mamooth
Diamond Member
- Aug 17, 2012
- 34,371
- 17,565
Paris Agreement safer with the US out: Climate observer
---
ELEANOR HALL: Now European leaders are warning that the US should not abandon the Paris Agreement, but you argue that it would be better for international action on climate if the US were to withdraw. Why?
LUKE KEMP: Well it's really quite simple, the US as a rogue administration can do much more damage inside of the agreement, than it can do outside of the agreement. All you're doing by keeping the US inside of it is gifting greater leverage to a recalcitrant administration.
...
Under Paris, all Trump has to do is put forward a new pledge every five years. He doesn't have to meet the pledge they've already made and he doesn't have to provide any further climate financing. So, the participation of the US is really just symbolic in that sense. What people are really worried about is the third risk, which is the idea of a domino effect. That the US withdraws, other countries will either, free ride or renege on their commitments or potentially withdraw as well. Now I think that a lot of advocates and commentators in this space are actually really being quite hysterical when you look at it. It seems highly unlikely that other countries are going to withdraw from the agreement to follow someone who is already an international pariah out into the woods, just to avoid making a pledge every five years.
...
The thing is, I think it's just as likely to happen if the US stays in. If the US stays in, it shows quite clearly that you can operate blatantly violating the purpose and spirit of the agreement and you can miss your target intentionally, you can cut financing, you can go ahead and built new coal mines and build new pipelines. Any other countries will still want to have you on board. That sends a very, very clear message that Paris is simply symbolic and I think that does just as much, if not more damage to the legitimacy of Paris.
---
---
ELEANOR HALL: Now European leaders are warning that the US should not abandon the Paris Agreement, but you argue that it would be better for international action on climate if the US were to withdraw. Why?
LUKE KEMP: Well it's really quite simple, the US as a rogue administration can do much more damage inside of the agreement, than it can do outside of the agreement. All you're doing by keeping the US inside of it is gifting greater leverage to a recalcitrant administration.
...
Under Paris, all Trump has to do is put forward a new pledge every five years. He doesn't have to meet the pledge they've already made and he doesn't have to provide any further climate financing. So, the participation of the US is really just symbolic in that sense. What people are really worried about is the third risk, which is the idea of a domino effect. That the US withdraws, other countries will either, free ride or renege on their commitments or potentially withdraw as well. Now I think that a lot of advocates and commentators in this space are actually really being quite hysterical when you look at it. It seems highly unlikely that other countries are going to withdraw from the agreement to follow someone who is already an international pariah out into the woods, just to avoid making a pledge every five years.
...
The thing is, I think it's just as likely to happen if the US stays in. If the US stays in, it shows quite clearly that you can operate blatantly violating the purpose and spirit of the agreement and you can miss your target intentionally, you can cut financing, you can go ahead and built new coal mines and build new pipelines. Any other countries will still want to have you on board. That sends a very, very clear message that Paris is simply symbolic and I think that does just as much, if not more damage to the legitimacy of Paris.
---
