![](https://sites.psu.edu/ows5098rclblog/files/2020/02/paris.jpg)
The Paris Agreement is a monumental environmental accord that has been adopted by 197 nations, present company excluded, with the goal of mitigating climate change. This is done by attempting to limit greenhouse gas emissions. The primary goal of this accord is two-fold, first and foremost it is to limit the global temperature increase in this century to 2 degrees celsius, when compared to preindustrial levels. Secondly, it aims to provide the framework to ultimately limit the increase to 1.5 degrees. What makes this climate accord unique is that countries set their own emission goals based on what they believe is feasible. This accord also has parameters for developed countries, the primary greenhouse gas emitters, to assist developing countries in establishing environmentally sustainable infrastructure.
The United States chose to remove ourselves from the Paris Climate Accord on the basis of it potentially costing upwards of $3 trillion dollars by 2045 and a potential loss of 2.7 million jobs, these numbers were based on a study done in March 2017 which has since debunked. This March 2017 study drastically overestimated the pricing and potential job loss for the United States. More recent studies have suggested that the cost of climate inaction far outweighs the cost of reducing carbon pollution. Studies have suggested the opposite in fact, instead proposing that if the United States failed to meet its Paris climate goals, it could cost the economy as much as $6 trillion in the next 20 years. On a global front, the Worldwide GDP could fall more than 25% by the centuries end, if the goals of the accord aren’t met. By abiding by and over exceeding the Paris climate goals, through more efficient and sustainable infrastructure and clean energy, the global returns on this are projected to be upwards of $19 trillion.
With 197 nations involved, this is the largest climate saving legislative accord ever established. What has deterred large scale climate change in the past has been the problem of collective action. This is the belief that because country x is C02 minimising, and hurting themselves economically, country y, who isn’t being environmentally conscious will gain an economic advantage. The accord reflects the global reflective belief of the 197 nations involved that climate change is up to us to fight. This casts America’s climate change sceptics, Trump included, in the hot seat, by identifying them as global outliers.
Climate change is the result of human action. According to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, the IPCC, which is the leading international scientific body studying climate change, the concentration of these greenhouse gases has increased substantially since preindustrial times to a peak that has not been seen in at least 800,000 years. Carbon dioxide, the primary contributor to climate change, is up by 40 percent, nitrous oxide is up by 20 percent, and methane is up by an astronomical 150 percent since 175. All of this is primarily due to the burning of fossil fuels. The IPCC says it’s, “extremely likely” that these increased emissions to blame for the rise in global temperatures since the 1950s. On top of all of this, deforestation and forest degradation, have limited our climate’s ability to combat this increase in greenhouse gas emissions.
Participation in the Paris Climate Accord is voluntary and countries can choose their degree of participation and the ambitiousness of their greenhouse gas reduction goals. Studies have shown that with the current climate goals in place, the accord will fail to meet its limiting increase of 2 degrees celsius by the end of the century.
Citations:
Burke, Marshall, et al. “Large Potential Reduction in Economic Damages under UN Mitigation Targets.” Nature News, Nature Publishing Group, 23 May 2018, www.nature.com/articles/s41586-018-0071-9.
Denchak, Melissa. “Paris Climate Agreement: Everything You Need to Know.” NRDC, NRDC, 2 Dec. 2019, www.nrdc.org/stories/paris-climate-agreement-everything-you-need-know.
Romm, Joe. “Trump’s Abandonment of Paris Climate Deal to Cost U.S. Economy Trillions, New Study Reveals.” ThinkProgress, 29 May 2018, thinkprogress.org/trump-climate-policies-cost-us-economy-6-trillion-new-study-575120a5870a/.
I had a discussion about this issue in my high-school French class and it is very interesting. I think that if cities in the United States made the commitment to reduction of greenhouse gases like Paris did, the path to overall reduction of greenhouse gases could be much more attainable. This would break down the issue to be more manageable. I like how you cited specific statistical numbers to support your arguments.
I have always been a supported of the Paris Climate Accord, if not for its content for its approach. I firmly believe that we have approached a point with the climate change that we need an immediate implementable approach, followed by a more sustainable long-term plan. When someone is attacked by a shark you must stop the bleeding until they can get to the hospital for further treatment. I think with this structure implemented by so many nations there is a potential for a serious impact on climate change. I do believe that the U.S. should reconsider its position on the Paris Climate Accord as we are such a large nation with intense contributions in emissions and pollution.
I feel that the withdrawal from the Paris Agreement by the U.S. was a hastily made decision. Removing an entire nation from an environmental effort on the basis of a single study should not have come to pass. However, even if we’ve officially withdrawn from the Agreement, that doesn’t prevent us from making our own environmental efforts, perhaps using the Paris Agreement as a guideline. Reducing carbon emissions as well as the burning of fossil fuels are essential steps that need to be taken to help preserve the environment, a considerable effort that requires extensive collaboration within the nation.
I think that the most interesting this about this agreement and legislation is that countries set their own emission goals based on what they believe is feasible. The Paris Climate Accord seems likes a great idea in theory, however this implementation of it does not seem very effective. As you mentioned, it is projected that the goals of the agreement will possibly not be met in the future which is really saddening.
Unfortunately, I think the Paris Climate Accord was doomed from the beginning. It was a piece of international law that had no teeth (which unfortunately is a feature of most international law), and thus was (ill-)fated to be abused. Still, I support the strides international governments have taken to reduce their impact on the environment, and Europe has done a great job as a whole in its reduction of energy usage.