In defense of the Paris Agreement and rebuttal to the free-market argument

In defense of the Paris Agreement and a rebuttal to the free-market argument

In the aftermath of our President’s decision to remove the US from the Paris Agreement, I continue to see many people trying to justify pulling out with poor information or understanding of the accord, jumping on a ‘free-market’ bandwagon, or plain denial of the relevance.  Let me try to break down a few points for you to ponder.

·         Let’s start by tackling the accord and the accompanying agreements surrounding it to clear up a few things.  First, don’t just listen to talking points, educate yourself.  Here is the link to the actual Paris Agreement from the United Nations website. (http://unfccc.int/paris_agreement/items/9485.php).  As I mentioned in one of my posts, the whole stated mission is to set overtly ambitious goals.  So those that say that the terms were too strict don't understand the concept behind the agreement. Athletes and scientists alike know that to get the biggest effect you set targets, some of which should seem out of reach. If you don't reach the top target you get a great way toward it, but those that are focused with tunnel vision often can reach what was once thought impossible. Also, the data saying those targets can't be reached, by necessity, take into account current situations and can't anticipate advances in technology. We have seen countless times that humans can achieve amazing things when given the opportunity - just look at the human genome project and the advances that have come from it and various vaccines and medications developed on short order. But, we can’t achieve these goals with deregulations and decreases in funding for scientific research.  Per usual, Trump’s speech on the subject was filled with inaccuracies and purposely misleading statements.  We need to be urged to look at facts.  (https://www.apnews.com/079e907d81d14e7ca56eb5279f285f71/AP-FACT-CHECK:-Attack-draws-visceral-Trump-tweets,-not-facts?utm_campaign=SocialFlow&utm_source=Twitter&utm_medium=AP_Politics)

•   Here's the most prevalent statement I hear:  It wasn’t a fair deal for the Americans.  The Chinese didn’t put anything into it and neither did India or Russia.  Let’s break this down: 

I’ve even seen the attached ridiculous meme going around:

First, this shows that people don’t even bother to try to understand or find their own facts.  Please, read the actual agreement between the United States and China in regards to their efforts on climate change and in regards to the funds:  https://obamawhitehouse.archives.gov/the-press-office/2015/09/25/us-china-joint-presidential-statement-climate-change. 

Especially, look at #15 on the list. 

The reason China doesn’t contribute to the Green Climate Fund is because they agreed to put 20 billion Yen ($3.1 billion) to set up the South-South Climate Cooperation Fund to give specific help to the region of the world that is currently the worst polluter in a bilateral deal with the US as they pledged toward the GCF.  Yes, you read that right, they actually have committed MORE money than the US toward a climate fund in cooperation with the US.  On top of this, China has invested the most money by far of any other nation in sustainable energy efforts.

So, what about India?  India has been mired in a very major financial crisis.  But, even still, they have committed to and invested in strong efforts to curb their emissions; and they released a statement last week saying they would continue to do so with or without help from other countries because they realize how important an issue it is.  (http://www.worldwatch.org/node/6278)

And, Russia?  Is it really a surprise that Trump wants to join Putin as not contributing to the deal?

Also, for all of those pointing the finger at China for being the biggest polluter.  Look deeper at the numbers:  The United States has emitted the greatest amount of CO2 of anyone in history, still ahead of China and well over 20% of the total amount.  In addition, while China is the biggest polluter in absolute terms currently (but now actively making progress toward curbing it), put this in perspective: US emits 16.4 metric tons of CO₂ per person whereas China emits only 7.5 metric tons of CO₂ per person.  That should really put our excess in perspective.

Per person carbon production and consumption
[Data Source: Kuishuang Feng & Klaus Hubacek, University of Maryland.]

 Or, how about we break the Green Climate Fund down into dollars per person as people seem to think it unfair what the US had pledged to put into the fund.

Source: http://www.greenclimate.fund/partners/contributors/resources-mobilized (By the way, you can track the progress of the fund here as well)

So, why is it unfair that the US should do its part to clean things up and make the world habitable for our grandchildren?

•   Next, let's continue on this tack and talk about the idea that the Paris Agreement was all about economics and that we can do more good without being in the accord:

The obvious issue with this, to begin with, is the selfish and centrist attitude it takes to even make this argument.  But, I’ll break down some of the facts in addition to what I’ve stated above already.  The goal is to try to reduce CO2 emissions and clean up the atmosphere for our ultimate healthy survival.  Yes, the data is clear and you have to try hard to believe the arguments against climate change over the overwhelming majority of evidence for it.  I will put something together to break down all of the arguments for climate change in time, but that is a long task and I need to find more hours in the day to finish that soon.  For now, just know that the temperatures are easily measured, are rising quickly, and for the first time in history doing so in a manner not able to be predicted by nature alone.  The difference does, however, correlate with CO₂ emissions.  I know some want to dispute this, but I will address that in a different blog.  For now, just look at this for one easy to follow, graphical reference:  https://www.bloomberg.com/graphics/2015-whats-warming-the-world/.  This agreement was a tremendous accomplishment to build cooperation to combat this pressing issue.  But, even if you don't believe in climate change, the result would be a healthier and safer environment in any case.

I know some people have this ‘America-First’ mentality right now, but this is much more than an America-only problem.  This is a world-wide issue and to curb the problem to the extent that is needed we need a world-wide effort.  Having American support and involvement helped bring many countries on board to the Paris Agreement because of the leadership and validity it brought to the solution.  Most have heard about the 2 degree limit that we’re trying to avoid, but most don’t understand what that means.  First, we are already over halfway to that target!  (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/2-degrees-celsius-un-report_us_58296d8be4b060adb56f0ca9)  That should put it into a little bit more of a perspective.  Secondly, people continue to cite, as the president did, that the Paris Agreement would only make about a 0.17 degree difference insinuating that it’s not worth the trouble.  That is actually substantial, however, and he also didn’t understand how that number was derived.  He cited an MIT study, but the study actually said that the difference is what would be expected from going from the original Kyoto Protocol to the Paris Agreement in an effort to make a bigger impact with more of the world involved.  The author of the study actually released a statement saying that he completely disagreed with Trump’s analysis that that rise wasn’t a big deal and went on to say that without an agreement in place the rise would be on the order of 1 degree Celcius by 2100 - that’s not that far away.  (http://news.mit.edu/2017/mit-issues-statement-research-paris-agreement-0602).  In other words, it was essential to get buy-in from nations across the world; the all-inclusive climate agreements are essential!  

People also argue that the agreement was useless because it didn’t hold countries accountable.  Will some countries fail to uphold their end of the bargain?  Yeah, probably.  However, the overall effect with all but two small countries in the pact is much better than not having the agreement, but it also goes well beyond that.  This deal is akin to going to a fruit stand where you pay on the honor system - except with other people looking over you and checking your wallet every few visits (the Paris agreement included five year checks) and publicly releasing what you took and what you've paid.  Some will try to cheat the system, but most will abide by the code, achieving an overall net positive.  And, there is absolutely no harm to the environment from the Paris agreement, contrary to the ludicrous statement to that effect that some try to claim.

•   But, you say, having a better free market will solve problems faster than with governmental regulations, and without having to kill jobs.  Many people have jumped on this after reading this article: http://www.cnbc.com/2017/05/31/trump-paris-accord-exit-is-good-for-the-environment-commentary.html.

That sounds good and all, but this falls in line with the previous argument and doesn’t hold up to the facts.  As mentioned above, for one, we need a world-wide effort, not just US-based.  Interestingly, in an effort to correlate why the deal wouldn't work, this article compares the Paris deal to OPEC saying that it wouldn’t work if not enforceable.  There are problems with this argument.  I’m actually not a big fan of OPEC, but it worked as intended for a long time.  What has led to issues, though, is that increased oil prices led to innovation that dropped the cost of extraction and led to an oversupply.  If that were the case for Climate Change, this innovation would be a GOOD thing and is one of the major goals of the agreement.  In addition, guess who is the one causing the most problems for OPEC?  The US, of course, as they refuse to follow OPEC’s recommendation to reduce their production (http://money.cnn.com/2017/05/11/investing/opec-oil-u-s-supply/index.html).  But, as I said, greater innovation would be a good thing in regards to the Paris agreement and, as the MIT research, in addition to others, showed, we would get much closer to the goal even if some of the countries did not pull their weight.

•   Another major argument from this article is that the US would make a bigger effect by fixing up it’s own mess in house. 

While that would be nice, and we certainly have areas that we can address, sadly this wouldn’t do nearly enough.  And, while I’m a fan of free-market enterprise and drivers, that argument doesn’t cut it here.  Yes, market drivers have helped lead to advances in more fuel efficient cars and is partially why solar panels have come down in price.  But, the big assumption here is that there would be a market driver to continue to reduce CO₂ emissions and the efforts we make in the US will make a difference world-wide.  What is that free-market driver?  Oil prices are now low.  And, while the article states that innovation led to advances in solar panels, it was largely due to a push for clean energy and government funded research and innovation.  (https://www.nybooks.com/articles/2014/04/24/innovation-government-was-crucial-after-all/) and (http://innovationreform.org/issues/indispensable-r-d/)  Trump has made it known that he wants to increase coal mining and is cutting regulations for the coal industry while proposing major reductions in funding for energy innovation programs.  Hence, he’s pushing the market driver in the OPPOSITE direction!  The only way the market-driver theory works is if there is an actual driver.  Trump is killing those drivers with his moves.

In addition, this idea is directly opposed by those actually in the business such as Elon Musk, Exxon, and Conoco Phillips, and as ‘25 major U.S. companies — including Apple, Facebook, Mars Incorporated and Morgan Stanley stated when they published a full-page letter in several newspapers that read: “By expanding markets for innovative clean technologies, the agreement generates jobs and economic growth. U.S. companies are well positioned to lead in these markets. Withdrawing from the agreement will limit our access to them and could expose us to retaliatory measures.” (https://techcrunch.com/2017/06/02/why-pulling-out-of-paris-accords-damages-americas-economic-future/).’  I’ve actually heard people say that people like Musk are whining b/c they have gotten so much in subsidies.  But, that would then mean that the government funding was working.

•   These regulations only kill jobs?

This is what some want you to believe, but the evidence doesn’t back that up.  Coglianese and Carrigan show evidence that regulation plays little role in the number of jobs in the US in their book, “Does Regulation Kill Jobs”, and a major study by famed economist Richard Morgenstern showed that, on average, $1 million in regulation induced spending led to a net total of 1.5 jobs lost.  Some like to cite another MIT study that showed that the Clean Air Act resulted in a loss of 590,000 jobs.  But, the author, Michael Greenstone, said himself that the law didn’t have much of an impact on total employment in the industry as he didn’t explore if the act actually created jobs or if those that lost jobs found new positions in this cited work.  The best option, in my opinion, is to invest in ways to educate miners, coal workers, and others that are out of jobs to work in advancing industries.

But, let me finish with a bit of optimism.  I agree that it looks like the damage may be mitigated, but this is in SPITE of Trump, not because of him.  Other countries have agreed to continue, if not accelerate, their focus on meeting their climate goals.  In addition, many city leaders and innovators in the United States have agreed to bunk Trump’s agenda and continue to strive toward the Paris agreement’s goals even if we're out as a country.  So, in that respect, we are selfishly saving money and may be okay, but it wouldn’t have happened without the climate agreements and the US’s help in bringing the world together toward that effort in the first place.  We will eventually be back as a world leader.  In the meantime, let’s hope other countries don’t follow Trump’s lead and, as individuals, let's be diligent to know the facts and do our part, however small that may seem.