US climate exit: Future grim

The World Bank estimates climate effects could push the nations worldwide into poverty over the next 15 years. A recent report from the Climate Impact Lab projects that the most damaging effects of climate change will be concentrated in “hot, poor countries”

The decision of the US to withdraw from the Paris climate accord is definitely a big setback to its progress in combating climate change. The exit of the United States, the world’s largest economy and second-largest greenhouse gas polluter, would not dissolve the 195-nation pact, which was legally ratified last year, but it could set off a cascade of events that would have profound effects on the planet.

However, President Trump has stated that it would “begin negotiations to re-enter either the Paris accord or an entirely new transaction on terms that are fair to the United States.” The President indicated that his country would immediately cease all implementation of this non-binding accord as it had “draconian financial” and other burdens on the country.

In a reference to India and China, he observed: “India makes its participation contingent on receiving billions and billions of dollars in foreign aid from developed countries”, further adding that “India will be allowed to double its coal production. Think of it: India can double their coal production. We’re supposed to get rid of ours.”

The decision may inflict lasting damage on American foreign policy efforts, well beyond collaboration on environmental issues. The agreement is in many ways emblematic of how leaders in Washington — on both sides of the aisle — have long viewed America’s role in the world.

It does not commit the US to a go-it-alone effort. Meanwhile, from New York to California, from academics to people on the streets, the country is in a state of rebellion against the President’s decision to withdraw the US from the globally endorsed climate change accord.

Moreover, it leverages promised US emissions cuts to win pledges from the world’s fastest-growing carbon polluters, China and India, as well as other Western and developing countries. Thus, by exiting Trump would obviously forfeit that leverage. He would return the US to its days of being distrusted by the international community on the issue, and further the belief, particularly in Europe, that America is an unreliable partner.

Already world opinion has gone against Trump’s decision as in a statement backed by all 28 European Union States, the EU and China agreed to full implementation of the Paris Climate Agreement. The joint statement, the first between China and the EU, committed to cut back fossil fuels, develop more green technology and help raise $100 billion a year by 2020 to help poorer countries cut emissions.

Considering the fact that fighting global warming is a global consensus and an international responsibility, the European Council President and the European Commission President along with Chinese premier recently stated their agreement to work towards enforcing a clean energy transition. France and Russia joined the chorus speaking in favour of the climate accord.

In fact, French President Macron recently stated that "to all scientists, engineers, entrepreneurs and responsible citizens who were disappointed by the decision of the President of the United States, I want to say that they will find in France a second home.”

The importance of the accord and its adherence by member States cannot be doubted at such a juncture when global warming has been increasing at a fast pace. It is only a step toward the reduction in global greenhouse gas emissions that scientists roundly agree is necessary in order to reduce the most catastrophic risks of climate change. But it is a crucial step, won through years of diplomatic grunt work, including a sustained effort to rebuild American climate credibility that had been torched by the Bush administration.

Several studies – mostly in the Western world – have revealed the disastrous consequences if global emissions are not controlled. A study a few years back found that more than 100 million people will die and global economic growth will be cut by 3.2 per cent of gross domestic product (GDP) by 2030, if the world fails to tackle climate change, according to a report commissioned by 20 governments.

As global average temperatures rise obviously due to greenhouse gases, the effects on the planet such as melting ice caps, extreme weather, drought and rising sea levels, would threaten populations and livelihoods, stated the report conducted by humanitarian organisation DARA. And, as is well known, more than 90 per cent of those deaths would occur in the developing countries as the report calculated the human and ecological consequences of climate change of 184 countries between 2010 and 2030.

For the global poor, the reduced ambition could prove disastrous. The World Bank estimates climate effects could push the nations to worldwide into poverty over the next 15 years. A recent report from the Climate Impact Lab projects that the most damaging effects of climate change will be concentrated in “hot, poor countries” in regions such as Latin America and Southeast Asia, and in sub-Saharan Africa, where climate change is already associated with falling crop production due to record-setting drought.

‘In our benchmark estimate,” the authors wrote, “average income in the poorest 40 per cent of countries may decline 75 per cent by 2100 relative to a world without climate change.” Richer, cooler countries in Europe tend to fare better, but, notably, not the United States. It would suffer economically -- and on the international arena.

A positive of the accord would be that pressure on China and India would be reduced. The oft repeated charge that their total emissions are very high is obviously due to their large population though the figures are not even one-tenth of the per capita emissions of the US. As per reports, both the countries have been trying to cut emissions and particularly India which is going ahead at a fast pace in solar and wind power investments.

However, current indications point to the fact that controlling emissions would be a tough task, especially for the Third World countries as most of them would not be able to get the necessary financial support as also transfer of technology. On the other hand, it is indeed difficult to understand how America would benefit from this withdrawal and would stand isolated in the global forum.

Even if a future administration rejoins the agreement after negotiations, the prospect of which appears quite remote – the damage will linger, especially for China and India as the US wants tougher sanctions against these countries.

It may be pertinent to mention here that in Copenhagen in 2009, efforts to forge an international climate deal were hampered, in part, by the deep-rooted suspicion Obama’s team faced from European, Chinese, and other negotiators in the wake of the Bush administration’s foot-dragging on emissions reductions.

Modi stated recently: “We should leave to the new generation an earth that is clean and beautiful, the future looks bleak amid projections of the pollution problem worsening in the coming years. As more carbon accumulates in the atmosphere, and global average temperatures continue to rise, the odds of calamitous future environmental outcomes increase. Swamped and hot and humid cities, scorched crops, melting glaciers and floods, pandemics — nothing you would wish upon your children, or anyone else’s. But there is no indication of this scenario being avoidable.”

By: Dhurjati Mukherjee