How should the world deal with Trump's exit from the Paris deal?

Author : kiki Lin Source : Release on : 2017-06-14 11:41:02

America is a rogue superpower. The country's decision last week to abandon its participation in the December 2015 climate agreement in Paris underscores this reality. The question is how to respond.

For many Republicans, rejecting man-made global warming is a credo: Donald Trump's hostility to action is not a trait. But clever lobbying will reinforce suspicion. The debate is similar to the dangers of lead and tobacco. In these cases, the lobbying community has also exploited all the uncertainties. The argument for climate action is as strong as lead and tobacco. But confusion is again valid.
America's view of America's role in the world is also important. The security and economic advisor of McMaster and Trump, Gary? Cohen recently wrote: "The president has started his first foreign trip, Clear-Eyed's view that the world is not a" global society ", but rather a stage where countries, non-governmental actors and businesses are involved and vying for dominance. We have brought unparalleled military, political, economic, cultural and moral power to this forum. Rather than denying the fundamental nature of international affairs, we embrace it. We must remember that these are "grown-ups" in the White House.
The United States abandoned the idea of a 19th century after the 20th ended a disastrous international relationship. In its place came the idea, embedded in its created institutions and its formed federations, value substances and interests and responsibilities, as well as advantages. Above all, the earth is more than just an arena. This is our common home. It does not belong to a country, even such a power. It is the moral duty of all to take care of the planet.
The hostility to science and the narrow view of interests have laid the foundation for Trump's negation of the Paris pact. But his speech was also a typical mix of lies and resentment.
So, Trump said, "As of today, the United States will cease to implement the non-binding Paris Accords and the harsh financial and economic burdens that the agreement imposes on our country". However, a "non-binding" agreement would hardly have a heavy financial and economic burden. In fact, the main point of the agreement is that each State should present its "contribution to the expected national decision". The basic mechanism of the Paris Accords is peer pressure, aimed at achieving common goals. does not involve coercion.
Trump also argues that the deal has little impact on the climate. That's true. The main reason is that important players, including the United States, will not agree on anything. Against sticking to an agreement, as it is void, when a state of resistance helps make it, is laughable.
"We don't want other leaders and other countries to tease us again," he insists. They won't. This is paranoia. The United States is the world's second largest emitter of carbon dioxide. Its emissions are 50 the size of the European Union, and its per capita emissions are twice times that of the group or Japan. As Trump has hinted, the United States is far from being used by others, but rather too much. U.S. cooperation is not a sufficient condition for climate risk management. But this is a necessity. This repudiation is not a joke.
Since the agreement was based on national commitments, it would be wise for the United States to remain in the process and to promote more ambitious plans. It can relate its efforts to other countries, particularly China, that are willing to do so. But now, outside the framework, it will accomplish nothing. There is no real opportunity to negotiate another framework. Commitment should continue to evolve. Framework does not.
In the 1920s, the United States rejected the League of Nations. This led to the collapse of the European Post World War settlement. Now it is quitting a common commitment to protect our planet. The echoes were disturbing.
Admittedly, as of 2025, 12 states (more than one-third per cent of gross domestic product) and 187 US cities have pledged to cut their emissions by 26-28, below 2005. However, as Hank, the former Treasury Secretary, That, Mr Paulson said, could not replace America's promise.
Optimists also believe that technological advances in renewable energy are so rapid that policy decisions may be unimportant: the economy itself will drive the economy De carbonisation. It still looks incredible. Incentives and other interventions remain important, particularly since investment decisions have such a lasting effect. The infrastructure we have created today will shape energy use for decades.

The remaining participants in the agreement must abide by their plans. They must also analyse how to deal with the problem of free riders. Everything must be considered and even sanctioned.
At the same time, those Americans who understand the stakes need to fight the irrationality and failure that led to the crisis. If any country has the resources to successfully realize the transformation of energy, it is theirs.
America cannot "greatness" by rejecting global responsibility and embracing coal. It is a fear that the appeal of Zoutramps to irrational, xenophobic and resentful. The world must struggle, and believe that the Americans will be moved again, in Abraham Lincoln's glorious words, by the "Better Angels" nature.