SOC300 Honors Case Profile
(400 points)
Global Climate Change
Warming of the climate system is unequivocal, and since the 1950s, many of the observed
changes are unprecedented over decades to millennia. The atmosphere and ocean have
warmed, the amounts of snow and ice have diminished, and sea level has risen.
— Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, November 5, 2014
Climate change is an acute threat to global development and efforts to end poverty. Without
urgent action, climate impacts could push an additional 100 million people into poverty by 2030.
— The World Bank, December 20, 2017
NOTE TO STUDENTS
I have tried to be as fair as I know how in presenting an unbiased examination of
the controversy of climate change, but I must tell you that the scientific evidence
supporting climate deniers is very thin. Therefore, because the environmental
science community is almost universally in agreement that the Earth’s
atmosphere is warming, the majority of research you will see in the case study
supports that position. However, if you do not share this view, then by all means,
argue your case with your sources in support and it will be evaluated accordingly.
—
Dr. John R.
Cronin
I.
Overview
Developed or industrialized countries, including the United States, have been
releasing greenhouse gases into the atmosphere since the dawn of the Industrial
Revolution through the burning of fossil fuels for power, heat, transport, and
industry. Changes in land use — for example, cutting down forests or draining
peat bogs — can also increase the concentration of greenhouse gases in the
atmosphere. In recent decades, rapid economic growth in major developing
1
countries such as China, India, and Brazil has led to significant increases in their
greenhouse gas emissions. China is now the world’s largest emitter of carbon
dioxide (CO2) and, under current trends, developing countries will be the most
important sources of growth in emissions in the years to come.
Carbon dioxide is the most important of the six major greenhouse gases. These
gases trap the sun’s heat close to Earth, causing the planet to warm. Some of
these gases occur naturally, which is why Earth is warm enough to sustain life as
we know it. But increasing the concentration of these gases in the atmosphere
causes more heat to be trapped, raising average global temperatures and
changing the planet’s climate — a phenomenon known as global warming, or
climate change. Although some people claim that the rise in the earth’s average
temperature is primarily a natural phenomenon, the Intergovernmental Panel on
Climate Change (IPCC), the U.S. National Academy of Sciences, and other
organizations have concluded that much of the warming observed in recent
decades is a consequence of human activity.
The effects of climate change pose risks not only to the environment, but also to
the security and livelihood of people in the United States and around the world,
both now and in the future. These effects include rising sea levels; more extreme
weather patterns; and, more broadly, significant damage to the earth’s
ecosystems. If current trends continue, it could become more difficult to grow
plentiful and affordable food for a rising global population; low-lying areas,
including many of the world’s major cities, could be forced to build expensive
flood defenses; and more extreme heat waves could threaten the safety of
millions of people. Climate change is also a threat multiplier, with the potential
to increase conflict, instability and humanitarian crises around the world.
Rising greenhouse gas emissions can be addressed through policy at the domestic
and international levels. European countries have been able to substantially
reduce (“mitigate”) emissions in recent decades, and a binding international
agreement on climate change was reached in Kyoto, Japan, in 1997. But reducing
greenhouse gas emissions worldwide will not be easy. Modern economies
depend on electricity, heating and cooling, and motorized transportation — all of
which are powered predominantly by fossil fuels.
Renewable energy sources such as solar, wind, and geothermal power
(sometimes referred to as alternative energy) are growing but are not yet nearly
2
capable of fully replacing fossil fuels. In the meantime, emissions can be reduced
through the expanded use of nuclear power or increases in energy efficiency.
Nuclear power inspires public fears about the safety of nuclear plants and the
safety and cost of radioactive waste disposal, however, and energy-efficiency
improvements can require expensive modifications to cars, industrial processes,
and buildings. Climate change, moreover, is a difficult issue for policymakers
domestically and internationally. The questions of whether, how, and how fast to
cut emissions; who should bear the costs of doing so; and how to compensate
those harmed by both climate change and climate change mitigation have few
simple answers. Many fear that aggressive efforts to reduce emissions and
forestall climate effects could endanger lifestyles to which citizens of
industrialized countries are accustomed and to which citizens of developing
countries aspire.
II.
Case Assessment
While reading this case material, you should keep in mind:
1. What are greenhouse gasses and how do they contribute to global warming?
2. What kinds of economic, security, political and other challenges do these
emissions pose to the people of the developing world, and who are the worst
offenders?
3. What are the U.S. policy options in this case, and what are their advantages
and disadvantages?
4. What U.S. interests are at stake in this case? As a policymaker, how would you
prioritize these various interests, and why?
III. Main Concepts in the Case
•
•
•
•
•
Types of carbon-based emissions
Their global economic impact
Political ambivalence by U.S.
Conflict and humanitarian crises
Cap-and-trade and carbon taxes
3
IV. Your Assignment
Bear in mind that much of this case is based on established fact, but there are
some theoretical aspects involved, which will be clearly identified in the
readings. What we are examining is here are the actions the U. S. MIGHT take
IF it decides to take a stronger stand than present on addressing the worst
effects of climate change.
You will be one of five members of the National Security Council (NSC) who
advises the president about security developments on a global level, and it is your
job to decide whether American interests are involved and/or threatened as
situations arise around the world. In this case, regardless of the role you
choose, you are to write a five-page paper assessing the economic and
humanitarian effects of climate change. Your submission will have AT LEAST a
one-page introduction, a one-page conclusion, and a middle section that is
numbered and divided into three sections in which you decide:
(1) If any national interests of the U.S. are involved in climate change, then
what are they? If no interests are involved, then why not?
(2) Does the U.S. have a responsibility to clearly state its global climate policy
and join in international efforts to implement it?
(3) If action is called for for the U.S. to address climate change, then what policy
options are available? If you are a climate denier and recommend that no
action be taken, then what is the basis of your argument?
Thus, your case study will take the following form:
Page 1: introduction
Pages 2-4: will cover the three sections listed directly above, each of
which must be numbered (1), (2) and (3) so that I can tell where one
section ends and the following one begins.
4
Page(s) 5- : conclusion
This is a project in which you choose one of the five NSC positions listed below
and, based on the three questions above, recommend whether the president
should intervene (see section on policy options, below) by addressing global
climate change.
➢ If you choose to be the vice president, you serve as an all-purpose
presidential advisor as well as the individual who makes diplomatic trips
abroad.
➢ If you choose to be the secretary of state, you are to concentrate on
America’s bilateral relationships, the relationships between foreign
countries and the U.S. and analyze the behavior and interests of foreign
governments toward the United States.
➢ If you choose to be the secretary of defense, you are to assess the likely
implications of U.S. military involvement, both for the immediate crisis and
for the United States’ overall strategic position in the region under review.
➢ If you choose to be the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff (JCS), you are
to determine the likely implications of U.S. military involvement, both for
the immediate crisis and for the United States’ overall strategic position in
the region under review.
➢ If you choose to be the national security advisor (NSA), you are to make
certain a full range of viable policy options has been articulated, coordinate
those options and make certain that the prospects for success and failure
have been identified for the president.
I will hold one conference call in the first two weeks of the course to discuss this
assignment and answer questions, so it is imperative that you try to attend it. If
you absolutely cannot do so, I will record the call so you can refer to it for any
clarification.
V.
About the Case
A major international climate summit is approaching. At the United Nations
climate summit in Paris in 2015, the world’s leaders made pledges to reduce or
5
limit their countries’ emissions and agreed to monitor progress toward achieving
those goals. However, on June 1, 2017, President Trump announced his intention
to withdraw the United States from the Paris Agreement, arguing that it imposes
unfair costs on the country. Calling the accord “draconian,” Trump argued that it
resulted in “disadvantages for the U.S., to the exclusive benefit of other
countries.” He indicated, however, that would be willing to remain in the deal if it
could be renegotiated on terms more favorable to the U.S.
Withdrawal from the Paris Agreement takes four years to complete. (The earliest
date that the United States can officially leave the accord is November 4, 2020).
Meanwhile, annual climate summits continue. Most heads of government,
including the president of the United States, are planning to attend the upcoming
summit, and all eyes are on Washington to see what the new U.S. negotiating
strategy will be. American policymakers are united only in their desire for the
president to avoid any plan that would weaken expectations for emissions limits
on major developing countries or would risk reducing U.S. economic growth.
The objective of the National Security Council (NSC), therefore, is to agree on a
strategic goal for the summit. The options are to renegotiate the Paris Agreement
to incorporate a market-friendly approach; reverse course and remain in the
accord as it currently stands; or continue with the plan to pull out of the
agreement and pursue small-scale policies against climate change, perhaps at the
state or local level. In their deliberations, NSC members will need to bear in mind
the potential impact of climate change, the potential effects of proposed
measures to mitigate it, and the need to secure international support for the U.S.
approach from both developed and developing countries.
The president has asked the NSC for options on whether and how the U.S.
should intervene in the debate on climate change. NSC officials (and you will
choose your own role) will need to consider the international pressure on the U.
S. to act, as well as the significant costs, benefits and risks of a unilateral or
multilateral intervention for the United States.
VI. Roles
•
•
Vice President of the United States
Secretary of State
6
•
•
•
Secretary of Defense
Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff
National Security Advisor
Role-play
•
•
•
•
•
There is no right or wrong way to write up your research, but the better
prepared you are, the more you will get out of the experience.
Ensure that you carefully weigh the consequences of various decisions.
You cannot win or lose in this assignment. Instead, you should aim to offer
a well-reasoned articulation of your position.
Your individual grade on this assignment will depend exclusively on the
minimum of five pages you write about your assessment of the situation
and the quality of your recommendations to the president about whether
he should take action on climate change.
I look for:
➢
➢
➢
➢
➢
Page count
Content (sensibility of recommendations)
Proper syntax (sentence structure)
The quality of writing (no short and choppy sentences)
Grammatical accuracy (spelling and run-on sentences)
A word on this assignment: you’re not going to do well on this unless you read
the entire contents of this case profile. It will be quite evident if you do not do
the required preparation because you will have proposed weak arguments
based on personal opinion instead of fact, so please be mindful of this
recommendation.
VII. The Interagency Process (The National Security Council)
Whether it aims to meet an acute national security threat or to advance a longterm objective, a successful foreign policymaking process starts with the clear
articulation of U.S. interests and goals. The NSC plays a critical role in this effort
by serving as the president’s principal forum for considering national security and
foreign policy matters with his senior advisors and cabinet officials. Its mission is
to help the president effectively use a variety of military and diplomatic
7
instruments to forge policies that advance U.S. objectives. The NSC and its staff
try to even-handedly manage the policymaking process so that the president can
receive a full spectrum of advice from the agencies involved in national security.
VIII. The Members of the National Security Council
Vice President
This is second-highest-ranking official of the U.S. government and first in line to
assume the presidency if the president dies, resigns or becomes unable to serve.
Though given only one responsibility in the Constitution — to serve as president
of the U.S. Senate, with the power to break ties — the vice presidency has
become a visible part of the modern White House. Today’s vice presidents
undertake a variety of functions, from serving as an all-purpose presidential
advisor to carrying out diplomatic trips abroad.
Secretary of State
The Department of State maintains the U.S. diplomatic presence around the
world, conducting foreign relations and using an on-the-ground perspective to
generate country-specific knowledge. As head of the department, the secretary
draws on this knowledge to present an authoritative view of the United States’
bilateral relationships, the relationships between foreign countries and the
behavior and interests of foreign governments.
Secretary of Defense
The secretary of defense is the principal defense policy advisor to the president,
under whose direction he or she exercises authority over the Department of
Defense. In NSC meetings, the secretary analyzes the security situation in the
relevant region and explains the likely implications of U.S. military involvement,
both for the immediate crisis and for the United States’ overall strategic position.
Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff
The chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff (CJCS) is the highest-ranking member of
the U.S. military and the principal military advisor to the president, the secretary
of defense, the NSC and the Homeland Security Council. The CJCS does not
exercise command authority over U.S. troops. Instead, he or she works with the
8
heads of the U.S. military services to provide advice to the president and other
senior leaders.
National Security Advisor
The national security advisor (NSA) has a special role in crisis management,
serving as the “honest broker” for the national security policy process. Although
the president makes final decisions, the NSA is responsible for ensuring that he or
she has all the necessary information, that a full range of viable policy options has
been articulated, that the prospects for success and failure have been identified,
that any legal issues have been addressed, and that all members of the NSC have
had the opportunity to contribute.
IX. The Role of the United States
U.S. Foreign Policy and International Climate Diplomacy
In the 1980s, as international awareness about the environment started to grow,
the United Nations began holding formal discussions on global warming. In 1992,
the United States and 164 other countries signed the UN Framework Convention
on Climate Change (UNFCCC), the goal of which was the “stabilization of
greenhouse gas concentrations in the atmosphere at a level that would prevent
dangerous anthropogenic interference with the climate system.” It did not set
specific targets for countries to meet in order to achieve this general goal; rather,
it established the principle of “common but differentiated responsibilities and
respective capabilities” among countries, placing heavier expectations for
mitigation on developed countries. Those countries pledged to voluntarily reduce
emissions and make regular reports on their progress. These reports, in
subsequent years, showed little progress toward meeting the voluntary
reductions.
The UNFCCC also established a Conference of the Parties, which called signatories
to the treaty to an annual meeting at which they would discuss the agreement’s
implementation and make any changes they thought necessary. In 1997, the
parties met in Kyoto, Japan, and agreed on an addition to the UNFCCC, which is
known as the Kyoto Protocol. The protocol mandated that thirty-seven
industrialized countries would reduce their greenhouse gas emissions by a
9
specified amount. Over the five-year period from 2008 to 2012, the average
greenhouse gas emissions in each of the participating countries would, it was
agreed, fall by 5 percent below 1990 levels. Developing countries, however, faced
no required emissions cuts. This approach — setting a global goal and
determining how much each country will contribute toward that goal — is
sometimes referred to as a “top-down” mitigation strategy because aggregate
targets are set first, followed by national ones.
The U.S. Senate was opposed to any treaty that did not include developing
countries in emissions cuts, arguing that such an agreement granted those
countries an unfair competitive advantage. Before the negotiations on the
protocol were even concluded, the Senate, led in this action by Senators Robert
Byrd (D-WV) and Chuck Hagel (R-NE), passed by a vote of 95 to 0 a resolution
disapproving of any environmental treaty that could have negative economic
repercussions for the United States. Though the United States did formally sign
the protocol in 1998, President Bill Clinton never submitted it to the Senate for
ratification.
In 2009, diplomats met at another major climate summit, in Copenhagen,
Denmark, to agree on a new framework for climate change mitigation beyond
2012. Though many observers expected negotiators to reach a binding
agreement, and a record number of world leaders attended, the Copenhagen
Accord did not set mandatory emissions targets for participating countries.
Instead, it set a 2010 target for signatories to publish clear emissions reductions
pledges and broad guidelines for them to produce regular reports of their
progress thereafter. (The United States pledged to cut its greenhouse gas
emissions by 17 percent below 2005 levels by 2020.) Diplomats formally agreed to
a goal of keeping long-term temperature increases below two degrees Celsius,
and for the first time, developing-country signatories were expected to make
emissions-reduction pledges as well. Wealthier countries promised substantial
short- and long-term funding to help developing countries meet their goals.
Copenhagen pursued what some call a “bottom-up” model, because emissionsreductions targets were set by each country without respect to an overall or
aggregate target. Participating countries did not have to meet a combined global
reduction target, as they did under Kyoto; instead, they simply pledged what they
thought they could reasonably deliver.
Proponents of bottom-up-style
agreements argue that they can be easier to reach, since countries are allowed to
10
determine what they will offer. Others counter that top-down-style agreements
can offer greater certainty that mitigation targets will be significant enough to
have meaningful effects on the climate, presuming that the targets were accurate
and that countries achieved them.
In Durban, South Africa, in 2011, negotiators pledged to develop a new, legally
binding emissions agreement, to be finalized by 2015 and in place by 2020. In the
interim, they agreed to extend the Kyoto Protocol for a second five-year term,
though New Zealand, Japan, and Russia all chose not to continue participating in
the protocol after 2012 and Canada formally withdrew from the agreement in
2011. The European Union (EU) and Australia are now the only significant bodies
subject to Kyoto’s restrictions. Since then, parties to the UNFCCC have continued
meeting annually.
In December 2015 in Paris, France, the UNFCCC convened in a major summit. The
goal was to negotiate a successor agreement to the Kyoto Protocol that could
govern global emissions reductions after 2020. Over the course of 2015,
countries were asked to submit to the UNFCCC their “intended nationally
determined contributions,” or INDCs. (Now that the deal has come into force,
these are referred to as nationally determined contributions, or NDCs.) These
documents were requested from all member countries, rich and poor, and
outlined what each country intended to do to reduce its current emissions or limit
future emissions growth. Most pledges involved reducing CO2 emissions, but they
could also address issues such as adopting renewable fuels, reducing the use of
coal or burying related emissions underground through a process known as
carbon capture and sequestration, or preserving or restoring forests. Independent
assessments of the pledges found that, collectively, they would reduce emissions
significantly if fulfilled, but not by enough to reach the two-degree Celsius ceiling
agreed to in Copenhagen. They also noted that participation in this process was
broader than any other global climate effort so far.
At the summit, negotiators sought agreement on whether and how to monitor
progress toward national pledges, whether and how to make pledges more
stringent over time, and whether and how to provide financial support to poor
countries struggling to adapt to the changing climate and reduce their own
emissions. The final agreement called on countries to make new emissions
reductions pledges every five years, beginning in 2023, with the hope that they
would ratchet up in ambition each time. Countries also agreed to be transparent
11
about their progress toward achieving their pledges (though the text of the
agreement suggests that the expectations for transparency may differ between
developed and developing countries). Wealthy countries also pledged additional
money to help poor, vulnerable countries adapt to the effects of climate change.
The degree to which the agreement is successful in mitigating climate change will
only be seen over time, but most analysts agree that the Paris summit produced
the most important global climate agreement since Kyoto. The Paris Agreement
came into force on November 4, 2016, after more than fifty-five countries, which
account for 55 percent or more of global emissions (the necessary threshold),
ratified the accord. President Trump announced his intention to withdraw the
United States from the accord on June 1, 2017. Under the terms of the deal,
however, the earliest date the United States can officially withdraw is November
4, 2020. In the wake of his announcement, the European Union, China, India, and
many other signatories reaffirmed their commitments to the Paris accord.
The United States — in addition to engaging in multilateral formats as described
above — has utilized bilateral and minilateral initiatives to cooperate with others
on climate change. For example, President Barack Obama and China’s president,
Xi Jinping, announced in November 2014 a joint statement to reduce emissions in
the coming decades. The United States also participates in smaller informal
groups, including the Major Economies Forum (MEF), which has discussed climate
policy on a regular basis since 2009. The Group of Twenty (G20), another informal
grouping of major economies, has similarly been a vehicle for climate-related
negotiations; in 2009, for example, participating countries agreed to phase out
“inefficient” fuel subsidies, which encourage wasteful consumption of fossil fuels.
U.S. Domestic Policy
Climate change did not achieve prominence as a political issue in the United
States until the 1980s. The National Academy of Sciences published a landmark
report in 1981 entitled Changing Climate, which made a direct link between the
burning of fossil fuels, atmospheric CO2 concentrations, and possible increases in
global temperatures. In the three decades since, however, the U.S. government
has not been able to agree on or implement comprehensive climate change
legislation. Congress’s most recent attempt to pass a comprehensive bill was in
2009. The American Clean Energy and Security Act (sometimes referred to as the
Waxman-Markey bill, after its primary champions, then Congressmen Henry
Waxman and Ed Markey), sought to establish a nationwide cap-and-trade system.
12
The bill narrowly passed the House of Representatives (219 to 212) but never
passed the Senate. (See Section 2.5: Root Causes for some of the reasons such
legislation has proved difficult to pass.)
This is not to say, however, that the United States is doing nothing to address
climate change. In the 2007 case Massachusetts v. EPA, the U.S. Supreme Court
ruled that carbon dioxide qualified as a pollutant under the 1963 Clean Air Act,
which meant that the Environmental Protection Agency was required to measure
and regulate its prevalence in the atmosphere. EPA regulations under the Clean
Air Act have since become an important vehicle for regulating greenhouse gas
emissions. In 2009, and again in 2012, the EPA issued stricter fuel efficiency
standards for American cars and trucks. By 2016, new cars must be able to travel
39 miles per gallon (mpg) and trucks 30 mpg; by 2025, the average for all new
vehicles will likely be over 50 mpg — far higher than the 25 mpg required in 2009.
On June 25, 2013, President Obama issued a presidential memorandum that
instructed the EPA to develop regulations for reducing CO2 emissions from power
plants, the country’s largest source of greenhouse gas emissions. The EPA
released the Clean Power Plan a year later, a draft set of standards for existing
power plants that aimed to reduce national power sector emissions by
approximately 30 percent from 2005 levels by the year 2030. Under the rules,
which were finalized in August 2015, each state is to be given individual targets
based on its existing emissions and capacity for reduction, but they will be
allowed to choose the tools with which to meet those specific standards. For
example, states can decide to increase their reliance on renewable or zero-carbon
energy sources, reduce the use of coal and oil in favor of natural gas, or develop
other policies that better suit their circumstances. However, these regulations
face legal challenges. The Trump administration appears likely to try to weaken or
repeal them, a move that could itself be challenged in the courts.
Additional EPA regulations, released in May 2016, target methane emissions.
Methane is a much more potent greenhouse gas than carbon dioxide, trapping
twenty-five times more heat than CO2 over a 100-year period. The new
regulations require companies to plug leaks in new oil and natural gas wells and
storage tanks. Oil and gas wells are the largest single source of methane
emissions in the United States, but companies are likely to resist the rules as too
costly in a prolonged period of low prices. The Trump administration also sought
13
to suspend these regulations but was blocked by a federal appeals court in July
2017.
The United States spends a relatively small amount of money on other climate
programs across the government. Since 2012, about $10 billion per year in
funding has been directed to climate-related programs across eighteen federal
agencies. About two-thirds of this money is dedicated to energy-technology
research and development through the Department of Energy, one-quarter goes
to the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) for basic climate
research, and the remainder goes to international assistance and adaptation
programs. A roughly equal amount has been spent indirectly, through tax breaks
and similar provisions, on developing low-carbon energy sources, improving the
energy efficiency of homes and businesses, and other related programs.
One of the most important factors in reducing U.S. emissions over the past
decade has come from the energy industry itself. American production of natural
gas from shale deposits has experienced prolonged growth, providing a plentiful
and relatively inexpensive source of energy. Because burning shale gas produces
half the amount of CO2 as burning coal, when power plants switch from coal to
natural gas they substantially reduce their emissions. (Even this apparent good is
not without controversy, however. Environmental activists have raised concerns
about the risk of air and water pollution from natural gas extraction, and about
the methane that is often emitted during that process. More broadly, they fear
that a fuel billed as a “bridge” between high-carbon coal and low-carbon energy
sources may become a convenient, inexpensive, and permanent fuel source.)
Despite these steps, the United States is often portrayed as a laggard among
developed nations in establishing comprehensive national climate policies.
France, for example, currently relies on nuclear power for 75 percent of its
electricity. By 2050, Denmark plans to source 100 percent of its electricity from
renewable sources; Iceland already does so. Japan has substantially reduced its oil
imports over the past few decades through significant improvements in energy
efficiency. The relative lack of American achievement in this area makes it difficult
for the United States to lead calls for concerted international action in multilateral
negotiations. Finding a way to achieve significant, sustainable emissions
reductions at home could give it greater credibility in negotiations abroad.
Policy Options
14
The NSC’s task is to determine the United States’ strategic goal at the upcoming
summit. This entails determining how or whether the United States should
change its international approach to climate change following the Paris climate
agreement. The decision requires attention to both environmental and economic
concerns and to the interests of domestic U.S. political constituencies as well as
the other countries at the summit.
Three potential strategic goals have been presented to the principals for decision:
renegotiating the Paris accord along explicitly market-oriented lines, backing
down from the pledge to withdraw and remaining a member of the Paris
framework, or going ahead with a withdrawal from Paris and instead focusing on
smaller-scale bilateral or multilateral cooperation on climate issues.
1. Renegotiate the Paris Agreement
During his speech announcing his intention to withdraw from the Paris
Agreement, President Trump indicated that he was open to renegotiating the
accord if terms more favorable to the United States could be reached. Though
virtually all legislation addressing climate change faces an uphill battle in
Congress, market-based approaches have previously been considered there and
continue to garner some political support. These could form the basis of U.S.
proposals for a new international agreement. Two main options are discussed in
this vein:
a) Cap-and-trade system: A cap-and-trade system directly limits emissions and
creates a market price for them. It caps emissions at an agreed-upon level and
issues or sells emissions permits adding up to that cap to major emitters. Those
emitting less than their allotted amount can sell their extra permits to others
emitting more, creating a financial incentive to emit less. Over time, the cap is
lowered, increasing the value of the ever-scarcer permits and ensuring that
emissions decline. A global cap-and-trade system would set national limits on
emissions and establish an international market for permits. Under a cap-andtrade system, wealthy countries unable to meet their targets (whether for
technical or political reasons) might also be allowed to fund an emissionsreduction project in a developing country to compensate. This is known as
offsetting.
15
b) Carbon tax: A carbon tax does not directly limit emissions, but by setting a
price on CO2 emissions (usually per ton), it limits them indirectly by creating a
financial incentive to reduce them. To the extent that the tax is factored into the
price of consumer goods and electricity, it would make these items more
expensive. This may, however, encourage individuals to consume goods
associated with lower carbon emissions, or to consume fewer goods and less
energy overall. A tax would also raise revenue that governments could use to
lower deficits, provide new services, or decrease other taxes. A global tax could
be agreed to at the international level, but in most cases, including the United
States, it would also need to be approved by national legislatures.
Under either variation, a binding, top-down international agreement would be
the most ambitious potential goal. It could have the greatest chance to mitigate
climate change, but it also has the most obstacles in its path. Developed and
developing countries often differ on who should bear the main responsibility for
mitigation efforts, making an agreement that binds countries to specific steps
difficult to achieve. Both cap-and-trade systems and carbon taxes are also
politically controversial in many countries, including the U.S. In particular,
representatives of fossil fuel–exporting areas and producers of carbon-intensive
goods fear the impact of these policies on demand for their products, while
consumers worry about possible higher prices. Moreover, a binding agreement
would raise the challenge of establishing a viable system to measure whether
countries are meeting their targets and deciding what to do if they are not.
Many observers believe that a top-down approach could have a stronger chance
than other approaches of making a meaningful impact on the climate. NSC
members must therefore weigh the difficulties of this goal against what they
consider to be the severity of the threat.
2. Remain in the Paris Agreement and do not attempt to change it.
As noted, the Paris agreement does not require parties to take any specific action
to reduce emissions. Instead, countries voluntarily promised, through their NDCs,
to make their own climate-related changes, and they agreed to certain
procedures to monitor progress toward pledges and to increase the ambition of
the NDCs over time. The NSC might decide to continue this approach using the
requirements and arrangements agreed to in Paris. This strategy would offer the
benefits of continuity and stability for other countries and U.S. industry. It could
16
also, however, disappoint those who supported Paris’s bottom-up framework but
hoped it would lead countries to more rapid change and those who hoped the
United States would pull out of the accord and renege on its emissions reductions
pledge. Others have raised concerns that policies pledged in countries’ NDCs
could prove difficult or expensive to implement.
A variant of this option entails remaining in the Paris Agreement but weakening
the United States’ NDC. There is nothing stopping the United States from scaling
back what it promises to do under the Paris framework. This would be less
disruptive than a U.S. withdrawal and might preserve some credibility and
goodwill for Washington in future negotiations. It might also satisfy those who
believe climate mitigation measures harm the U.S. economy. However, as a
compromise, it might also spark criticism from groups favoring ambitious
measures and those favoring a total break from the Paris framework.
3. Prioritize other climate initiatives.
This strategy entails pursuing President Trump’s planned withdrawal while
focusing on steps to encourage good climate practices and provide climaterelated assistance to developing countries. These steps would not rely on
international agreements to encourage or require compliance.
This option encompasses a range of potential steps by the United States. One is to
support the establishment of an international innovation program that would aim
to improve understanding of climate change mechanisms and develop technology
that might help address them. Such an initiative — which could include research
collaboration, technical training, and other forms of international scientific
cooperation — could increase the ability of countries, businesses, and individuals
to reduce emissions on their own.
Action is also possible in the realm of foreign assistance. The United States and
other wealthy countries can, individually or together, provide financial,
technological, or professional assistance to poorer countries to help them
mitigate emissions, develop or adopt new technology, or adapt to climate change.
Wealthier countries can, for example, directly finance mitigation projects in
developing countries, including renewable power plants and anti-deforestation
initiatives. Many countries and institutions, including the United States and
international financial institutions, have already been doing this through “climate
17
funds.” Adaptation assistance can likewise take many forms, such as providing
better climate information and weather forecasting technology, drought-resistant
seeds and techniques for farmers, and assistance with coastal defenses to protect
against rising seas and natural disasters.
The United States could adopt the goal of building one or more of these initiatives
into a binding, top-down agreement or a bottom-up set of voluntary pledges. It
could also make such initiatives a stand-alone goal. In the latter scenario, the
United States would decide not to pursue a top-down agreement or bottom-up
approach. Were the United States to pursue these kinds of initiatives rather than
an international climate accord, policymakers might argue that people are better
off waiting for the emergence of better or cheaper mitigation technology or
further scientific evidence of the reality, speed, or scale of climate change before
pursuing major economic and political adjustments. In the meantime, however,
the United States could seek to advance one or more of the additional initiatives
listed above. The United States would retain the ability to pursue a top-down
agreement or bottom-up approach in the future, when conditions might be
better, or riper, because of increased scientific evidence, improved technology, or
economic advances.
A stand-alone approach is the most limited of the possible policy goals. As with
other options, it has both upsides and downsides. It would avoid the risk of
discord and possible failure at the summit should the United States pursue a topdown agreement or a bottom-up set of pledges. It would also require no
particular domestic action in the United States (or other countries), alleviating the
fears of economic costs that accompany certain policy steps. However, it might
disappoint countries, such as the United States’ European allies, that support
robust short-term measures to mitigate climate change. It would also offer the
smallest promise of a significant impact on the global climate.
Climate-related assistance, whether pursued alone or as part of a broader
approach, is itself a subject of debate. Advocates often argue that it is morally
necessary, as many poor countries have done little to contribute to climate
change but are likely to suffer some of its worst effects. Such assistance can also
have practical political effects. It demonstrates that industrialized countries are
willing to address the concerns and needs of developing countries, which can
increase their willingness to join global mitigation efforts. However, there are
18
questions about whether the United States would be helping its economic rivals
by funding public works projects in those countries.
General Considerations
In considering which goal to adopt, NSC members must weigh the environmental,
economic, and diplomatic dynamics explained throughout this case, as well as the
relative merits and drawbacks of each option.
One factor that policymakers must take into account when building international
accords is whether the agreements will be legally binding. Legally binding
agreements can include specific monitoring requirements, formal evaluations
against agreed upon targets, and some form of penalty for noncompliance.
Nonbinding agreements typically rely instead on public shaming or other informal
means of penalizing those who do not measure up to standards. The Paris accord
took a hybrid approach; some provisions were considered legally binding and
others considered voluntary.
X.
Context
Carbon dioxide and other gases heat the planet through a process known as the
greenhouse effect. When sunlight reaches Earth, some of it penetrates the
atmosphere as visible light. When that light reaches the ground, some of it is
absorbed and re-emitted as heat. Greenhouse gases in the atmosphere absorb
and re-emit some of that heat back toward Earth, warming the atmosphere near
the surface.
CO2 is the greenhouse gas that has attracted the most attention from scientists
and policymakers because it has had the greatest cumulative effect on the
atmosphere. It is the most plentiful and among the longest lasting of the six major
greenhouse gases; it can remain in the atmosphere for thousands of years. Other
greenhouse gases include methane, nitrous oxide, and certain compounds
containing chlorine or fluorine, which are often used as coolants in industry and in
household appliances. Most greenhouse gases are generated through the burning
of fossil fuels — coal, oil, and natural gas. That is why mitigation efforts generally
focus on reducing peoples’ use of these fuels.
19
Humans are not the only source of most greenhouse gases; CO2 is also generated
through volcanic eruptions, animal respiration, and the decay of plants. Methane
is generated by certain kinds of bacteria and in the digestive systems of ruminant
animals, such as cattle. There have also been natural changes in the
concentration of these gases in the past, primarily CO2. High concentrations of
CO2 have been associated with warmer temperatures and higher sea levels; lower
concentrations have been associated with ice ages.
Both the magnitude and the pace of the present changes to the climate, however,
are more significant than any other change in at least the past two million years.
Historically, Earth has cycled between ice ages (glacial periods) and warm
(interglacial) periods on a relatively predictable basis. In the relatively recent past,
between the coldest glacial periods and the warmest interglacial periods,
atmospheric CO2 concentrations have risen from as low as 180 parts per million
(ppm) to as high as 300 ppm. These changes were associated with global average
temperature increases of between four and seven degrees Celsius, though
scientists are still debating the exact relationship between those factors.
Scientists estimate that it took about five thousand years to make the transition
from the coldest to the warmest phase within the glacial cycles of the past million
years. The changes being observed now are much faster. Prior to the Industrial
Revolution, the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere was about 280 ppm —
near the top of the historical range for interglacial periods. Carbon dioxide levels
have now reached 400 ppm, substantially higher than at any other point in
millions of years. According to the IPCC, if average global temperatures rise by
five degrees Celsius by 2100 (at the higher end of current projections), then Earth
will have experienced in a few hundred years the same amount of warming it did
in the five thousand years after the last ice age.
Scientists have modeled many different scenarios to try to imagine how the
climate will react to various levels of atmospheric greenhouse gases in the future.
Some of these studies measure only carbon dioxide; others combine the effects of
carbon dioxide and the other greenhouse gases in a measure known as carbon
dioxide equivalent (CO2e). The IPCC, which analyzed hundreds of these studies for
its 2014 report, estimated that there would be a good chance of keeping longterm temperature increases below two degrees Celsius if atmospheric CO2e was
below 450ppm in the year 2100 and about a fifty-fifty chance if it reached 500
20
ppm. Higher concentrations could, it estimated, lead to more substantial
temperature increases.
Policymakers have agreed that temperature increases by 2100 should be limited
to a maximum of 2 degrees Celsius relative to global average temperatures at the
start of the Industrial Revolution, because higher temperatures are likely to lead
to more severe consequences for the climate and more difficult adaptations for
people. They therefore often discuss aiming for a ceiling on atmospheric CO2 at or
near 450 ppm. (Some advocates, especially representatives of small island states,
have pushed for an even more ambitious ceiling of 1.5 degrees Celsius, arguing
that the climatic effects of even a two-degree rise would be too severe. This was
included as an aspiration in the Paris Agreement, though on current emissions
trajectories it is unlikely to be achieved.)
There is little agreement on how to limit warming to 2 degrees. According to the
IPCC, models showed that staying below a 450 ppm ceiling would likely require
global greenhouse gas emissions that were 40 percent to 70 percent lower in
2050 than in 2010, and emissions that were near zero by 2100. By any measure,
those are substantial changes from today. Indeed, though the two-degree goal
remains in place, in practice many policymakers and climate negotiators doubt it
can feasibly be achieved. Instead, they often focus on securing significant
emissions reductions, rather than working toward a specific CO2 or temperature
goal.
Governments of developing countries point out that developed countries bear the
most cumulative responsibility for climate change because they have been
emitting at high levels for the longest time. Governments of developed countries,
on the other hand, note that emissions from developing countries are rising fast,
and the majority of future growth is likely to come from the developing world.
(Indeed, China has already surpassed the United States and Europe in CO2
emissions.) Virtually all countries are concerned that the major, rapid reductions
in emissions suggested by the 450 ppm target will be expensive, politically
controversial, or both. None of these arguments are baseless, but they illustrate
why it has been difficult to reach agreement on how to achieve substantial global
emissions reductions so far.
Root Causes
21
There are two approaches to understanding the root causes of climate change
and the policy debates that surround it. The first is mostly scientific:
understanding to what extent and through what basic mechanisms humangenerated greenhouse gas emissions affect Earth’s climate systems. This set of
root causes is reasonably well understood and is agreed on broadly enough by
most scientists that they believe mitigating action is warranted. But it begs
investigation of a second set of root causes that are mostly political:
understanding how and why policymakers at virtually all levels of governance
have not been able to reach agreement on how to address climate change.
Domestic Dynamics
Though discussions of climate change policy often focus on international political
negotiations, in many cases domestic political concerns are even more important.
This holds true not just for American policymakers but also for those from most
other countries.
Political paradox
Policymakers at all levels, in the United States and abroad, generally seek to take
steps that speak to their constituents’ interests and produce visible benefits over
a reasonable time frame. Climate change, however, is an unusual policy problem.
The economic changes that would likely follow from dramatic near-term
reductions in greenhouse gas emissions would be felt immediately, while the
environmental benefits of reduced emissions and slowed warming would not be
felt for years or decades. Indeed, those benefits might seem invisible to the
public, measured in crises that never occur, high temperatures that are never
reached, or icecaps that never melt.
This makes climate legislation a risky bet for many policymakers; rather than
passing legislation wherein benefits are felt immediately and costs are felt in the
future or not at all, they would be voting for the exact opposite. In the absence of
substantial, sustained public support for emissions reductions, many politicians
see little electoral benefit in climate policy. This paradox has been particularly
evident in the United States, where efforts to pass comprehensive climate change
policy have thus far failed. European policymakers, however, have found ways to
overcome this difficulty and have passed ambitious climate plans. Ultimately,
politicians respond to the demands of their constituents. When the public calls for
22
tougher environmental policies, as it has in Europe, governments are more likely
to formulate them.
Climate uncertainty
In many places, some policymakers and members of the public remain
unconvinced about the urgency or reality of climate change. Though the IPCC has
written that it has 95-to-100-percent confidence that climate change is occurring
and is predominantly traceable to humanity, climate systems are complex and can
be difficult to predict. The models that estimate future climate conditions are
constantly tested and refined as additional data become available and
methodologies improve, but as with all scientific models, there is a degree of
uncertainty about their results, particularly at the regional or local level. Although
scientists quantify and work to ameliorate these uncertainties, some people see
them as a reason not to take immediate action. Until they feel certain of the
danger, they do not want to risk the economic upheaval of major reductions in
greenhouse gas emissions. This constituency has been a serious political obstacle
to passing climate legislation in the United States.
Economic fears
Making major reductions in greenhouse gas emissions will likely entail changes at
all levels of the economy, from urban planning and the energy efficiency of cars
and home appliances to the types of power plants that generate most electricity.
As with any change that affects a large percentage of the economy, there will be
some sectors that struggle to adapt even as others prosper.
For example, carbon-intensive industries such as coal extraction, cement
manufacturing, energy generation, and certain types of agriculture could face
reduced demand for their products, higher taxes, or both, depending on how a
climate agreement or policy was structured. On the other hand, manufacturers
and installers of solar panels, wind turbines, and energy-efficient home
improvements could receive subsidies or other support, see greater demand for
their products, and create new jobs. Broad mechanisms to reduce emissions, such
as implementing an economy-wide carbon tax or shifting subsidies away from
fossil fuels toward renewable ones, could have ripple effects across the economy.
Much depends on how any climate deal or policy is structured, but the balance
among these forces is politically important, unevenly distributed in place and
23
time, and not always easy to predict. Under such circumstances, policymakers
hesitate to act.
Responsibility
Western countries began burning fossil fuels on a large scale during the Industrial
Revolution, beginning in the middle of the eighteenth century. Other
industrialized countries, such as Japan and Australia, soon followed. All those
countries remain, on both an absolute and per capita basis, among the largest
emitters of greenhouse gases in the world. Major developing countries, by
contrast, became major emitters much later, and some poor countries have never
been so.
According to negotiators from many developing countries, this means that
Western and other developed countries bear primary responsibility for the state
of the atmosphere and must therefore bear primary responsibility for mitigation
efforts. Arguments differ, but they often suggest that industrialized countries
should make the first and deepest cuts in emissions, share mitigation technology
with the developing world (by, for example, loosening patent-transfer restrictions
on such technology), and provide financial assistance for mitigation and
adaptation efforts there.
Emissions from large developing countries, however, have caught up rapidly with
those from the West. China is the world’s largest emitter of CO2, ahead of the
United States, with India in third. Taking into account all greenhouse gas
emissions, including those from land-use changes, China and the United States
remain in first and second place, respectively, but Brazil and Indonesia rise to
third and fourth, and India falls to sixth (Russia is fifth). Growth in emissions from
large developing countries is, moreover, rising faster than in the developed world,
where emissions are actually falling in some places, particularly Europe.
Diplomats from the developed world point to statistics such as these to argue that
mitigation efforts should be shared globally, not confined to industrialized states.
Economic concerns
Countries at every stage of development are, as noted above, concerned about
the potential costs of substantial mitigation policies. Poor countries, many of
which are predicted to be badly affected by climate change, struggle to fund basic
government functions such as education, health care, and infrastructure
24
construction. They are ill-equipped to fund large-scale mitigation or adaptation
schemes on their own, and are likely to require significant financial assistance
from development banks and wealthy countries.
Rapidly developing countries such as China, India, and Brazil have growing middle
classes, gleaming cities, and among the world’s highest greenhouse gas emissions.
Yet they also have millions of citizens poor enough to lack access to varied food,
clean water, or electricity, and many others who, though middle class by local
standards, aspire to Western standards of living that remain out of reach.
Governments in these countries often argue that they cannot and should not risk
sacrificing future growth in favor of climate change mitigation when so many of
their citizens still live in such circumstances.
Developed countries, for their part, fear being asked to bear the cost of mitigation
or adaptation costs for themselves and their poorer neighbors. If they are the
only countries to implement mitigation efforts, moreover, they risk becoming less
economically competitive than countries that can still emit at will. For countries
still recovering from the financial crisis, a loss of competitiveness compared with
major developing countries such as China and India would be difficult to accept.
Other Interested Parties
The European Union: The EU has implemented a plan to combat climate change
by cutting emissions to 20 percent below 1990 levels by the year 2020. Cuts in
greenhouse gas emissions will be made in part through the EU Emissions Trading
System (ETS), a cap-and-trade program that was modeled on the United States’
program to reduce sulfur dioxide in the atmosphere.
China: The Kyoto Protocol identified China as a developing country and thus
placed it under no obligation to curb emissions, but today, China has surpassed
the United States as the largest emitter of carbon dioxide. Yet China has also
become a leading producer of wind and solar technology. Joint climate policy
steps between the United States and China, including a 2013 agreement on
climate-related cooperation and the 2014 statement explained in Section 2.6,
may be an important stepping stone toward an international climate agreement.
It is widely agreed that any serious climate change treaty would require buy-in
from these countries, the world’s two largest emitters.
25
India: In 2008, India released a National Climate Action Plan that called for
increases in solar energy, greater energy efficiency, and improved vehicle fuel
economy. The country remains heavily reliant on coal for power generation,
however. Its pledge for the 2015 climate summit in Paris included commitments
to further boost its use of renewable energy, reduce its emissions intensity, and
plant forests as carbon sinks, but did not include a hard emissions reduction
target. Highlighting the 300 million Indians who do not yet have electricity, Indian
officials have called on developed nations to cut emissions first and allow stilldeveloping countries to escape poverty before addressing climate change. The
United States and India have also agreed to expand their cooperation in clean
energy development and other areas.
The World Bank: The World Bank and regional development banks can help
countries in their efforts to adapt to and mitigate climate change. A number of
countries are skeptical about organizations such as the World Bank, but
multilateral banks can manage large amounts of money, unlock private
investment, and channel funds to vulnerable areas around the world. The World
Bank has created new funds, including the Clean Technology Fund and Strategic
Climate Fund, that help developing nations improve their capacity for dealing with
climate change.
Brazil and Indonesia: Although Brazil’s energy system is relatively clean (due to its
extensive use of hydroelectric power and biofuels), its emissions are greater than
those of larger economies such as India once emissions from deforestation are
taken into account. Indonesia, too, attributes a substantial percentage of its
emissions to deforestation. Agriculture and logging (the industries that primarily
drive deforestation) are important sources of income for both countries, and will
need to be taken into account when dealing with this issue.
XI. Notes
(1) The paper must be at least five pages long, not including graphics, which
works out to approximately one page for your introduction, one page each for
your three questions in Section VI, Your Assignment, and one page for your
conclusion. I would encourage you to write more for each section, but five will
do.
26
(2) You must double-space your lines in 12-point font and not have any extra
spacing between sections or paragraphs.
(3) You don’t have to cite the articles I have given you in the articles below, but if
you use any outside sources, they must be listed in a bibliography and cited in the
text of your case study in the APA style.
(4) Do not capitalize any of the positions in the NSC, including that of the
president unless the person’s name follows. (i.e., The president was in Florida.
We saw President Truman in Florida.)
(5) Do not use the personal pronoun “I” in your analysis and stay away from
writing in short, choppy sentences.
(6) Please do not include an abstract.
XII. Glossary
Adaptation: modification of human structures, systems, or activities to
accommodate a changing environment. In the context of climate change, this
means adjusting to new environmental conditions as opposed to trying to prevent
their occurrence (an approach known as mitigation).
Alternative energy: energy derived from biofuels, solar, wind, geothermal, or
tidal power. This is contrasted with energy derived from fossil fuels (e.g., oil, coal,
and natural gas).
Biofuel: liquid fuel derived from plants. A prominent example is ethanol, a
product of sugarcane or corn.
Bottom-up/top-down: two potential structures for an agreement in international
negotiations. In the context of climate change negotiations, a top-down approach
refers to a process in which countries determine a collective goal, and roles for
fulfilling that goal are assigned to individual countries or parties to the agreement.
27
Under a bottom-up approach, each country decides on its own actions within a
broader framework.
Cap-and-trade: a policy framework in which a government caps the amount of
greenhouse gases that can be emitted in the country or region during a given
period. Emissions permits, which allow companies to emit a specific amount of
greenhouse gases, are issued or sold to companies, up to the national or regional
cap. These permits can be traded among companies—sold by companies that
emit less than their targets and bought by those that emit more—creating a
financial incentive to lower emissions and providing flexibility for companies that
cannot or do not wish to do so. Over time, the cap on emissions is reduced to
ensure emissions go down. Cap-and-trade programs exist at the state, regional,
national, and international levels.
Carbon tax: a policy in which entities such as companies pay the government a
fixed fee for each ton of greenhouse gases emitted. The purpose is to encourage
firms to pursue technologies and practices that will reduce their emissions.
Carbon dioxide equivalent (CO2e): a measure of the combined warming effect of
all greenhouse gases, expressed as the amount of carbon dioxide that would be
required to achieve the same effect.
Clean Air Act: a federal law that regulates airborne emissions from stationary
sources (such as factories) and mobile ones (such as cars). Among other things,
this law authorizes the Environmental Protection Agency to establish air quality
standards to protect public health and welfare, and to regulate emissions of
hazardous air pollutants.
Copenhagen Accord: a nonbinding accord resulting from a 2009 climate change
conference at which countries put forward national plans for reducing emissions;
agreed to raise money to help developing countries both mitigate and adapt to
climate change; and set long-term goals for capping the global rise in
temperatures to two degrees Celsius.
Deforestation: the destruction or loss of forests. Deforestation increases
greenhouse gas accumulations in the atmosphere because it eliminates trees,
28
which naturally absorb carbon dioxide as they grow, and releases carbon from the
soil.
Emissions intensity: a calculation of greenhouse gas emissions relative to an
economic measure such as gross domestic product, usually expressed as tons of
CO2 per unit of GDP.
Fossil fuel: a hydrocarbon energy source such as oil, coal or natural gas.
Greenhouse gas: any gas that absorbs heat in the atmosphere and re-emits it
back toward Earth, causing a warming effect. The greenhouse gases regulated by
the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) are
carbon dioxide, methane, nitrous oxide, hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs),
perfluorocarbons (PFCs), and sulphur hexafluoride. Water vapor and ozone are
also greenhouse gases but are not covered by the UNFCCC.
Greenhouse effect: the buildup of heat in the atmosphere near Earth’s surface,
driven by the concentration of greenhouse gases.
Group of Twenty (G20): a multilateral forum created in 1999 for officials from the
largest advanced and developing economies to jointly address global economic
concerns. Finance ministers and central bank governors of member countries
meet several times a year; in 2008, in response to the global financial crisis, the
G20 began hosting annual meetings for the leaders of its member economies. The
G20 exists solely to coordinate policy and has no enforcement mechanisms.
Industrial Revolution: a transition from small-scale, largely agricultural economies
to more industry-intensive ones. It began in England around 1750 and extended
to other parts of Europe, the United States and beyond. Propelled by
technological advances that enabled vastly more efficient production, this process
raised living standards dramatically but also boosted the use of fossil fuels and,
therefore, the emission of greenhouse gases.
Kyoto Protocol: a 1997 agreement reached in Kyoto, Japan, that amended the
U.N. Framework Convention on Climate Change. It mandated emissions cuts by
thirty-eight developed economies while encouraging (but not requiring)
29
developing countries to follow suit, and was renewed in 2011 for an additional
five years.
Mitigation: action taken with the purpose of limiting or preventing climate
change due to greenhouse gas emissions. The term encompasses increased use
of energy-efficient goods or renewable energy sources (as would take place in a
circular economy) and the reinforcement of natural processes, such as
reforestation.
Multilateral: undertaken among three or more entities, usually countries. The
term frequently describes organizations such as the United Nations (UN).
Natural gas: a fossil fuel primarily composed of methane and other gases. Burning
it produces substantially fewer greenhouse gas emissions than burning coal, but
more than produced by renewable energy sources. It also remains controversial
in the United States due in part to the effects of the extraction process sometimes
used to access it.
Offsetting: an action taken as compensation for other activity. Carbon offsetting
involves a country’s funding emissions reductions projects abroad instead of
reducing its own emissions.
Parts per million: a measurement of the concentration of a material, such as a
greenhouse gas, in one million parts of another substance, such as water or air.
Paris Agreement: an international agreement reached in 2015 that requires
signatories to offer concrete emissions reductions pledges (see intended
nationally determined contributions), establishes rules to monitor their
performance against those pledges, and sets up a process to review and increase
the ambition of the pledges over time.
Renewable energy: energy derived from sources such as sunlight, wind, and
water, which have a steadily replenishing supply. These sources stand in contrast
to fossil fuels, which regenerate only over enormous lengths of time. See also
alternative energy.
30
Sink: a system that absorbs and holds CO2 from the atmosphere. Oceans and
rainforests are two examples of a carbon sink.
YouTube Videos on Climate Change and Cap and Trade
https://modeldiplomacy.cfr.org/#/case-materials/13779/section/2
https://youtu.be/QOiACrIj8xE
https://youtu.be/EKT_ac4LPkU
China’s cities struggling to recycle growing waste.mp4
Podcast
https://www.cfr.org/podcasts/leaving-paris-climate-agreement
June 2007: China surpasses the United
States as the biggest carbon dioxide
emitter in the world.
June 2008: The U.S. and China sign a tenyear framework for energy and
environmental cooperation addressing
certain greenhouse gas emissions,
biofuels, renewable energy, energy
efficiency, clean water and
environmental conservation.
31
XII. Additional Reading
Carbon Dioxide Levels Grow at Record Pace:
Meteorologists
Timothy Cama ‖ October 30, 2017
©Provided by The Hill — Climate Change
The concentration of carbon dioxide in the Earth's atmosphere surged last year at
the highest pace in hundreds of thousands of years, the World Meteorological
Organization (WMO) said Monday. Carbon dioxide, the emission of which
has been growing rapidly over recent decades due to human activity like fossil
fuel use, accounted for 403.3 parts per million in the atmosphere, averaged
around the world for the entire year, in 2016, according to the WMO. WMO
made its conclusion based both in recordings in recent years and fossils and other
artifacts.
The United Nations group is warning that the greenhouse gas level is dangerous
and unsustainable and used the announcement to call for actions to reduce
emissions. "Without rapid cuts in CO2 and other greenhouse gas emissions, we
will be heading for dangerous temperature increases by the end of this century,
well above the target set by the Paris climate change agreement," said WMO
Secretary-General Petteri Taalas. "Future generations will inherit a much more
inhospitable planet," he said.
The last time the Earth had this much carbon dioxide in its atmosphere was
between 3 million and 5 million years ago, the WMO said. Surface temperatures
were then between 2 and 3 degrees Celsius warmer and sea levels were 10 to 20
32
meters higher than present day. Last year had previously been confirmed as the
hottest year on record, breaking the record set in 2015.
Study: Pollution Kills 9 Million a Year
Worldwide and Costs $4.6 Trillion
By Katy Daigle ‖ The Associated Press
New Delhi ‖ October 20, 2017
In this June 5, 2017 photo, toxic
froth from industrial pollution floats
on a canal in Bangalore, India.
Environmental pollution —
from filthy air to contaminated
water — is killing more people
every year than all war and
violence in the world. More
than smoking, hunger or natural disasters. More than AIDS, tuberculosis and
malaria combined. One out of every six premature deaths in the world in 2015 —
about 9 million — could be attributed to disease from toxic exposure, according
to a major study released Thursday in Great Britain’s The Lancet medical journal.
The financial cost from pollution-related death, sickness and welfare is equally
massive, the report says, costing some $4.6 trillion in annual losses — or about
6.2 percent of the global economy.
"There's been a lot of study of pollution, but it's never received the resources or
level of attention as, say, AIDS or climate change," said epidemiologist Philip
Landrigan, dean of global health at the Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai,
New York, and the lead author of the report.
The report marks the first attempt to pull together data on disease and death
caused by all forms of pollution combined. "Pollution is a massive problem that
people aren't seeing because they're looking at scattered bits of it," Landrigan
said. Experts say the 9 million premature deaths the study found was just a
partial estimate, and the number of people killed by pollution is undoubtedly
33
higher and will be quantified once more research is done and new methods of
assessing harmful impacts are developed.
Areas like Sub-Saharan Africa have yet to even set up air pollution monitoring
systems. Soil pollution has received scant attention. And there are still plenty of
potential toxins still being ignored, with less than half of the 5,000 new chemicals
widely dispersed throughout the environment since 1950 having been tested for
safety or toxicity. "In the West, we got the lead out of the gasoline, so we
thought lead was handled. We got rid of the burning rivers, cleaned up the worst
of the toxic sites. And then all of those discussions went into the background" just
as industry began booming in developing nations, said Richard Fuller, head of the
global toxic watchdog Pure Earth.
"To some extent these countries look to the West for examples and discussion,
and we'd dropped it," Fuller said. Asia and Africa are the regions putting the most
people at risk, the study found, while India tops the list of individual countries.
One out of every four premature deaths in India in 2015, or some 2.5 million, was
attributed to pollution. China's environment was the second deadliest, with more
than 1.8 million premature deaths, or one in five, blamed on pollution-related
illness, the study found.
Several other countries such Bangladesh, Pakistan, North Korea, South Sudan and
Haiti also see nearly a fifth of their premature deaths caused by pollution. Still,
many poorer countries have yet to make pollution control a priority, experts say.
India has taken some recent actions, such as tightening vehicle and factory
emission standards and occasionally limiting the number of cars on New Delhi's
roads. But they have done little about crop burning, garbage fires, construction
dust or rampant use of the dirtiest fossil fuels.
A court ban on firework sales before the Diwali festival didn't stop New Delhi
residents from firing rockets and lighting crackers throughout Thursday night.
They awoke Friday morning to acrid, smoke-filled skies and levels of dangerous,
lung-clogging particulate matter known as PM2.5 that went beyond 900 parts per
million — 90 times the recommended limit by the World Health Organization, and
22 times higher than India's own limits.
Even the conservative estimate of 9 million pollution-related deaths is one-and-ahalf times higher than the number of people killed by smoking, three times the
34
number killed by AIDS, tuberculosis and malaria combined, more than six times
the number killed in road accidents, and 15 times the number killed in war or
other forms of violence, according to GBD tallies.
It is most often the world's poorest who suffer, the study found. The vast majority
of pollution-related deaths — 92 percent — occur in low- or middle-income
countries, where policy makers are chiefly concerned with developing their
economies, lifting people out of poverty and building basic infrastructure.
Environmental regulations in those countries tend to be weaker, and industries
lean on outdated technologies and dirtier fuels.
In wealthier countries where overall pollution is not as rampant, it is still the
poorest communities that are more often exposed, the report says. "What
people don't realize is that pollution does damage to economies. People who are
sick or dead cannot contribute to the economy. They need to be looked after" —
which is also costly, Fuller said. "There is this myth that finance ministers still live
by, that you have to let industry pollute or else you won't develop," he said. "It
just isn't true."
The report cites EPA research showing that the U.S. has gained some $30 in
benefits for every dollar spent on controlling air pollution since 1970, when
Congress enacted the Clean Air Act, one of the world's most ambitious
environmental laws. Removing lead from gasoline has earned the U.S. economy
another $6 trillion cumulatively since 1980, according to studies by the U.S.
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.
The study's conclusions on the economic cost of pollution measure lost
productivity and health care costs, while also considering studies measuring
people's "willingness to pay" to reduce the probability of dying. "The relationship
between pollution and poverty is very clear," said the lead environmental
specialist at the World Bank. "And controlling pollution would help us address
many other problems, from climate change to malnutrition. The linkages can't be
ignored."
US EPA
United States Environmental Protection Agency
35
Climate Change: Basic Information
January 1, 2017
a. How is the climate changing in the United States?
Observations across the U.S. and world provide multiple, independent lines of
evidence that climate change is happening now.
b. Climate change is happening
Our Earth is warming. Earth's average temperature has risen by 1.5°F over the
past century, and is projected to rise another 0.5 to 8.6°F over the next hundred
years. Small changes in the average temperature of the planet can translate to
large and potentially dangerous shifts in climate and weather.
The evidence is clear. Rising global temperatures have been accompanied by
changes in weather and climate. Many places have seen changes in rainfall,
resulting in more floods, droughts, or intense rain, as well as more frequent and
severe heat waves. The planet's oceans and glaciers have also experienced some
big changes – oceans are warming and becoming more acidic, ice caps are
melting, and sea levels are rising. As these and other changes become more
pronounced in the coming decades, they will likely present challenges to our
society and our environment.
c. What are climate change and global warming?
Global warming refers to the recent and ongoing rise in global average
temperature near Earth's surface. It is caused mostly by increasing concentrations
of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere. Global warming is causing climate
patterns to change. However, global warming itself represents only one aspect of
climate change.
Climate change refers to any significant change in the measures of climate lasting
for an extended period of time. In other words, climate change includes major
changes in temperature, precipitation, or wind patterns, among other effects,
that occur over several decades or longer.
36
d. Humans are largely responsible for recent climate change
Over the past century, human activities have released large amounts of carbon
dioxide and other greenhouse gases into the atmosphere. Most greenhouse gases
come from burning fossil fuels to produce energy, although deforestation,
industrial processes, and some agricultural practices also emit gases into the
atmosphere.
Greenhouse gases act like a blanket around Earth, trapping energy in the
atmosphere and causing it to warm. This phenomenon is called the greenhouse
effect and is natural and necessary to support life on Earth. However, the buildup
of greenhouse gases can change Earth's climate and result in dangerous effects to
human health and welfare and to ecosystems. The choices we make today will
affect the amount of greenhouse gases we put in the atmosphere in the near
future and for years to come.
e. Climate change affects everyone
Our lives are connected to the climate. Human societies have adapted to the
relatively stable climate we have enjoyed since the last ice age which ended
several thousand years ago. A warming climate will bring changes that can affect
our water supplies, agriculture, power and transportation systems, the natural
environment, and even our own health and safety.
Some changes to the climate are unavoidable. Carbon dioxide can stay in the
atmosphere for nearly a century, so Earth will continue to warm in the coming
decades. The warmer it gets, the greater the risk for more severe changes to the
climate and Earth's system. Although it's difficult to predict the exact impacts of
climate change, what's clear is that the climate we are accustomed to is no longer
a reliable guide for what to expect in the future.
We can reduce the risks we will face from climate change. By making choices that
reduce greenhouse gas pollution, and preparing for the changes that are already
underway, we can reduce risks from climate change. Our decisions today will
shape the world our children and grandchildren will live in.
37
The Business Case for Tackling Climate Change
By Stephen Badger, The Washington Post, WP Bloomberg ‖ October 6, 2017
Global businesses are, quite rightly, under scrutiny for what they are doing to
tackle challenges such as climate change and poverty. Last month, the United
Nations asked business leaders the same questions we’ve heard countless times:
What are businesses doing to help deliver on the Paris climate agreement? How
can business and government work together to drive change at scale? One of the
key characteristics of the Paris agreement is that it extends beyond governments
to engage businesses. Corporations should seize this opportunity to have a seat at
the table and do their part to address critical global challenges. In time, they will
realize the returns on investment in a sustainable future.
You have only to look at the carbon footprint of my own company, Mars
Incorporated to see the effect business has on the world: Our footprint is
equivalent to that of a country roughly the size of Panama. With this scale comes
responsibility. Mars, and companies like ours, must be as engaged as
governments in delivering reductions in greenhouse-gas emissions. That’s why I
attended Climate Week and U.N. General Assembly events in New York in
September, and talked there with leaders in business, government and
nongovernmental organizations. As a private, family-owned business, we’ve not
traditionally had a high-profile presence at such events. But if there were ever a
time in Mars’s more-than-100-year history for us to find our voice and join the
chorus calling for action, this is it. In New York, people often asked me if there
really is a sound business case for tackling issues such as climate change and
poverty. The answer is an unqualified yes.
First, investment in operating sustainably delivers cost savings. Mars is already
capitalizing on the falling prices of renewable energy and the long-term cost
savings of clean technology. This has helped to reduce the carbon emissions of
our 150 factories around the world by 25 percent. We are already using enough
renewable energy to make all our M&M’s. In fact, we now purchase enough
renewable energy to fuel our entire operations in five countries and plan to make
38
that 11 countries in 2018. All of this is delivered at the same cost, or lower, as
fossil fuel.
Second, for a company such as Mars that is dependent on agriculture, our
investments are creating a more resilient and resource-efficient supply chain
where smallholder farmers and others can thrive. By working with our suppliers
to source raw materials in a way that lowers climate risk and creates opportunity
for people, we can increase crop yields and ensure affordable ingredient supplies,
reduce our impact on natural resources and ensure a generation of future
farmers.
By Justin Gillis ‖ September 19, 2017
1. Climate change? Global warming? What do we call it?
Both are accurate, but they mean different things. You can think of global
warming as one type of climate change. The broader term covers changes
beyond warmer temperatures, such as shifting rainfall patterns. President Trump
has claimed that scientists stopped referring to global warming and started calling
it climate change because “the weather has been so cold” in winter. But the
claim is false. Scientists have used both terms for decades.
2. How much is the Earth heating up?
Two degrees is more significant than it sounds. As of early 2017, the Earth had
warmed by roughly 2 degrees Fahrenheit (more than 1 degree Celsius) since 1880,
when records began at a global scale. The number may sound low, but as an
average over the surface of an entire planet, it is actually high, which explains why
much of the world’s land ice is starting to melt and the oceans are rising at an
accelerating pace. If greenhouse gas emissions continue unchecked, scientists
say, the global warming could ultimately exceed 8 degrees Fahrenheit, which
would undermine the planet’s capacity to support a large human population.
39
3. What is the greenhouse effect, and how does it cause global warming?
We’ve known about it for more than a century. Really. In the 19th century,
scientists discovered that certain gases in the air trap and slow down heat that
would otherwise escape to space. Carbon dioxide is a major player; without any
of it in the air, the Earth would be a frozen wasteland. The first prediction that
the planet would warm as humans released more of the gas was made in 1896.
The gas has increased 43 percent above the pre-industrial level so far, and the
Earth has warmed by roughly the amount that scientists predicted it would.
4. How do we know humans are responsible for the increase in carbon dioxide?
This one is nailed down. Hard evidence, including studies that use radioactivity to
distinguish industrial emissions from natural emissions, shows that the extra gas
is coming from human activity. Carbon dioxide levels rose and fell naturally in the
long-ago past, but those changes took thousands of years. Geologists say that
humans are now pumping the gas into the air much faster than nature has ever
done.
5. Could natural factors be the cause of the warming?
Nope. In theory, they could be. If the sun were to start putting out more
radiation, for instance, that would definitely warm the Earth. But scientists have
looked carefully at the natural factors known to influence planetary temperature
and found that they are not changing nearly enough. The warming is extremely
rapid on the geologic time scale, and no other factor can explain it as well as
human emissions of greenhouse gases.
6. Why do people deny the science of climate change?
Mostly because of ideology. Instead of negotiating over climate change policies
and trying to make them more market-oriented, some political conservatives
have taken the approach of blocking them by trying to undermine the science.
President Trump has sometimes claimed that scientists are engaged in a
worldwide hoax to fool the public, or that global warming was invented by China
to disable American industry. The climate denialists’ arguments have become so
strained that even oil and coal companies have distanced themselves publicly,
though some still help to finance the campaigns of politicians who espouse such
views.
40
One of the Oldest Climate Change Experiments
Has Led to a Troubling Conclusion
By Chris Mooney ‖ October 5, 2017
Heated and control plots in a longterm soil warming study at Harvard
Forest, Massachusetts. The Marine
Biological Laboratory in Woods Hole,
Massachusetts began the study in
1991.
One of the regular complaints
of climate change doubters
and skeptics is that scientific
projections of a dire future
are too heavily based on
computer simulations, or
models, which — they say — rest on a variety of questionable assumptions. But a
major climate change study published Thursday relied not on models but
experimental data — a 26-year record of observations, no less — to reach a
conclusion perhaps just as worrying. The research, tracking the emissions of
carbon from artificially heated plots of a forest in Massachusetts, reinforces
fears about the possibility of a climate change “feedback” involving the planet’s
soils, one that could pile on top of and substantially worsen the ongoing warming
trend triggered by the burning of fossil fuels.
“The study is one of the longest if not the longest climate change ecosystem
experiment, beyond the one we are running in our own planet,” said Pep
Canadell, an expert on the Earth’s carbon cycle at the Commonwealth Scientific
and Industrial Research Organization in Australia. He was not part of the research.
Starting in 1991, a team of researchers have been studying the same 18 plots of
forest soil in the Harvard Forest in Massachusetts. Six of the plots are entirely
41
undisturbed, representing the natural state of the forest floor; six are artificially
heated through underground cables to 5 degrees Celsius (9 degrees Fahrenheit)
above the normal temperature; and six are “disturbed,” meaning that they
contain heating cables, but the cables are not actually powered, so the
temperature is not altered.
The researchers involved — affiliated with the Marine Biological Laboratory at
Woods Hole, Mass., the University of New Hampshire, the University of
Massachusetts at Amherst and New Hampshire-based Research Designs — have
continually measured the difference in carbon dioxide emissions emanating from
the different plots. The hypothesis is that warmer temperatures would lead
microorganisms in the soil to become more active in breaking down plant matter
and other materials. These microbes would then release more soil carbon into the
atmosphere in the form of carbon dioxide gas, in a process known as respiration.
Now, in the latest update of the findings published in the journal Science, the
team reports that 17 percent of the carbon has now been lost from the upper
layer of soil of the heated plots over the period of the study. Extrapolating to the
scale of the planet, the researchers suggest, that could be a big deal. “This
magnitude of loss could amount to hundreds of petagrams — billions of metric
tons — of carbon fluxing from the world’s forest soils to the atmosphere, if those
soils responded to warming like the Harvard forest soils have done over the
experimental period,” said Jerry Melillo, a scientist at the Marine Biological
Laboratory in Woods Hole who has overseen the research for nearly three
decades. (A petagram is equivalent to a billion metric tons.)
The study suggests a possible release of about 190 petagrams over the course of
the century from the top meter of the Earth’s soil, which it calculates is
“equivalent to the past two decades of carbon emissions from fossil fuel burning.”
And Melillo said that the possibility of this occurring isn’t adequately taken into
account in future climate change projections. That said, the Harvard Forest study
contains some subtleties and surprises. Notably, the soil carbon did not stream
out of the ground continuously over the 26-year period. Rather, the release
occurred in four phases. First there was a large burst of carbon that happened
over the initial 10 years. Then, the carbon releases ceased for about the next
seven years, as the heated plots ceased to show any difference from the nonheated ones. Then the emissions resumed — and then, most recently, stopped
again.
42
The pattern appears to reflect the kinds of organisms in the soil changing so as to
favor organisms that consume carbon in different ways. “One of the things that
became very apparent is that we were changing in significant ways the structure
of the microbial community,” Melillo said. The research arrives a little under a
year after another influential study compiled the results of 49 separate field
studies on soil carbon emissions and concluded that this feedback is indeed real,
based on the balance of the research. That study concluded that the feedback
could lead to 50 petagrams of emissions just by 2050.
Canadell also questioned the 190 petagram figure for possible global emissions by
2100, noting that the study “is in one type of ecosystem and in one single place in
the world (a few hundreds of square meters), and the one thing we know is that
different biomes and ecosystems are very different, and within, there are no two
soils patches the same. This negative assessment, however, doesn’t detract one
bit from the extraordinary relevance of the data set and new understanding
produced by Melillo’s experiment,” Canadell continued. However, the results
ultimately get incorporated into our understanding of the planet, Melillo said,
“I’m really quite thankful that there is a place in science for some of these longterm experiments at the systems level, where mechanisms unfold slowly over
time.”
Council on Foreign Relations
The Consequences of Leaving the Paris Agreement
By withdrawing from the Paris accord, the United States — the second-largest
global emitter — could undercut collective efforts to reduce emissions, transition
to renewable energy sources, and lock in future climate measures.
Backgrounder by James McBride ‖ Last updated June 1, 2017
Introduction
43
President Trump has strongly criticized the 2015 Paris Agreement on climate
reached by President Barack Obama’s administration, arguing that the global deal
to cut back carbon emissions would kill jobs and impose onerous regulations on
the U.S. economy. As a result, in June 2017 he announced that the United States
will exit the agreement. With the United States producing nearly one-fifth of all
global emissions, the U.S. withdrawal from the accord could undercut collective
efforts to reduce carbon output, transition to renewable energy sources, and lock
in future climate measures. Debate over the impact of withdrawal continues.
While Trump has rolled back climate regulations at a federal level, thirty-four
states, led by California and New York, have undertaken their own ambitious
carbon reduction plans.
What is the status of the Paris Agreement?
The Paris Agreement was finalized at a global climate conference in 2015, and
entered into force in November 2016 after enough countries, including China and
the United States, ratified it. The nearly two hundred parties to the deal — only
Syria and Nicaragua have failed to sign on — committed to voluntary reductions
in carbon emissions with the goal of keeping global temperature increases below
3.6 degrees Fahrenheit (2 degrees Celsius), a level that the assembled nations
warned could lead to an “urgent and potentially irreversible threat to human
societies and the planet.”
Under the deal, countries will evaluate progress toward their goals in 2018 and,
beginning in 2020, will submit updated carbon reduction plans every five years.
The details on how countries’ efforts will be monitored, verified, and reported are
subject to ongoing negotiations, as are the specifics of a proposed $100 billion in
climate-related financing meant to help poorer countries adapt. On June 1, 2017,
Trump announced that the United States would become the only country
to withdraw from the Paris Agreement.
What is the perceived economic impact of the deal?
President Trump says complying with the Paris Agreement would impose
unacceptable costs on the U.S. economy and provide unfair advantages to other
countries like China and India. Trump has downplayed the threat of climate
change and criticized the Obama administration’s expanded carbon regulations.
44
Trump has emphasized the expansion of U.S. fossil fuel production. His “America
First Energy Plan” focuses on reducing the price of oil, achieving “energy
independence,” tapping domestic oil sources, and creating energy-related jobs by
decreasing regulation. He has also promised to end what he sees as wasteful
payments to the United Nations Green Climate Fund. The United States has
already paid $1 billion into this fund, with $2 billion more pledged. Faced with a
choice between complying with Paris and boosting the U.S. economy, the
administration asserts that “growing our economy is going to win,” according to
Trump’s chief economic advisor, Gary Cohn. Meanwhile, a number of economic
analyses question whether leaving the agreement will create jobs. Protecting jobs
in the oil, gas, and coal industries, some economists say, could come at the cost of
investments in clean energy industries that may ultimately offer more long-term
employment.
What is the withdrawal process?
The Paris Agreement states that countries must wait four years before
withdrawing. However, legal analysts say that Trump could shorten that process
to just one year by removing the United States from a 1992 UN treaty governing
global climate talks, which the president has the authority to do without
congressional backing. In his June 2017 comments, Trump said that his
administration would cease implementation but explore a renegotiation of the
deal to seek better terms. Many observers also say that beyond officially
rejecting the Paris accord, Trump was already in the process of effectively ending
U.S. participation in it by rejecting the Obama-era Clean Power Plan (CPP). The
CPP, which sets emissions-reduction requirements for each U.S. state but allows
them flexibility in how to achieve them, was the centerpiece of President
Obama’s Paris Agreement commitment.
How would it affect domestic U.S. climate and energy policy?
Trump began overturning Obama’s energy policy soon after taking office: in a
March 2017 executive order, he directed the Environmental Protection Agency
(EPA) to begin the process of rescinding the CPP. Because the CPP is not
legislation but rather a set of EPA regulations, the president does not need
congressional approval to alter it. However, legal experts disagree over how
much latitude Trump has to unilaterally abandon it. Taken together, these steps
sharply decreased the likelihood that the United States would have met its Paris
45
obligations. Many U.S. states and cities, led by California and New York, have
committed to ambitious carbon reduction plans, but even if local governments
meet their goals, overall reduction would fall short of Paris targets.
How could the U.S. withdrawal affect global climate policy?
The United States is the second-largest emitter worldwide, behind only China, and
its promised emissions cuts accounted for about 20 percent of global cuts
foreseen by the agreement. The United States’ European allies have lobbied hard
against a U.S. exit from the deal, arguing that it would weaken its enforcement
measures and undermine the resolve of other countries to make their own tough
cuts.
They fear that backsliding by the world’s largest economy could arrest the efforts
already underway to mitigate the changes in climate that are causing expensive
coastal damage. It’s quite possible that going back on the deal could hobble U.S.
clout on a suite of unrelated diplomatic issues. The decision may well endanger
U.S. national security and prosperity by sabotaging U.S. global leadership. A U.S.
retreat on climate would empower China to fill the leadership vacuum, ceding
U.S. influence in the clean energy race and strengthening China’s hand on other
fraught issues like territorial disputes in the South China Sea. Already, indications
are emerging that China is forging a new alliance with the European Union to
advance common climate policies without the United States.
Why Is Beijing Downplaying the
Supposedly Huge Climate Change Deal?
By Alexa Olesen ‖ November 12, 2014
The United States has been using some frothy language to describe its joint
statement with China on forestalling climate change. In a breathless New York
Times editorial, then-Secretary of State John Kerry referred to it as "something of
great consequence," a "major advance," and a breakthrough that "marks a fresh
beginning." At a Nov. 12 press conference in Beijing, then-President Barack
Obama called it an "historic agreement" and a "major milestone in the US-China
46
relationship." Contrast that, however, with how the Chinese side framed it. Side
by side with Obama in Beijing, Chinese President Xi Jinping said: "We issued a
joint statement on climate change, and we jointly announced our respective post2020 targets."
Both sides put out their joint statement, the U.S. issuing it via the White House
and China releasing it through the official Xinhua News Agency. But whereas one
side gave it a high gloss, the other seemed to be trying to bury it under the rug.
The top story on the website affiliated with the Communist Party flagship paper
People’s Daily was about Xi and Obama meeting the press — but the article made
no reference to the climate agreement. Other stories on the homepage touched
on the climate statement but tended to relegate it to the latter half of the article,
and omitted the American-style superlatives. The popular Beijing News, a staterun paper known for gently testing the editorial boundaries, also didn’t mention
the climate deal in its Nov. 12 cover story on the APEC meeting that brought
Obama to China. It focused instead on the meeting’s anti-corruption accord and
progress on pla...
Purchase answer to see full
attachment