Stay in the game
Leaving the Paris climate accord would hurt U.S.
President Donald Trump should not remove the United States from the Paris climate agreement. Forged in 2015 with 194 other nations as part of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change, the accord is the best arrangement for controlling the global pollution that contributes to global warming. Mr. Trump’s goal of placing America’s interests first will not be advanced by joining the company of the only other two countries that declined affiliation with the accord: Syria and Nicaragua.
On the campaign trail, Mr. Trump got big cheers by pledging to cancel America’s role in the climate agreement. Still in campaign mode, he is turning his decision over whether to stay or go into a media spectacle, first by not joining the other G-7 nations in expressing support for the accord at the Italian summit last week, and now promising a big reveal of his decision at 3 p.m. Thursday.
Leaks from the White House indicate he is ready to exit. The drama is high-pitched. Political strategist Steve Bannon, master of the anti-globalist wing, argues for a clean break. Establishment figures like economic adviser Gary Cohn and Secretary of State Rex Tillerson, along with first daughter Ivanka Trump, are pushing for America to keep its commitment. Exxon Mobil, Mr. Tillerson’s old stomping grounds, is behind the accord because it “believes the company has a constructive role to play in developing solutions.” Stand by for the exciting conclusion.
The drama is a needless diversion. The simplest case for staying can be distilled into an argument that fits in a Twitter message: “The Paris accord is a political agreement. It doesn’t infringe on U.S. sovereignty. National commitments are voluntary and may be amended.” Alas, the author of that message is the French ambassador to the United States, Gérard Araud, who probably doesn’t carry much sway in this Oval Office. But he touches on the qualities of the agreement that coincide with Mr. Trump’s relentless quest to get the best deal for America. In the bureaucratese of the United Nations, “There will also be a global stocktake every five years to assess the collective progress towards achieving the purpose of the agreement and to inform further individual actions by Parties.” In plain English: Everything’s negotiable.
Skeptics of the Paris accord say that China and India, by laying claim to status as “developing nations,” got breaks to pollute away, while America is shackled with onerous conditions. That may have seemed true at one point, but both of those fast-growing nations are taking steps to reduce pollution for reasons of self-preservation. Breathing in Beijing and New Delhi is a dangerous proposition. Moreover, there’s an economic future in technologies from solar and wind to frontiers unknown. American energy corporations know that coal, while still embedded in our economy, is not a viable fuel for the long term. U.S. development of natural gas — with Marcellus Shale in Western Pennsylvania among the key players — has not only shifted the global energy game but also reduced carbon output.
If the United States pulls out of the Paris accord, it simply won’t have a place at the table to negotiate the future of energy production and consumption and its effect on economic development. The best interests of America lie inside this decisionmaking tent.