NYT Editorial Board on USA exiting Paris Climate Accord
Our Disgraceful Exit From the Paris Accord by The New York Times Editorial Board,
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/06/01/opinion/trump-paris-climate-change-agreement.html, 1st June 2017
The above editorial board article starts with the sentence, "Only future generations will be able to calculate the full consequences of President Trump’s incredibly shortsighted approach to climate change, since it is they who will suffer the rising seas and crippling droughts that scientists say are inevitable unless the world brings fossil fuel emissions to heel."
It harshly criticizes Trump for using "a cornucopia of dystopian, dishonest and discredited data based on numbers from industry-friendly sources" (in his statement justifying the decision). It states that those numbers are nonsense! And says that the argument "that the agreement would force the country to make enormous economic sacrifices and cause a huge redistribution of jobs and economic resources to the rest of the world" is also nonsense!
It states that the Paris climate agreement was voluntary and not legally binding but one in which 190 countries of the world "offered aspirational emissions targets" and pledged to make best efforts to achieve them, and provide reports on their progress. [Ravi: If NYT Editorial Board (NYT EB) is right on this, and I do have a very high opinion of the accuracy of such statements of the NYT Editorial Board, then Trump could have changed USA's emission (reduction) targets and also decided to not pay up its contributions to the Climate fund. USA would have not met what the Obama administration had pledged to do but that was not legally binding! So the Paris Agreement countries would have worked the new equations out with Trump administration. I mean, the USA need not have decided to withdraw. They could have continued to be part of it with a lower profile role. ... If Trump's calculation is that the Paris Agreement countries which is all the world's countries minus USA, Syria and Nicaragua, will be willing to re-negotiate a new Climate agreement as the USA has started its withdrawal process, then there is some risk in it, I think. The rest of the world could choose to simply ignore USA on climate change agreement! Hmm. Or a significant number of other significant-sized economy countries may choose to follow Trump and quit the agreement which would lead to a collapse of the Paris Agreement! What an extraordinary situation! end-Ravi]
The NYT EB says that Trump has been unmindful that USA being the world's largest emitter of carbon dioxide historically has an obligation to help other countries deal with this matter. [Ravi: This is a key point which is what developing countries including India seem to have used to argue for monetary and technological help from developed countries to move to less polluting energy sources. Nicaragua is reported to not have signed the Paris Agreement as it felt that developing countries were not getting enough support from developed countries in the agreement! BTW Syria is reported not to have signed it as it was (and still is) in the midst of a civil war. end-Ravi]
Very significantly, the NYT EB says that a huge global market estimated to reach $30 trillion by 2030 has opened up for non-fossil-fuel sources of energy like wind and solar, electric cars etc. Many of USA industry leaders had sent an open letter to Trump in January arguing that USA should stay in the Paris Agreement (as they could then have an edge in this global non-fossil-fuel energy market). By Trump announcing that USA is coming out of the Paris Agreement, USA industry may suffer negative consequences while competing in this global market sector.
Towards the conclusion, the NYT EB article mentions that even with USA federal govt. getting out of the Paris Agreement, many USA companies as well as some USA states like New York and California are moving aggressively to move to renewable (and non-fossil-fuel) energy sources. [Ravi: This, I think, is an important point. USA has a federal structure. Currently the federal govt. is controlled by Republicans - presidency and both houses of Congress. But the states of the USA have a lot of independence. Besides the USA has been a hub of innovation in so many sectors including the energy sector for at least decades, if not a century or two. So USA federal govt. in Washington DC getting out of Paris Agreement does not prevent USA states that want to aggressively pursue clean and renewable energy sources and technologies from doing so. Nor does it stop USA industries that want to continue their innovation in clean and renewable energy sources to do so. end-Ravi]
[I thank New York Times Editorial Board and have presumed that they will not have any objections to me sharing the above very short extracts from their article on this post, along with many paraphrased notes of that article on this post, which is freely viewable by all, and does not have any financial profit motive whatsoever, and is on a topic of human wellbeing across the world.]
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/06/01/opinion/trump-paris-climate-change-agreement.html, 1st June 2017
The above editorial board article starts with the sentence, "Only future generations will be able to calculate the full consequences of President Trump’s incredibly shortsighted approach to climate change, since it is they who will suffer the rising seas and crippling droughts that scientists say are inevitable unless the world brings fossil fuel emissions to heel."
It harshly criticizes Trump for using "a cornucopia of dystopian, dishonest and discredited data based on numbers from industry-friendly sources" (in his statement justifying the decision). It states that those numbers are nonsense! And says that the argument "that the agreement would force the country to make enormous economic sacrifices and cause a huge redistribution of jobs and economic resources to the rest of the world" is also nonsense!
It states that the Paris climate agreement was voluntary and not legally binding but one in which 190 countries of the world "offered aspirational emissions targets" and pledged to make best efforts to achieve them, and provide reports on their progress. [Ravi: If NYT Editorial Board (NYT EB) is right on this, and I do have a very high opinion of the accuracy of such statements of the NYT Editorial Board, then Trump could have changed USA's emission (reduction) targets and also decided to not pay up its contributions to the Climate fund. USA would have not met what the Obama administration had pledged to do but that was not legally binding! So the Paris Agreement countries would have worked the new equations out with Trump administration. I mean, the USA need not have decided to withdraw. They could have continued to be part of it with a lower profile role. ... If Trump's calculation is that the Paris Agreement countries which is all the world's countries minus USA, Syria and Nicaragua, will be willing to re-negotiate a new Climate agreement as the USA has started its withdrawal process, then there is some risk in it, I think. The rest of the world could choose to simply ignore USA on climate change agreement! Hmm. Or a significant number of other significant-sized economy countries may choose to follow Trump and quit the agreement which would lead to a collapse of the Paris Agreement! What an extraordinary situation! end-Ravi]
The NYT EB says that Trump has been unmindful that USA being the world's largest emitter of carbon dioxide historically has an obligation to help other countries deal with this matter. [Ravi: This is a key point which is what developing countries including India seem to have used to argue for monetary and technological help from developed countries to move to less polluting energy sources. Nicaragua is reported to not have signed the Paris Agreement as it felt that developing countries were not getting enough support from developed countries in the agreement! BTW Syria is reported not to have signed it as it was (and still is) in the midst of a civil war. end-Ravi]
Very significantly, the NYT EB says that a huge global market estimated to reach $30 trillion by 2030 has opened up for non-fossil-fuel sources of energy like wind and solar, electric cars etc. Many of USA industry leaders had sent an open letter to Trump in January arguing that USA should stay in the Paris Agreement (as they could then have an edge in this global non-fossil-fuel energy market). By Trump announcing that USA is coming out of the Paris Agreement, USA industry may suffer negative consequences while competing in this global market sector.
Towards the conclusion, the NYT EB article mentions that even with USA federal govt. getting out of the Paris Agreement, many USA companies as well as some USA states like New York and California are moving aggressively to move to renewable (and non-fossil-fuel) energy sources. [Ravi: This, I think, is an important point. USA has a federal structure. Currently the federal govt. is controlled by Republicans - presidency and both houses of Congress. But the states of the USA have a lot of independence. Besides the USA has been a hub of innovation in so many sectors including the energy sector for at least decades, if not a century or two. So USA federal govt. in Washington DC getting out of Paris Agreement does not prevent USA states that want to aggressively pursue clean and renewable energy sources and technologies from doing so. Nor does it stop USA industries that want to continue their innovation in clean and renewable energy sources to do so. end-Ravi]
[I thank New York Times Editorial Board and have presumed that they will not have any objections to me sharing the above very short extracts from their article on this post, along with many paraphrased notes of that article on this post, which is freely viewable by all, and does not have any financial profit motive whatsoever, and is on a topic of human wellbeing across the world.]
Comments
Post a Comment