Trump framed his decision to pull the US from the landmark Paris climate agreement as “a reassertion of America’s sovereignty”, adding he was “elected to represent the citizens of Pittsburgh, not Paris.”
He said the US could try to re-enter the deal under more favourable terms or work to establish “an entirely new transaction” – but indicated that it would hardly be of high priority. “If we can, great. If we can’t, that’s fine,” he said.
As my colleague David Smithreported earlier, the White House says America will follow the lengthy exit process outlined in the deal, meaning it will remain in the agreement (at least formally) for another three-and-a-half years – taking us right up to the next presidential election in November 2020.
Though the US will remain part of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change, Trump declared: “As of today, the United States will cease all implementation of the non-binding Paris accord.”
That includes contributions to the UN Green Climate Fund (to help poorer countries to adapt to climate change and expand clean energy) and reporting on carbon data (though that is required in the US by domestic regulations anyway).
In a joint statement, the leaders of France, Germany and Italy responded to Trump’s decision “with regret”, but said the Paris agreement could not be renegotiated.
The question now becomes what efforts, if any, the US will adopt towards tackling climate change on its own terms – and whether the nearly 200 countries that remain in the deal will amend their own obligations.
The US is the world’s second-largest emitter of carbon, behind only China – which, along with India, was singled out by Trump as being favoured under the Paris deal. But both Beijing and New Delhi have reaffirmed their commitment to meeting their targets.
Trump is currently reviewing major US regulations on power plants and car rules that are aimed at reducing carbon emissions. The US Conference of Mayors, which strongly opposed his decision, said its members would continue efforts to reduce greenhouse gas emissions blamed for global warming at the city and state level.
Speaking of full-page advertisements – one placed in the New York Times in December 2009 has been doing the rounds on Twitter today.
It was signed by business leaders and liberal commentators, lobbying then-president Barack Obama, bound for Copenhagen to forge a global climate pact, to “lead the world by example.
Among them – and the reason why it’s resurfaced – was Donald Trump and his three adult children. More here, from 2016, on Salon. Social media never forgets...
In separate statements and messages on social media, leaders of Apple, Google, Twitter, Amazon, Facebook, Tesla, Microsoft and IBM declared climate change an “urgent” threat that required a global effort to combat.
This is an incredibly shortsighted move backwards by the federal government. We're all on this planet together and we need to work together. https://t.co/tLEdtG0n1o
Microsoft was among more than two dozen companies to publish an open letter urging Trump to remain in the accord as an advertisement in several US newspapers as part of an 11th-hour push on Thursday morning.
Trump’s decision signals the US’ intention to increase emissions, which are already fast approaching the 2C band considered crucial by scientists to prevent serious damage to the planet.
This clock estimates how much greenhouse gas the world is emitting right now – and how much we have left to emit if we want to avoid catastrophic climate change. In just 24 hours, the world will pump out more than 112m tons (CO2-e).
White House will not say whether Trump denies climate change
David Smith
The White House has declined to say whether Donald Trump believes human activity contributes to climate change as the president pulled America out of the Paris agreement.
Administration officials were also unable to offer revised US carbon emission targets or say what changes to the global landmark accord would persuade Trump to re-enter it. But they did offer assurance that America will abide by the lengthy exit process outlined in the deal, waiting three-and-a-half years to formally withdraw.
Here’s some Conservative reaction on social media to the US’ withdrawal from the Paris accord – it seems conviction in the unfairness of the deal has only been bolstered by condemnation of Trump’s decision.
Every foreign leader attacking Pres Trump over leaving Paris Accord -further proof the deal was one sided and better for foreigners than US
Note added 24 November 2017: In November 2017, Twitter reported to the US Congress the account @TEN_GOP among 2752 accounts identified by Twitter as being associated with Russian trolling.
Judging by the Left's insane reaction, you can tell that something great just happened for America!
In Australia, there has been a lot of talk about Australia’s bipartisan commitment to the Paris Agreement, in the face of US withdrawal. But concretely, what does that mean?
Australia currently has virtually no climate policies at the national level. The Coalition’s Direct Action policy involves paying polluters to pollute less, but that is fraught with problems, since any of those gains are often lost when other polluters pollute more.
And according to the government’s own projections, the current set of policies will lead to Australia’s emissions rising all the way to 2030, and completely miss the targets set at Paris of 26-28% below 2005 levels.
The chart below shows the government’s most recent emissions projections against the targets committed to in Paris.
The government is poised to release a review of its Direct Action policy. And next week it will receive a review of the functioning of the National Electricity Market, known as the Finkel Review.
Fiji’s prime minister Voreqe Bainimarama says he tried to persuade Trump to stick with the agreement, as nations tackle “the greatest challenge our planet has ever faced.”
Bainimarama says the decision is a grave disappointment for citizens of places like his Pacific island nation and US coastal cities like New York and Miami that are vulnerable to climate change.
He will chair an annual climate summit in Germany in November and says he will do all he can to continue to forge a grand coalition to accelerate the momentum built since the Paris agreement.
Bainimarama says he’s convinced the US government will eventually rejoin the effort.
Condemnation of the US’ decision to pull out has come from all corners, ranging from Apple to the Vatican; Al Gore called it “reckless and indefensible” and Hillary Clinton said it was a “historic mistake”
France, Japan, New Zealand, Australia, the UK and other world leaders have expressed disappointment with the US but reiterated their resolve to tackling climate change through the Paris accord and other initiatives – more on their reaction here
Only the US, Syria and Nicaragua are now not part of the agreement (and Nicaragua resolved not to join because its commitments were not binding)
Refugees International, the Elders and the ACLU have been among the groups to warn of the far-reaching impact of climate change on disadvantaged communities and humanitarian crises
But some commentators have downplayed the significance or potential impact of the move, suggesting that if the US had no intention of reducing its emissions its commitment to the agreement would have been only symbolic anyway
The Empire State building, World Trade Center and City Hall in New York, the Wilson Building in Washington, Boston City Hall, Montreal City Hall and Paris City Hall are among the buildings to have been lit up in green in a show of commitment to action on climate change
One of the reasons Trump gave on Thursday for withdrawing from the Paris accord was that it imposed “no meaningful obligations on the world’s leading polluters”, and singled out India as evidence of the fundamental unfairness of the deal:
“India will be allowed to double its coal production by 2020. Think of it: India can double their coal production. We’re supposed to get rid of ours.”
After POTUS's broadside about India's coal plants, can't help but think upcoming Modi visit will have some tough conversations.
But as the Guardian’s South Asia correspondent Michael Safi explains, the comparison does not quite stack up:
India’s carbon allowance under the Paris agreement is relatively generous in recognition of the more than 300m Indians still without access to electricity. The country will also need to develop its economy in a carbon-constrained environment, unlike in the west.
But the world’s third-largest carbon pollution emitter is nonetheless on course to exceed the renewable energy targets it set in Paris in 2015 by nearly 50% – and three years ahead of schedule.
Last month saw the wholesale price of wind and solar energy reach record lows in the country, further undercutting the price of coal and spurring international investment in Indian renewables.
Also in May, around 13.7GW of coal projects were cancelled. India’s national energy agency has predicted no new coal plants, other than those already in the pipeline, may be required until at least 2027.
Surveying the toll of fossil-fuelled economic development on its rivers, farmland and air, India has recognised that transitioning to a low-carbon economy is firmly in national interests, as well as those of the planet.
Trump says Paris imposes no obligation on world's biggest polluters. He cites India. whose per cap emissions are a tenth of America's.
Comments (…)
Sign in or create your Guardian account to join the discussion