Yes: The world needs America’s climate leadership
The Paris agreement on climate change, signed by 194 nations in December 2015, reflects nearly universal support for ambitious actions to reduce global greenhouse gas emissions and to adapt to the impacts of climate change in the coming decades.
U.S. leadership was integral to securing this historic agreement. America is the largest per capita emitter of greenhouse gases in the world and is second only to China in total emissions. The Paris agreement, which took effect in November, would be seriously weakened without continued U.S. backing.
Under the accord, all nations are to develop plans to reduce emissions and to regularly report on their achievements. They also are committed to revisiting and strengthening those plans over time because the currently pledged actions will only get us halfway to what are viewed as the truly necessary emissions-reduction targets.
The goal is to limit average temperature increases to 3.6 degrees Fahrenheit above pre-industrial levels. To do this, most climate scientists think it imperative that global emissions peak as soon as possible and that we then move rapidly to non-carbon sources of energy such as wind, solar and nuclear power.
While national efforts remain voluntary, the progress made under this agreement should be much greater than what’s happened under previous accords. To ensure such progress, the United States and other leading emitters need to follow through on their commitments while assisting other nations in achieving their
goals.
Under terms of the agreement, the U.S. is to reduce its carbon pollution by 26-28 percent of 2005 levels by 2025. Under terms of the agreement, the U.S. is to reduce its carbon pollution by 26-28 percent of 2005 levels by 2025.
Today, the administration of President Donald Trump and many Republicans say the U.S. should pull back from these commitments because they doubt the validity of climate science and think the nation is ill-served by reducing greenhouse gas emissions.
Indeed, the president wants to end the Clean Power Plan, directed at reducing coal-fired power plant emissions, and retreat from vehicle fuel economy standards. These actions are ill-advised and, with the prices of sustainable energy sources falling, would likely to hurt the U.S. economy, not help it.
The Paris agreement is a modest plan to begin with. The U.S. backtracking from its commitments would weaken the accord and discourage other nations from holding
The fallout from walking away from the agreement could be massive, inflicting damage on U.S. credibility on other foreign policy goals and harming relations with allies.
up their ends of the bargain. That, in turn, would expose both the U.S. and the world to unacceptable risks of climate change, including severe warming, rising sea levels, increases in extreme flooding and droughts, and food and water scarcity.
Members of Congress would be wise to review polls conducted after the election by George Mason and Yale universities. They show a public alarmed by climate change and highly supportive of action.
Some 69 percent of the poll-takers said the nation should participate in the Paris agreement, compared to only 13 percent who said we should not. Even Trump voters favored the agreement by 47 percent to 28 percent. Moreover, nearly 80 percent of the public favor taxing or regulating carbon pollution.
News reports suggest that the Trump administration is divided on the agreement and on climate change itself, with Secretary of State Rex Tillerson and some foreign policy advisers and career diplomats in favor of sticking with it. They recognize that the fallout from walking away from the agreement could be massive, inflicting damage on U.S. credibility on other foreign policy goals and harming relations with allies.
The best course is to create a path forward toward broadly acceptable energy goals. These include keeping existing nuclear plants operating, continuing incentives for wind and solar power, advancing energy conservation and efficiency, and funding research on carbon capture and storage.
We should build on the many promising clean energy initiatives at state and local levels and in the business community. We should think seriously about a revenue-neutral carbon tax that can replace regulatory actions, a step endorsed by prominent Republicans such as James Baker.
Michael Kraft is a professor emeritus of political science and public and environmental affairs at the University of Wisconsin at Green Bay.
Tribune Content Agency