The Implications of the U.S.’s Dropping out of the Paris Accord

It comes as no surprise that those living outside the U.S. do not view our nation and its people with the same reverence as we Americans do ourselves. And this is by no means a new phenomenon. From Wikipedia:

“Ugly American” is a term used to refer to perceptions of loud, arrogant, demeaning, thoughtless, ignorant, and ethnocentric behavior of American citizens mainly abroad, but also at home.  Although the term is usually associated with or applied to travelers and tourists, it also applies to U.S. corporate businesses in the international arena.

Having said all this, it’s hard to imagine anything that could possibly exacerbate this situation further and faster than the U.S.’s dropping out of the Paris Accord, effectively telling the rest of the world, “a) We really don’t care about anyone but ourselves, and b) We’re too ignorant to know that this move stands in the way of everyone’s survival, including our own.”

As legendary environmentalist Joe Romm, editor of Climate Progress (which the NY Times calls “an indispensable blog”) puts it: America’s time as leader of the free world is over. Now we’re the villain, thwarting the global effort to save humanity.

The rare Trump supporter who is following this discussion at all is thinking: Who cares about those inferior nations? At last we have a leader who cares about the common (white) American.

The rest of us are thinking: Can it get any worse?

If this goes down the way many people predict, it will be a day that will live in infamy.

7 comments on “The Implications of the U.S.’s Dropping out of the Paris Accord
  1. marcopolo says:

    Craig,

    “U.S.’s dropping out of the Paris Accord, effectively telling the rest of the world, “a) We really don’t care about anyone but ourselves, and b) We’re too ignorant to know that this move stands in the way of everyone’s survival, including our own.”

    Well, that’s one interpretation, but not shared by all the rest of the world.

    The other interpretation is ” the US is reversing it’s misguided involvement in a poorly drafted agreement, long on “Symbolism” and Hypocritical rhetoric, but disadvantageous to the USA.

    Maybe it also tells the world, the US is tired of being the patsy. The US taxpayer is no longer prepared to idealistically sacrifice it’s own interests for symbolism.

    Maybe the new President is renouncing “leadership”, and saying, “you’re on your own, from now the US will just look after it’s own, (and immediate allies) interests. If you want the US to participate, it will be on or terms”.

    Paris was always a bad agreement, formed to suit political objectives, and little more than symbolic.

  2. marcopolo says:

    Craig,

    As I predicted, the Paris Accord is already beginning to become irrelevant even before it began.

    Poland, Czech Republic and other EU nations have already announced their dissatisfaction, while India and Japan are “reinterpreting” the Accord in line with national ambitions.

    The strange argument that a withdrawal from the Paris accord would allow American leadership to be replaced with Chinese leadership, doesn’t work in the real world.

    In reality, the PRC has no history of altruistic leadership, and always seeks advantage and a furtherance of PRC ambitions. Germany and the EU must be aware that the PRC is a master of disingenuous policies.

    Since the Paris Accord was never ratified by the US Senate, the President is free to withdraw at any time.

    The convoluted thinking and petulance of the EU was summed up by European Commission President, Jean-Claude Juncker, crying his opposition to an American withdrawal of leadership as being treated as “mere vassals of the Americans” !

    Juncker also condemned the American President for his position saying, “I am Trump. I am American. America first, so I’m going to get out of it.That is not going to happen,” Juncker went on to say, “We tried to make that clear to Mr. Trump in clear German, the principal clauses, but it would appear that he did not understand”.

    The sheer arrogance of EU officials never ceases to amaze.

    The new US President, unlike his predecessor, believes the Paris Accord is a bad deal for the US. In fact he believes the entire Accord is political symbolism and meaningless.

    Unlike the wily and duplicitous Europeans, or the completely insincere and disingenuous PRC, American tend to live up to agreements, and don’t sign up to documents they intend to break.

    Trump declared his willingness to re-negotiate an meaningful treaty, the US could live with, but has been met with the usual EU arrogance.

    President Obama was understood the idealism and largely symbolic nature of the Paris accord. He understood the political advantages of seeming to do something, while only the US and a few allies would actually make the sacrifices and pay the price.

    President Trump has no such understanding. He has no interest in such sham treaties, not because he’s more honest, but simply because the don’t play to his constituency.

    The EU policy of yelling at him, won’t work. He doesn’t care. None of his voters care if the EU doesn’t like him. None of his voters care if in the eyes of Europe America loses it’s “moral leadership”.

    All his voters care about is in the first 100 days, the $3.8 billion North Dakota pipeline is finally operating, free of riots and protest, American jobs are no longer disappearing, in fact nearly 1 million have been added.

    In truth, the Paris Accord was never going to save anything, least of all the environment. The Accord was always at best symbolic, at worst a treaty like Versailles, designed to advantage some and anger others.

    So here’s the challenge to the EU and the world : The US President declared his willingness to re-negotiate a meaningful treaty. A treaty, the US and allies can accept. A pragmatic and workable treaty, even skeptics can support.

    President Trump has shown a willingness to change his mind and be persuaded as he did with NAFTA.

    There’s a great opportunity here for the leaders of the EU. Personally, I don’t believe the EU leadership either desires or is capable of negotiating an enforceable or meaningful treaty.

    After all, if the EU leadership couldn’t negotiate with the exceedingly amiable and rational David Cameron, what hope have they with Donald Trump?

    Thus the opportunity will be lost and it will be another decade before any meaningful Accord can gain momentum.

    It’s not a good day for the environment, and there’s enough blame for all parties to share.

  3. Brian McGowan says:

    As I continue to say, we cannot wait for or rely on our government to help with this. We are on our own and must take personal responsibility to remove ourselves from the carbon economy as much as possible and work towards clean energy and energy efficiency. In other words, vote with our dollars.
    There is only one other thing I see happening here. As when Reagan reversed Carter’s policy initiatives to reduce our dependence on oil and fossil fuels in general, even though for different reasons, I see clean energy jobs and manufacturing again moving over seas.

  4. Glenn Doty says:

    Craig,

    I’ve been trying to genuinely unpack what our withdrawal will do. Our own course as a nation will not be greatly changed. The Paris Accord was an easy target, one we will likely hit and even undershoot with or without the agreement.

    The big impact will be other nations choosing to cheat or falsely report.

    Without the US, and our global projection of power, helping to enforce the deal… It’s likely that every 3rd world country that had signed on will cheat their numbers a little more than they otherwise would have.
    By 2030 it will likely result in an additional ~15-25 GT, or ~2-3ppm.
    As of 2030, without the additional infrastructure that would have otherwise been in place, we’ll probably be seeing 3-4 additional GT/year for the next 2-3 decades. So by 2060, we might see between 45 and 65 additional GT, or an additional ~5-8 ppm.

    That sucks. That is a tremendous impact from one idiot babyman throwing a tantrum. It’s likely that we’ll try to get back in after Trump is ousted (though it’s certain that we won’t get anywhere near as good of a negotiated deal)… And if so some of the damage will be averted.

    But even with more countries cheating the numbers and less good done overall, the Accord will still be in place and there will still be a large amount of emissions mitigation as a result.

    The biggest loser here is probably America… Stating that America will lose more than vulnerable nations like Bangledesh puts into perspective how much good is still likely to be accomplished by the Paris Accord.

    • Glenn Doty says:

      Oops,
      I said 2060, then got distracted by a phone call,and then gave numbers for 2040.

      The foibles of typing out a comment on a smartphone.

      2040 is probably more valid anyway, because by then continued advancement in renewables and continued cost escalation in fossil fuels might easily cause the nations that had cheated the Accord to rush through the “low hanging fruit” they had left behind… And the numbers might easily balance more quickly after that…

  5. marcopolo says:

    Glenn,

    You write, “Without the US, and our global projection of power, helping to enforce the deal”.

    I’m curious, have you read the full text of the Paris Accord ?

    I’ve found most of the people who ardently support the Accord haven’t actually studied it full text. What they really support is the lofty rhetoric about the Accord’s symbolism, not the detail.

    The reason the Accord has been so popular, is it’s capable of being all things to all readers.

    Like most “international” agreements, it favours everyone but the USA, while requiring the US to pay the cost.

    President Trump is the first US President in almost a century forced to deal with the reality of limited and decreasing US power. The US economy is no longer able to afford funding international agreements working against US interests. The US is saddled with massive debt and no way of re-capitalizing it’s aging infrastructure or it’s once mighty industrial capacity.

    These circumstances are very difficult for many Americans to comprehend and accept. The illusion of Pax America is over ! The US is locked in a economic rivalry with newer, more competitive economies. The days of American largess is over.

    Whether you like it or not, this decision was no “tantrum”. Even Angela Merkel stated the US president “listened for hours’ to Paris Accord Advocates. Nor did trump take the easy option and claim that the Accord amounted to a “Treaty” and require the terms to be ratified by a 2/3 majority of the Senate.

    For months White House factions have been fighting out the pro’s and cons of withdrawing or staying in the Accord.

    In the end,blocked by the Europeans who refused the US any workable compromise, the US President simply walked away.

    It’s very sad that it’s come to this, but the world has changed, the US no longer can afford to be both financier and loser of international agreements.

    Renewable energy, along with all clean tech solutions will have to start justifying existence and success based on economic viability.

    I’m sure the beach head already established by Clean tech, will prove irresistible.

  6. Glenn Doty says:

    Marcopolo,

    You don’t know me very well if you suspect that I come into this uninformed.

    The Paris Accord is essentially every nation staking their reputation on a goal. For the third world nations, that goal is far harder than the ones for the first world nations… But the third world nations are more desperate for respect and recognition, so they have a greater incentive to meet their more difficult goals.

    In all cases, the goal is aggressive, but doable.

    The US is the world’s biggest trade partner, biggest military, has more trade treaties, more mutual defense pacts, and more foreign deployed intelligence assets than any other country. We have our fingers in everyone’s pies, and they know it. They are also eager to curry favor.

    We know that every nation is going to want to meet their goal in order to enhance their world image and bolster their status.

    We also know that many of the third world nations will struggle to meet their goals and will cheat their numbers.

    Without the US actively involved and encouraging the game, the potential status and favor for meeting the goals will diminish… And many third world nations will cheat their numbers to a greater extent rather than fully meet their goal.

    I was talking to Craig – who understands this to a great degree – when I simply said “without the US projection of power the third world will cheat their numbers more”.

    As for whether their was anything other than childish spite and boarish idiocy behind the decision… Consider that the US has now announced to the world that its word is mud. There’s no reason trying for a treaty or alliance, it can all be done away with randomly by the winner of the next election.

    Even if you can’t understand either the magnitude of the challenge nor the magnitude of the step forward that was the Paris Accord, you should still recognize this act as the worst foreign policy blunder since the invasion of Iraq… If not the worst ever.