The recent guest column from Professor Rutherford Platt regarding Trump’s withdrawal from the Paris agreement as being a crime against humanity caught my attention, as I had been composing an essay with an almost identical title. I’d like to add some perspective and information to his.
Not only has the withdrawal from the Paris agreement made it difficult to meet to the goals of keeping global temperatures “well below” 2 degrees Celsius, but the actions of this administration have undermined the process in multiple ways.
At the time of its adoption in December of 2015, the Paris agreement was viewed by many activists as insufficient because it did not establish hard limits on emissions. Instead, each country was charged with determining, planning and regularly reporting on its progress in mitigating global warming. There was transparency built into this plan to deter “cheating.”
The agreement also arranged for regularly scheduled meetings to discuss progress, which would function as a sort of international social pressure wherein targets met by some countries would compel others to follow suit. The targets met would be followed by stricter ones over time.
The COP21 meeting in Paris was the first time that all nations agreed to work together to address the climate crisis. In recent years, the United States has been the second largest emitter of greenhouse gases and we have generated almost twice as much as any other nation cumulatively since the start of the 20th century. The U.S. withdrawal has provided moral and political cover for other leaders who, for the sake of their economies and the approval of their citizens, are looking to decrease or dismiss their own decarbonization commitments.
One of the specious arguments against climate action in the United States is that doing so would not be successful anyway given the large emissions from China and projected ones from India. Indeed, the reliance on coal in both of those countries, and especially the recent agreement by India to purchase large quantities of mined coal from Australia, is very concerning, but, given Trump’s unbridled enthusiasm for coal and other fossil fuels, the U.S. does not have the leverage or ethical standing to oppose those actions.
The Paris COP21 was the 21st annual gathering of the Conference of Parties. The science that informs these conferences is provided by the IPCC. Unlike the U.S. Congress, the findings of the IPCC have been assumed as valid; however, the lack of prior agreement has largely been due to the tension between developed and developing nations.
The developed nations are largely responsible for the excess greenhouse gases in the atmosphere and the industrialization that has caused this has made those nations wealthy and provided a comfortable living for their citizens. The developing world recognizes that they are the ones most vulnerable to the impacts of climate change while having contributed least to the problem.
As a result, the developing nations have insisted that the developed nations provide financial assistance for the adaptations needed the ameliorate the impacts from climate change, as well as support to help them meet the growing energy needs of their populace without exacerbating the problem.
A formula for resolving this tension was reached for the first time at Paris and this was critical to the success of the agreement. The mechanism for this funding was the Green Climate Fund and the U.S., as both the world’s largest economy and historically the world’s largest emitter, made a large commitment to this fund.
Trump now refuses to pay into the fund. Other nations have stepped in to compensate for America’s absence but, there, too ,Trump’s actions have effectively sabotaged this critical agreement.
When the COP24 convened their meeting in Katowice, Poland, in December 2018, America sent a representative, but that official used it as an opportunity to promote use of fossil fuels and especially, Trump’s favorite polluter, coal. This was met with protests and scorn. In conjunction with other oil producing nations, Saudi Arabia and Russia, the U.S. also stopped the release of a key scientific climate report.
It is disturbing that we have a president who is making critical decisions based on falsehoods. How can we expect our head of government to support policies to address serious problems when he doesn’t know what the problem is and subscribes to unfounded conspiracy theories?
The actions he has taken to undermine the Paris agreement have long-term consequences that will be challenging to undo. We are running out of time to stabilize global warming.
Trump’s misguided environmental actions and policies might not legally qualify as criminal; however, given the enormity of the possible global catastrophes, I believe that a case can be made for identifying his withdrawal from the Paris agreement as morally and effectively, a crime against humanity.
Joe Silverman lives in Florence.