WHAT was President Donald Trump really thinking when he withdrew the United States’ commitment to the Paris agreement on climate change?
He said his reasons were economic — to bring jobs back to American workers, whom he said were affected by the regulations that killed the jobs of coal miners in favor clean and renewable energy sources.
“As of today, the United States will cease all implementation of the nonbinding Paris accord and the draconian financial and economic burdens the agreement imposes on our country,” Trump announced on June 1.
But economists, business and community leaders, and CEOs have disputed this argument and have been advising Trump that these regulations that stir the country toward clean and renewable energy has in fact inspired and encouraged innovation and inventions that have added more jobs, and has made America a leader toward protecting planet earth.
Trump argued that he withdrew the U.S. out of the Paris accord because it was a bad deal for America.
“The Paris climate accord is simply the latest example of Washington entering into an agreement that disadvantages the United States, to the exclusive benefit of other countries, leaving American workers, who I love, and taxpayers to absorb the cost in terms of lost jobs, lower wages, shuttered factories and vastly diminished economic production,” he said.
This has been debunked by facts. According to the New York Times, “industrialized countries have voluntarily pledged $10.3 billion since 2013 to help poorer nations reduce greenhouse gas emissions and address the effects of climate change. The United States has pledged by far the most — $3 billion, twice that of the second-largest pledger, Japan. But on a per-capita basis, many other countries have offered more than the United States. Swedes, for example, will contribute nearly $60 each.”
The newspaper further explained that “if the United States contributed its full pledge, the total would be a little less than $10 per American. With Mr. Trump stopping payments, the United States will have contributed $1 billion, or just more than $3 per person.”
This is shameful, and even immoral especially because the United States is among the world’s top polluters. “The United States, with its love of big cars, big houses and blasting air-conditioners, has contributed more than any other country to the atmospheric carbon dioxide that is scorching the planet,” the NYTimes reported.
According to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, “in 2014, the top carbon dioxide (CO2) emitters were China, the United States, the European Union, India, the Russian Federation, and Japan. These data include CO2 emissions from fossil fuel combustion, as well as cement manufacturing and gas flaring. Together, these sources represent a large proportion of total global CO2 emissions.”
During former President Barack Obama’s term, he was able to convince China and India to be part of the Paris accord. No one nation can do it alone. It takes the whole planet, especially the biggest polluters, to work together to solve these problems because we all share the same planet together. With the U.S.’ exit, it now joins the league of Syria and Nicaragua as the only countries not on board in the Paris Accord.
So having said these, does Trump even believe in science and the studies that prove climate change is real? According to the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA), “Ninety-seven percent of climate scientists agree that climate-warming trends over the past century are very likely due to human activities, and most of the leading scientific organizations worldwide have issued public statements endorsing this position.”
NASA has published compelling evidence for rapid climate change: sea level rise, global temperature rise, warming oceans, shrinking ice sheets, declining Arctic Sea ice, glacial retreat, extreme events — the number of record high temperature events in the United States has been increasing, while the number of record low temperature events has been decreasing, since 1950. The U.S. has also witnessed the increasing numbers of intense rainfall events, acidification of oceans, decreased snow cover, etc. Trump does not believe in these enough to compel him to act on it?
Or could it be that what matters to Trump and all that he could grasp is the here and now without regard to the future? Is he thinking like a traditional capitalist who will push to make profits even at the expense of our environment and the planet we will leave to the next generation?
Or could the political analysts be right that Trump decided to abandon the U.S.’ commitment to the Paris accord for political reasons? Does he want to score points with his base by proving he can fulfill his campaign promise without regard to facts, reason and moral obligation?
* * *
Gel Santos Relos is the anchor of TFC’s “Balitang America.” Views and opinions expressed by the author in this column are solely those of the author and not of Asian Journal and ABS-CBN-TFC. For comments, go to www.TheFil-AmPerspective.com, https://www.facebook.com/Gel.Santos.Relos
