EDITORIALS

Trumping Climate Change

Environmentalists are justifiably anxious about the future direction of United States policy.

here can be no discussion about climate change without

factoring in the position of the United States (US) under
its President-elect Donald Trump. Known famously for
declaring that the concept of global warming was a hoax created
by and for the Chinese in order to make United States manufacturing non-competitive, the prospect of a Trump presidency
has led to serious disquiet amongst those concerned about
climate change. These include the countries that signed the
Marrakech Action Proclamation for Our Climate and Sustainable
Development at the 22nd Conference of Parties of the United
Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) in
November. The meeting was held even as the Americans voted
in Donald Trump as their next President. His victory did not deter
the conference from going ahead with the declaration, nor the
US representatives of the outgoing Obama administration from
endorsing it. However, it was evident that Trumps election did
cause understandable anxiety about the future of internationally negotiated action plans to curb global warming, of which
the Paris Agreement that comes into effect in 2020 is the latest.
In an interaction with editors of the New York Times on
22 November, Trump appeared to have softened his stance on
climate change when he stated that he had an open mind and
would look closely at the Paris Agreement. However, too
much should not be read into this. Trumps responses on climate
change during the interaction primarily exposed his lack of
knowledge about the subject. For instance, he mixed up the
need for clean air and preventing climate change, two different
issues. And by saying that there may be some connectivity
between human activity and global warming, his position was
no different from climate change deniers who refuse to accept
what is now fairly well established by innumerable scientific
studies. He also spoke of energy generation using clean coal,
an unexplained concept. But apart from imprecise, and in some
instances inaccurate responses that stem from a lack of engagement and knowledge on a subject that is not as complex as
Trump said it was, the direction of policy on climate change under
Trump has to be assessed from his choice of advisors. For example,
leading his transition team of the Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA) is a known climate change denier, Myron Ebell,
8

who is director of the Center for Energy and Environment of the

notoriously conservative Competitive Enterprise Institute (CEI).
Another indication of future policy was Trumps announcement
of what his administration would do in the first 100 days. He
said he would cancel job-killing restrictions on the production
of American energy, thereby creating millions of high-paying
jobs. This sounds like a direct contradiction of the commitment
made by the outgoing Obama administration in its Clean Power
Plan of phasing out coal and pushing renewables.
While the direction of US policy under Trump will remain a
subject of speculation until he is sworn in as President, how
important is its position on climate change given that China has
now surpassed it in greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions? Unfortunately, the US will remain a major player and not just because it
is the second largest contributor to GHGs. Since Paris, China has
been energetically pursuing clean energy options and has taken
a lead in setting national targets to reduce GHGs. There is no
guarantee that the US under Trump will do this. Although his
administration will not be able to extricate itself from the Paris
Agreement easily as it has been ratified in September, there is
nothing to stop it from going back on commitments. The Paris
Agreement is not legally binding and kicks in only in 2020, once
the extended period of the Kyoto Protocol, which the US never
signed, is over. Under the agreement, countries are expected to
arrive at their own Nationally Determined Contributions (NDCs)
to reduce GHG emissions unlike the legally binding targets set
under the Kyoto Protocol. As a part of this, the Obama administration has committed to a Climate Action Plan under which the
US is expected to reduce GHG emissions to 26%28% of 2005
levels by 2025. However, it is entirely possible that the Trump
administration will revise these targets, or go slow on them.
Another constant sticking point in international agreements
such as the one in Paris is the issue of funds. Industrialised nations,
held responsible for the historical accumulation of GHGs in the
atmosphere, have been expected to give financial assistance to
developing countries to adapt to the impacts of climate change.
The target of $100 billion per year was agreed upon for this
purpose. In Paris, the Obama administration had committed to
double its contribution to $800 million per year by 2020. It is
NOVEMber 26, 2016

vol lI no 48

EPW

Economic & Political Weekly

EDITORIALS

more than likely, given the expected composition of the Trump

administration, that this commitment will be revised, or even
discarded altogether. In such an eventuality, the fund would be
rendered virtually ineffectual. In sum, given that Trump has so

Economic & Political Weekly

EPW

NOVEMber 26, 2016

vol lI no 48

far revealed little concern, and practically no understanding of

the seriousness of climate change and the threat it holds out to
the entire planet, we have more than enough reason to believe
that the US will go back on its commitments.