Author: Jeremy Iloulian

U.S. Climate Leadership in an Age of Trump

 

After a few weeks back in the United States, I have had some time to think about COP22 and reflect. Like I said prior, I was not 100% sure what the result of the COP would be given the U.S. election and President-Elect Trump stating that climate change is a hoax created by the Chinese. Returning to my original blog post, I laid out four different scenarios that could occur.[1]

 

The options were:

  1. Business As Usual: countries acting the same and not changing their goals, assuming the Clean Power Plan and Economic Factors force the U.S. to keep its commitments.
  2. More Aggressive Action: China, Japan or the EU taking action to offset any changes from the U.S. in both CO2 reductions and global leadership.
  3. A Less Ambitious Agreement: Countries trying to make the Agreement more appealing to a Trump administration by decreasing the commitments from the U.S.
  4. Hitting Pause for 4 Years: Countries assume the U.S. will have no meaningful impact and will wait until the next administration to make any large-scale changes.

 

While it is too early to tell what will happen exactly, if I had to venture a best guess, it would be a combination of the first and second. During the COP the talking points by U.S. Government officials about the United States commitment to climate change had very little to do with the Clean Power Plan actually. More of it came from economic factors and sub-national actors.

Me at the U.S. Pavilion

Me at the U.S. Pavilion

Solar and wind power are booming in the United States right now. U.S. delegation members constantly reminded us that the U.S. employs over 2 million people in the solar industry versus 65,000 people in the coal industry, or that half of Wal-Mart’s energy supply came from renewables. In their eyes, renewable energies were the way of the future, regardless of what a Trump administration would do. Even if renewables do not do it, the explosion of natural gas would. Natural gas is not a perfect solution since it still emits CO2 and there are serious questions regarding methane leaks, but the current view is it is preferable to coal, in terms of climate mitigation, and is a good transitional fuel.

Adding to this, many of the U.S. regulations that reduce Co2 emissions would not likely be withdrawn in a Trump administration anyways. For example, fuel-economy standards in the automobile industry are unlikely to change. A drastic change like that could actually do more damage to the market since it has adopted to those regulations.

Additionally, the considerable efforts made to tackle climate change and enact energy saving mechanisms by American cities like New York or Chicago will definitely help lower CO2 emissions. California’s choice to create a carbon market would jump start a new type of economy as well.

These market shifts and sub-national actions may not be enough to keep the U.S. 100% on track with its commitments, but it definitely would get the U.S. to stay within range.

After attending different events and speaking to different delegations it seems that other countries are definitely willing to step up in terms of political leadership. At many different events, UN Secretariat members praised China’s leadership and action as well as Germany. If the U.S. withdraws from leading the discussions while fleshing out more of the details of the Paris Agreement, it seems very probable at this point that the EU or China will fill the political leadership void.

Lost U.S. leadership will be bad for U.S. interests. With a reduced U.S. role in the negotiations of the specific regulatory text, the outcome will be not as favorable to the U.S. and instead be more aligned with Chinese or European Goals. This is the tradeoff for having a reduced role in global leadership. The U.S. does not have to bear many of the costs, but the rules of the system are in the image of another country.

Regardless of the future of the U.S. global leadership role, the COP has given me renewed hope that climate change will be met by the global powers. The COP had a sense of momentum and a sense of energy that even the American election could not undermine. I, unfortunately, do not think we will meet our 1.5-degree target, and with a lower U.S. commitment, it will be hard to meet the backup 2-degree commitment. But there is a clear stopping point. Countries are beginning the preparation for a zero-carbon economy.

Even in an Age of Trump, nothing is impossible. If the global community continues this momentum and our generation continues to bring energy, this issue will be tackled and resolved in my lifetime.  To this day, I still believe in President Obama’s famous credo, “Yes We Can.”

 

[1] https://sites.duke.edu/duketotheunfccc/blog/page/6/

The Lungs of the Earth

 

Friday was the last day of COP22 and while I will post a blog on my reflection of the entire COP next week I wanted to discuss something of particular interest that profoundly changed my thought process.

If you are a semi-active reader of climate change issues you will have heard that the Amazon rainforest and the Central African rainforests are considered the “Lungs of the Earth.” I heard this phrase before countless times. This week I really learned the deeper meaning of that phrase.

For reference, at the COP many different countries had their own pavilion where each country could showcase the work they were doing to combat climate change. The United States’ pavilion included U.S. Diplomats, members from NOAA, the EPA, Department of Agriculture and NASA. The NASA folks were giving a talk about some of their climate models and were showing them on a big television for a crowd of 50 or so.

One model in particular, captivated me. It showed the amount of Carbon Dioxide (the main greenhouse gas pollutant) in the atmosphere over time, how high in the atmosphere it was and what landmass it covered. CO2 was very prevalent over China’s manufacturing hubs, the United States Midwest and parts of Europe. However, Brazil and Central Africa were particularly interesting.

 

thumb_img_6522_1024                 thumb_img_6523_1024

 

These two parts of the world have the densest and some of the most famous rainforests ranging from the Amazon to the Congo. Above each geographic location there would be almost as much CO2 as above China but then it would disappear. As the model sped up to show the change over a period of months, the two areas pulsated with CO2, creating the image of a heartbeat or a lung expanding and contracting. I truly understood why these parts of the world were called “the Lungs of the Earth.”

I am not sure why this captivated me so much. Maybe because when you generally think of the earth, you think of this massive and almost indestructible body. How could one species irreversibly damage the entire ocean let alone the entire atmosphere? It is something so difficult to see from the viewpoint of a single person. But to look at the Earth as a single organism, with lungs or a heart that beats just like ours do, we realize how fragile it can be.

I once read a book in high school called “the Hot Zone” about the origins of Ebola. At the very end the author pointed out that the most similar living organism to Ebola, and viruses generally, were humans. To the author we are a parasite on the earth, by giving little back but taking a great amount as we spread throughout the entire planet. While I do not want to believe we are the equivalent of a virus, seeing the Earth through this climate model definitely shows how fragile the earth is and how we can become a virus if we do not watch our actions. The earth is just one deep breath away from collapse.

 

For more information please see NASA’s website. NASA will be releasing the particular video I spoke of in December 2016. https://www.nasa.gov/press-release/nasa-releases-detailed-global-climate-change-projections

The UNFCCC “Trumped”

It is 4:03pm EST. I am sitting in a coffee shop in Durham, N.C., prepping for my trip to the UNFCCC Conference of the Parties 22 (COP22) in Marrakesh, Morocco, and I only have been able to think about three words since I went to bed last night.

President Donald Trump.

This came as a surprise to everyone, including the Republican Party.[1] As the shock wears off for America and the world, the big question on everyone’s mind is, “now what?” Nowhere is the answer to this question more important than the UNFCCC and the Paris Agreement.

Photo credit: UNFCCC

Photo credit: UNFCCC

 

Trump has consistently stated he does not believe in the science of climate change[2] and has a host of advisers who also question the science.[3] But what does that mean for the rest of the world and their negotiators currently in Marrakesh? America’s participation was an essential element for China to participate in the Paris Agreement[4] and U.S. leadership from Secretary Kerry made major steps towards ensuring its completion.[5] Without this robust American support what will the final result in Marrakesh be; what will the attitude of COP22 be?
After sitting and thinking, I propose four possibilities

  1. Business As Usual: The negotiators and delegations will continue acting as if American participation will occur as expected (even if nothing new will happen). It is not impossible that America reduces emissions, even with a President Trump. The Paris Agreement is in force now[6], the U.S. has legally agreed to it[7] and to withdraw from the Agreement, legally, is difficult.[8] The Clean Power Plan, the driving force behind America’s planned CO2 reductions, hangs in the balance of the D.C. Circuit Court.[9] If the D.C. Circuit approves the CO2 regulations and then the Supreme Court approves it, President Trump will have a difficult, but not impossible, time removing those regulations.[10] In short: there is a scenario where the U.S. still meets it obligations from the EPA’s regulations.
  1. More Aggressive Action: Expecting limited participation from the U.S. for the next four years, the E.U., Japan, China and other big emitters take greater action. It is not impossible to see China stepping up to the plate. China has criticized Trump’s proposals in the past,[11] and it would give them a chance to flex their international muscle, especially in a world where States are unsure of U.S. leadership.[12] Additionally, climate change will affect China a lot more than the developed world.[13] However, many of China’s proposals for COP22 so far do not show willingness for drastic action.
  1. A Less Ambitious Agreement: It is hard to image an agreement that gives more flexibility to States, but it is not necessarily impossible. Negotiators may try to temper down the Agreement to make it more appealing to the U.S. and to a President Trump. I think this is an unlikely scenario. Many already think this agreement is too weak and were unhappy with making it non-binding, a major U.S. demand under President Obama, let alone President Trump.[14] I also personally don’t believe a President Trump could agree to any scenario given whom he has surrounded himself with.
  1. Hitting Pause for 4 Years: In college, a professor once said, “Not every U.S. supported international agreement succeeds, but rarely does an international agreement succeed without the U.S.’s support.” Without the U.S., a tempered China and financially weaker E.U., it is hard to imagine where leadership comes from. This would look more like the Conference of the Parties from the 2000s when the Bush Administration had limited ambition. In four or eight years when a new administration comes in, U.S. commitment can pick up where it left off.

I am not sure which of these scenarios will occur but I am very curious to see how Marrakesh plays out, who the power brokers are and what will happen. As a staunch environmentalist and patriot, I hope that President Trump will do what the U.S. does best: take leadership and protect the world.

 

 

 

[1] http://www.politico.com/story/2016/11/rnc-model-showed-trump-losing-231074

[2] http://www.motherjones.com/environment/2016/09/trump-global-warming-hoax

[3] http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-election-trump-energy-idUSKCN0Y41ZP

[4] https://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2015/09/25/us-china-joint-presidential-statement-climate-change

[5] http://www.politico.com/story/2015/12/paris-climate-talks-tic-toc-216721

[6] https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2016/nov/04/paris-climate-change-agreement-enters-into-force

[7] http://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-china-37265541

[8] http://qz.com/832090/trump-has-vowed-to-yank-the-us-from-the-global-climate-pact-yes-he-can-do-it/

[9] http://www.usnews.com/news/politics/articles/2016-09-27/dc-appeals-court-set-to-hear-clean-power-plan-case

[10] http://www.rawstory.com/2016/11/what-president-trump-means-for-the-future-of-energy-and-climate/

[11] https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2016/nov/01/china-criticises-donald-trumps-plan-to-exit-paris-climate-deal

[12] https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/trumps-unpredictability-may-be-useful-against-enemies-but-its-deadly-to-allies/2016/07/25/37019d86-52a0-11e6-88eb-7dda4e2f2aec_story.html

[13] http://phys.org/news/2016-11-climate-authoritarian-china-experts.html

[14] http://www.independent.co.uk/environment/climate-change/cop21-paris-deal-far-too-weak-to-prevent-devastating-climate-change-academics-warn-a6803096.html

© 2025 Duke to the UNFCCC

Theme by Anders NorenUp ↑