2 weeks ago
29
By: Mark Howden, The Australian National University in Canberra.
Donald Trump is pulling the US out of the Paris Agreement again. That's likely to shape global climate action more this time and that matters to Australia.
One of Donald Trump's first acts at the start of his second term as US president was to pull his country out of the Paris Agreement on climate change — a move likely to have a more profound impact than when he announced it in 2017 early in his first term.
It's also likely to influence debate and even policy direction in Australia.
Trump's abandonment of the Paris Agreement comes as the collective mood for climate action has changed and potentially acts as encouragement for leaders wavering over the need for action.
There are fewer countries willing to step up to fill the void left by the US than during Trump's first term.
Australia heads into an election campaign with the two major parties likely to offer different approaches to energy policy and how the country should transition from fossil fuels.
The US approach to emissions matters because it is the world's second-largest greenhouse emitter but Trump 2.0 will also affect policy and popular opinion over the need for change around the globe. Australia will not be immune to that influence.
But there are other things in play that could also affect global climate outcomes. What does it all mean for action on climate change?
Why US emissions matter
The US is a major contributor to climate change, accounting for about 11 percent of global emissions.
It is on a long-term trend of reducing carbon dioxide emissions, along with about two dozen other nations — a list that does not include Australia.
The Biden administration policies on renewables and green technology, along with constraints on fossil fuel expansion, were expected to continue driving down US emissions.
Trump's new "drill, baby, drill" approach has the potential to reverse that downward trend, generating additional climate change and attendant risks.
Why this time is different
The first US absence from the Paris Agreement effectively only applied for four months — they departed in November 2020 and were reinstated in early 2021 after the Biden inauguration and mandatory one-month rejoining process.
This short absence happened because the Paris Agreement includes a clause where, after ratification, withdrawal was not allowed for an initial three-year period. There was also the mandatory one-year notice of withdrawal.
Even this limited absence by the US caused heavy and negative impacts on climate diplomacy, momentum for action and climate finance.
This second absence from the Paris Agreement will be much more extended with the US withdrawal coming into effect in one year. So the US absence will last at least three years and one month, leaving more time for it to affect climate action.
The international geopolitical situation is also quite different to when Trump first announced pulling the US out of the Paris Agreement in 2017.
During the previous withdrawal, there was a mood for collective action by the western democracies to step in and step up to offset the US absence.
China and other countries engaged positively as did individual US states.
The situation now appears to be much more fragmented with a variety of right-wing, anti-climate change governments making for a more complex international environment.
A similar situation appears to exist internally within the US — the equivalent of the 2017 'America's Pledge' coalition to address greenhouse gas emissions has not yet appeared, perhaps because US politics is now much more polarised.
China appears now to be better placed to occupy the vacuum that the US will leave, establishing itself as the primary reliable development and renewable energy partner globally.
Greenlighting laggards and increasing uncertainty
The previous US withdrawal from the Paris Agreement disrupted alliances with nations committed to climate goals, encouraged other nations that were wavering to scale back their climate action and was seen as justification by some developing countries to pull back on action due to equity concerns.
The international diplomatic environment now is much more febrile with alliances under stress because of the Ukraine war, continuing volatility in the global economy, disruption of key multilateral organisations and development aid programs and increased concerns about colonial-type behaviours.
In addition, misinformation and disinformation now appear more prevalent and systematically supported by big global players.
In such an environment, self-centred, short-term and inconsistent policy stances can generate reluctance by others to commit to long-term, collective goals.
They also increase overall uncertainty that will act to generally drive down investment. This trend will likely be compounded if there is a major winding back of the US Inflation Reduction Act, which is driving huge investment in green technologies.
Funding at stake
The US has historically been a leader on climate science. Agencies such as the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) and NASA have contributed significantly to building global climate capability in domains that include satellite and ocean monitoring, data sharing and weather forecasting.
There is now a cloud over these agencies and organisations such as the National Science Foundation, with freezes on communications with international counterparts and grants, large-scale cost-cutting and job losses as well as potential changes in focus.
Even confidentiality issues raised by the prospect of Trump's efficiency guru Elon Musk and his team potentially accessing IT systems in organisations like the NOAA could impede the international collaboration that makes weather and ocean forecasts robust.
It is not only the science agencies that are under pressure.
360info Chart - What natural disasters are costing the US.
The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) is under review after a 2024 where the US experienced 27 disasters that each cost more than US$1 billion, which is three times the long-term average. That’s a number exceeded only by the previous year, when there were 28 such events.
This year the damage will include the disastrous LA fires. The insurance and reinsurance industries are increasingly challenged by climate change and reduction in NOAA and FEMA capabilities are only likely to make it worse.
Originally published under Creative Commons by 360info™.
*) DISCLAIMER
Articles published in the “Your Views & Stories” section of en.tempo.co website are personal opinions written by third parties, and cannot be related or attributed to en.tempo.co’s official stance.
