The United States Federal Governmentshould reenter the Paris agreement: Negative On December 12th, 2015,the Paris Agreement was created based on negotiations and pledges fromcountries that keeps the earth below 2 degrees Cesius. The National PublicRadio describes the event that took place stating, “Representatives from 196nations made a historic pact to adopt green energy sources,cut down on climate change emissions and limit the rise of globaltemperatures — while also cooperating to cope with the impact of unavoidableclimate change”.
Although the US was the leader in establishing the ParisAgreement, that was not enough for Trump to keep the US in the accord. In 2017,President Donald Trump pulled the United States out of the Paris Agreement dueto multiple factors including the adaptation on fossil fuels, the cost of theUS’ contribution to the accord, and speculation of global warming. In thisresearch paper, I will discuss each of the previous points mentioned and whyPresident Trump’s decision to pull out of the Paris Agreement was the bestchoice for the country. Removing ourselves from the Parisagreement works best for the job economy in the United States, considering thatthe contribution of coal mine jobs will be saved, and other jobs will not beshifted overseas (Troy, 2010). To better understand this, we must firstunderstand how this works. Dozolme explains that massive organic materials getburied and result in the making of fossil fuels.
Those organic materials helpcreate the fossil fuels through heat, pressure, and time (2017). Coal became ofuse for many different things at its peak. Coal was and still is America’s mostabundant resource for producing affordable energy (Troy, 2010). The NationalPublic Radio states that one of the most notable places fueled by coal wasThomas Edison’s coal-fired power plant (2016). This brought tremendous growthand increased quality of life for the following century.
Although bad for theenvironment, fossil fuels such as coal are cheap and easy to use. The ParisAgreement wanted countries to shy away from using coal; however, clean coal waslittle explored as an option. While transitioning to cleaner coal would bebetter for the environment, it would also save tens of thousands of jobs (Miliband,2009). The cost of being in the ParisAgreement is too expensive and ineffective, which leaves nations wondering whatthe next step towards a green planet is. Unfortunately, the agreement will costa fortune, but will do little to reduce global warming (Loris & Tubb, 2017).Since there is no punishment for this regulation, it’s not a big deal to notfollow through with it, because there are no penalties.
Because of this, thetreaty encourages countries to reduce emissions and to take it on themselves tofind alternatives. In essence, the Paris Agreement is more of an investment inits own way, since it does implement costs that aren’t even known, thus provingthat we don’t actually know if we will be better off if we keep thetemperatures from rising (Smith 2017). We also don’t know how much we need toreduce gas emissions to meet our global goal. The cost of the Paris Agreementis likely to run to 1 to 2 trillion dollars every year based on estimatesproduced by the Stanford Energy Modeling Forum and the Asia Modeling Exercise(Cass, 2016).
Also, by the end of the agreement we will spend at least 100trillion dollars in order to reduce the temperature by the end of the centuryby .3 degrees Fahrenheit (Smith, 2017). In addition to this, the UnitedNation’s climate prediction model assures to only postpone global warming byless than four years. All-together, the Paris Agreement is the wrong solutionto a real problem, and all countries must work together to find an alternativeto help achieve the goals.
Misinformation about Global Warmingis another contributing factor as to why exiting the Paris Agreement has beenbeneficial to the United States. Johnson points out that the media is more focusedon scaring the public and throwing attention getting information their way thanactually providing them with facts (2013). The media will do anything to grab theattention of anyone slightly gullible.
“Countdown to Armageddon” was a titleused for an article about the dangers of global warming. Without concreteinformation and facts, every news and media outlet have jumped on the globalwarming bandwagon and are constantly feeding the same information to the public(Johnson 2013). The nation’s foremost hurricane expert Dr. William Grey hasgone against alarmist claims about global warming affecting hurricanes (Johnson2013). In reality, humans don’t actually know the effects of global warming,it’s more of a probability of what will happen supported by statistics (Bast& Spencer, 2014). EPA chief ScottPruitt supports this claim by stating, that the “degree of human contribution”to global warming remains uncertain (Leber & Schulman, 2017). In addition to this, Maxwell Boykoff, publisheda study in the journal Climatic Change,which uncovers that 70 percent of the networks’ global warming stories”perpetuated an informational bias” by including the unscientific views ofclimate skeptics (Leber & Schulman, 2017). Many are quick to call out askeptic of climate change, yet despite 30 years of efforts by scientists, nearlytwo-thirds of Americans are either indifferent to or only somewhat bothered bythe prospect of planetary calamity (Stephens, 2017).
One question that ishardly ever asked is: While everyone is worrying our planet is heating up, isany part of it cooling down? The answer is yes. In the South Pole, ice has beenaccumulating for 50 years (Johnson, 2013). Facts such as the previous one arerarely pointed out allowing people to think the entire planet is heating up asa whole, when in reality while certain parts are heating up, others are coolingdown.
It’s true, most people have a fear of leaving a carbon footprint, butwithout all the evidence to back up facts, people should not immediately jumpon the global warming bandwagon.In December of 2015,representatives from 196 nations, including the United States, came together toform the Paris Agreement. It was created based on negotiations and pledges fromcountries that they would work together to keep the earth below 2 degreesCelsius. Besides limiting the rise of global temperatures, the nations made a historicpact to adopt green energy sources and cut down on climate change emissions. In2017, President Trump pulled the United States out of the Paris Agreementleaving a majority of the country worrying about what that meant for the futureof the United States. Due to multiple factors including the adaptation onfossil fuels, the cost of the US’ contribution to the accord, and speculationof global warming, Trump thought it was best for the Paris Agreement tocontinue without the United States. In this research paper, I discussed anddebated the points previously mentioned as well as proved why pulling out ofthe Paris Agreement was the best decision for our country.