives to the polluting that is necessary for development. They are going to have to give up economic development so that they are able to better take care of the environment, but when looking at the facts these countries have little incentive to do this. The United States and other western countries have created the issue by developing to the point where they are, and now they are trying to tell developing countries they can't do the same. That is factually unfair, so the United States should be paying other countries so that they have a way of being compensated for what they are giving up. The United States can not ignore that they created the issue, and therefore they have a responsibility to fix the issue at a price.
ReplyDeleteIf America is going to try and reach our original goals from the Paris Agreement, what is the downside to formally rejoining the Agreement as well? I think is misguided to consider Climate Change a issue within the domestic realm when it is something that so heavily affects the entire international community. Just like you said, the US is responsible for 1/5th of the world's greenhouse gas emissions; thus, this is clearly an issue that affects the entire world. We have a responsibility to the international community, and therefore should work together with them to find solutions. Especially since the Paris Agreement is not legally binding, I don't see the logic behind staying separated from the rest of the International Community in this area-- even more so now, when we are the only country to not be involved in the Paris Agreement.
ReplyDelete