Whose Еlections? America Decides
“Man is by nature a political animal” (Aristotle, 1998, 1253a1)
On Wednesday, November 4th, the United States formally withdrew from the Paris Climate Agreement, the completion of which President Donald Trump began in June 2017. In the year of a global pandemic, the U.S. became the only country in the world not to participate in the global collaborative effort to fight the climate crisis. All these happening in the context of the country’s presidential elections and the ongoing counting of votes, it is difficult to predict whether the American authorities will reconsider rejoining the climate negotiations or not. The Democratic presidential candidate, former Vice President, Joe Biden has pledged to bring the United States back into compliance “on day one,” if he defeats rival Donald Trump. While being in the United States as a foreigner during such a historical moment, both observing and participating in different ways in this process, and these past two nights waiting for the results to come out, I am wondering about whose environmental path will eventually be implemented in the world’s largest economy — Trump’s or Biden’s? My questions are: will there be more or less greenhouse gases in the atmosphere? And, who’s future are the American people are really voting for?
Trump: There is No Problem
It is not news that Trump denies climate change and any type of responsibility for the environment and the people directly or indirectly influenced by it. He called environmentalists “hoaxers” and climate change “mythical”, “nonexistent”, or “an expensive hoax”. He repeatedly expressed doubts that climate change is caused by human activities. One day while visiting New York, probably on a rather chilly day, Mr. Trump tweeted: “It’s freezing in New York — where the hell is global warming?” However, he later gave up ridiculing climate change and offered a new argument in defense of his views: sustainability might destroy business and jobs. During the election debate with Biden, he justified the refusal of the Paris Agreement by the fact that it was too expensive and too unfair for the Americans, highlighting the differentiated responsibilities for China, Russia and India. At the World Economic Forum’s 50th Annual Meeting in Davos, which had sustainability as its main theme, activist Greta Thunberg spoke up against carbon markets and tree-planting programs as solutions, while Mr. Trump called climate activists “alarmists” who wanted to “control every aspect of our lives” — and right after expressed the US’s support for an initiative to plant one trillion trees. The current President’s election program for the next four years (and beyond) does not contain a concrete climate agenda, and the section on “energy and environment” presents rather a list of achievements during the first presidential term than a plan. Mr. Trump is instead writing about making it easier for oil, gas and coal companies to do business in the United States, as well signing executive orders on expanding offshore drilling. The Trump administration has even given positive approval for the Keystone XL Pipeline, which will transfer oil from Canada to the United States. The program also includes an attempt to abandon the The Clean Power Plan signed by Obama administration, which aims to reduce emissions from the US energy sector by 32% by 2030 compared to 2005 levels. Trump (and the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)) intends to replace it with his own Affordable Clean Energy Rule (ACE), according to which emissions will be reduced by a smaller amount.
Biden: “Jumping Over” Obama
Biden unveiled a nearly $2 trillion climate program — Clean Energy Revolution and Environmental Justice. The presidential candidate proposes to invest these significant funds in the development of zero-carbon technologies, and reduce most of the emissions from the US energy sector by 2035. Biden has gone beyond Obama’s environmental platform and promises to ensure the United States achieves zero emissions by 2050 at the latest. That is a very ambitious goal and a big reliance on technologies which do not yet exist, and even if they did, there still would have been no guarantee that the carbon emissions in the atmosphere would have been stabilized. On the other side, Mr. Biden intends to stimulate the creation of new environmentally friendly fuels for aircraft, which will be a huge contribution for the reduction of the emissions cause by air transport. Significantly, the former Vice President also intends to abandon the Keystone XL pipeline project; meanwhile Canada has already invested billions of dollars in this project.
While Trump prides himself on creating additional opportunities for the fossil fuel sector, Biden threatens to take action against companies that “knowingly harm our environment and poison our communities’ air, land, and water, or conceal information regarding potential environmental and health risks,” thus, acknowledging the critical role of science. Importantly, he also pledged to reaffirm the U.S. commitment to the Paris Climate Agreement and urge other countries to step up their own efforts to reduce emissions. As I am writing this, Biden is leading Trump in the polls. It is important to realize that Mr. Biden’s ability to implement his ambitious, costly plan will also depend on Democrats gaining control of the Senate. Currently, Republicans have a majority in the the upper chamber of the United States Congress. Overall, Biden presented his environmental plan as part of a recovery program from the COVID-19 pandemic. In his opinion, investments in the “green” economy will create new jobs and help the United States recover from the recession.
So whose future is being decided right now?
The path that the American society is choosing now will not only influence the future of climate change and its negations in the United States and in the whole world, but will at least affect the global attitude to the situation as well. I mean, when combating climate change is not a priority for the world’s largest economy and the largest historical emitter of greenhouse gases, there is a little incentive for the rest of the world to abandon their existing fossil fuel profits and invest in as-yet-obscure “green” technologies. Yet, countries such as France, Italy and South Korea have set even higher ambitions to cut greenhouse gases. It could be catastrophic to destroy the multilateralism and address issues such as climate change individually, rather than collectively, internationally, and rely solely on direct air capture by technologies that sceptic M. McGratah described as “carbon unicorns,” since they are rather blocking the needed urgent actions for adaptation and mitigation, and instead offer to rely on an invisible path that will save our planet.
And, will there be more or less greenhouse gases in the atmosphere?
It is debatable. If in the case of the current President the answer is obvious, then with Mr. Biden there is hope, and many possibilities to negotiate. One must acknowledge that it could go either way, but Greta Thunberg’s powerful speech might have an influence in the policies that will be made by the new President (and of course his administration and the Senate) of the United States that the whole world is waiting for.
Bibliography:
The US just left the Paris climate agreement
Joe Biden announces $2 trillion climate plan, vows to rejoin
What does Trump actually believe on climate change?
THE BIDEN PLAN FOR A CLEAN ENERGY REVOLUTION AND ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE
McGrath, “Caution Urged over Use of ‘Carbon Unicorns’ to Limit Warming.
