Emma’s Dilemma, Issue 4
When America First Puts America Last
Last June, President Trump announced that the United States would withdraw from the Paris Agreement, a landmark 2015 document that seeks to reduce greenhouse gas emissions in order to prevent global temperature from rising above 2 degrees Celsius from pre-industrial levels. Trump delivered this speech in the White House Rose Garden, surrounded by a manicured lawn and flourishing vegetation, ushering in a new era of American isolation under the pretense of protecting jobs.
November 30 marks the two-year anniversary of the opening of the 2015 United Nations Climate Change Conference and negotiations regarding the language of the Paris Agreement. Since the initial deliberations, the United States has transitioned from a nation spearheading environmental conservation–former President Barack Obama identified climate change as a national security issue–to a nation whose lawmakers seek to deregulate pollution, whose state departments are run by global warming skeptics, and whose international promises are revoked to feed corporate greed.
The Paris Agreement has been signed by every country except the United States. At the time of the Rose Garden speech, Nicaragua and Syria were the only two nations who had yet to accept the global pact. While Nicaragua has mained that the Paris Agreement negates “historical responsibility” of countries primarily responsible for driving up emissions that have torn apart the ozone layer, they signed the agreement on October 23 in the wake of the high costs and loss of life posed by natural disasters.
Syria signed the agreement on November 7, motivated by a desire for legitimacy in the eyes of the international community rather than a newfound sympathy for the environment. Still, even Syria signed. The consensus is clear: every country in the world stands in solidarity to combat climate change, and the United States refuses to cooperate or accept responsibility.
Trump’s claim that “the Paris Accord is very unfair, at the highest level, to the United States” is unfounded. Less than five percent of the world’s population live in the United States, but we account for fifteen percent of global emissions–that’s unfair.
While I am not arguing that a nation’s emissions should be directly proportional to their population size–such a claim would ignore the diverse rates of development and types of economies of various countries–it’s incredibly irresponsible at the highest level for the United States to be culpable for 14% of all greenhouse gases. If we want to be considered a global leader, we need to partake in international cooperation, establish ourselves as a pioneer of renewable energy through our country’s wealth, and recognize the responsibility we carry as a developed nation.
At Parker, we recently hosted climate field scientist Dr. LeeAnn Fishback, indicating the school’s acknowledgement of excessive global warming and the need for climate research. The science department is currently looking into developing an elective on climate change for the 2018-2019 academic year. We need to remember what we have learned about the havoc greenhouse gases wage on our environment, and to carry this knowledge with us when we exercise our civic duty.
While the Paris Agreement does not threaten the American economy, Trump was right on the money when he said, “No responsible leader can put the workers–and the people–of their country at this debilitating and tremendous disadvantage.” According to recent studies that analyzed historical emissions and used statistical analysis, the global temperature will almost certainly surpass a 2 degree Celsius increase by 2100–regardless of efforts to mitigate greenhouse gases.
In this warmer world, sea levels will rise, the devastation wrought by natural disasters will increase (as demonstrated by Hurricanes Harvey, Irma, and Maria), drought will worsen, crops will flounder, and the line between politics and environmental conservation will blur even further. The Paris Agreement is not enough to rescue future generations from debilitating and tremendous disadvantage.
Trump’s “America First” policies do not prioritize improving the livelihoods of American citizens in order to boost national welfare. Instead, they roll back the clock on environmental progress for the sake of pouring funding into temporary solutions to an enduring energy problem. Responsible stewardship of the environment does not go hand in hand with embracing fossil fuels. Clean coal technology is an oxymoron.
Still, we must recognize the suffering of unemployed miners and their families. Replacing jobs lost by ending the coal mining industry is an intricate and arduous task: while the solar energy industry employs nearly three times as many Americans as the coal industry, the states that see the most growth–like California–benefit most from strong renewable energy standards legislative incentives.
Renewable energy-related jobs are not equally distributed, leaving states like Wyoming and West Virginia dependent on the coal industry for economic stability. Corporations need to expand to these states to provide employment opportunities for miners in addition to skills training. While costly, these measures will allow miners to be on the forefront of the transition to clean energy instead of being left behind by it.
It is imperative that the United States sign the Paris Agreement once more, adhere to the framework it has outlined, and regain our seat at the table. Instead of focusing on restoring the coal mining industry or funding domestic fossil fuel interests, the White House needs to invest in clean energy solutions, from renewable energy to fuel-cell technology.
Realistically, though the administration experiences a near-Biblical epiphany, Trump’s White House will continue to put corporate interests ahead of protecting the resources that fuel us. The American public should keep this in mind for 2020.
