Primer: The Paris Climate Accords
The Paris Climate Agreement is a treaty which aims to bring countries all over the world together to combat climate change. This, all under the umbrella and framework of the United Nations. As outlined in an article by Esme Stallard in the BBC, one of the most notable goals of the Paris Climate Agreement is to keep global increases in temperature to 1.5 degrees celsius—and at least below 2 degrees celsius—compared to pre-industrial times. Another goal of the treaty is to reach “net zero” emissions between 2050 and 2100. In addition to these goals, the treaty calls for countries to heighten their ambitions for emissions reductions every five years. To achieve these standards, the treaty also proposes creating relations between participating states in which richer members of the treaty would provide financial support to more “vulnerable” countries to facilitate this global change.
In 2020, under directives from former president Donald Trump, the United States left the Paris Climate Agreement. It rejoined in 2021 under current president Joseph Biden. This primer will illuminate some points on both sides of this week’s resolution: the US should remain a part of the climate agreement.
Arguments on the pro side hold that the Paris agreement will help mitigate impacts that climate change is having (and will continue to have) on the US economy and its national interests, that it is popular amongst Americans, and that it will allow the US to continue its leadership in the fight for environmental responsibility. Firstly, climate change poses risks to national security. It is a “threat multiplier” as it poses many risks to security infrasturucture, training, military strategy, and supply chains—which will also impact the economy. It also increases threats of “infectious disease”. Abiding by the ambitious goals set by the climate change and encouraging other countries to do the same would mitigate such issues. As reported by the Yale Program on Climate Change and Communication, remaining in the Paris Climate Accords is also popular amongst Americans, with a “more than 5 to 1” ratio of surveyed voters saying that the United States should participate. The US also leads the way in renewable innovation, and the economy around renewables has been growing. Those who support the Paris Climate Agreement claim that participating in it will help fuel this growth in renewable innovations, and will allow the US to remain a leader in global initiatives to protect the environment.
Arguments on the con side hold that the Paris agreement is a hindrance to US taxpayers, energy corporations and the American economy as a whole. The Heritage Foundation in particular provides four arguments to this end. Firstly, they argue that the agreement would be “costly and ineffective” for Americans. It would hinder job and economic growth by putting a strain on “American manufacturing” and there is no assurance of other countries participating in good faith in the agreement’s endeavors. Much hostility in this respect is directed towards China, which some claim is not going to hold up its end of the bargain in the prisoner’s dilemma of climate change action. Related to this hesitation, they pose concerns about the aspect of the treaty in which countries like the US would provide financial support to other countries which they call “corrupt”. Rather, they make a case for “free enterprise, rule of law, and private property” as “key ingredients for prosperity”. They also argue that it shows that America is willing and able to “resist diplomatic pressure in order to protect American interests”. Finally, they argue that it does not hinder American innovation in the renewable energy sector to leave the accords.
"Earth Hands" by Jonas Bengtsson is licensed under CC BY 2.0 DEED