Opinion
Trump and Climate Justice
Stephen M. Gardiner on The “Pittsburgh, not Paris”
Smokescreen
On June 1st, President Donald Trump announced the United States’ withdrawal from the Paris Agreement. The decision reflected the strong anti-climate stance of the new Administration. On the campaign trail, candidate Trump persistently denied the reality of global climate change, at one point calling it a “hoax” perpetrated by the Chinese. As President, he has already abandoned key elements of the Obama Administration’s strategy for reducing US carbon emissions (e.g., the Clean Power Plan), and appointed well-known climate deniers to his administration, including to the leadership of the US Environmental Protection Agency. More generally, from inauguration day onwards, the Trump Administration has declared its intention to pursue an aggressive expansion of fossil fuel use.
In his announcement Trump cited two main reasons for US withdrawal from Paris: that the agreement was unfair to the United States; and that he was “elected President of Pittsburgh, not Paris”. The complaint about fairness is difficult to sustain. First, it is unreasonable as a matter of substance. It is well-known that the current Paris commitments are inadequate, and must be significantly enhanced to meet the stated goal of avoiding “dangerous anthropogenic interference” with the climate system (understood in terms of the 2 degrees Celsius threshold). Moreover, all of the main indicators relevant to fairness (historical responsibility, ability to pay, prioritising the least well-off, and promoting welfare) tend to point strongly in the direction of rich, high-emitting countries such as the United States taking the lead, and to a much greater extent than suggested under Paris. Hence, appropriately ambitious climate goals would demand more of the US, not less.
Second, as a matter of procedure, it is deeply misleading to speak as if the United States’ obligations were somehow imposed by outsiders. All Paris commitments are voluntary, and determined domestically by national governments, including the United States’ contribution. Moreover, the whole architecture was largely designed by the US to meet its own goals and internal constraints.
The President’s denial of responsibility is equally problematic. Most obviously, it appears to presuppose that national leaders have no duties to other nations, even in cases where their behaviour poses severe threats to very many (perhaps billions) of noncitizens, including of extreme suffering, starvation and death.
The denial also presents a false dichotomy. The “Pittsburgh, not Paris” slogan implies that the President sees himself as acting in the US national interest. Yet the Paris process aims to avoid the risk of increases in global temperature of similar magnitude
14
