Memorandum on United States Foreign Policy on the Paris Climate Agreement


Memorandum

Memorandum on United States Foreign Policy on the Paris Climate Agreement

To: President Donald Trump
CC: Professor Shirk
From: Foreign Policy Analyst, Victoria Hassan
Date: May 1, 2017
Subject: The Paris Climate Agreement

            Currently, daily global carbon dioxide emissions have reached an all time high at 411.14 part per million (ppm). Sea levels are rising due to land ice melting as a result of the rising temperatures and the over change in global climate. Ocean acidification is also occurring due to these rising temperatures, putting fishing industries at risk, which is a major industry within the United States. It has been calculated that the United States is responsible for producing approximately one-fifth of overall carbon emissions.

Issue:
            There has been much debate over whether or not the Paris Climate Agreement and its guidelines are ‘fair’ or reasonable for the United States, causing the current administration to question whether or not the United States should remain in such an agreement. It is clear that the current administration feels as though the Paris Climate Agreement puts United States businesses and the nation’s economy at risk, while also prompting the United States to provide developing countries with funding to help them reduce their own carbon emissions. However, I strongly believe that the United States should remain a member state in the Paris Climate Agreement because the benefits of remaining in the agreement outweigh the consequences and it will benefit the entire international community.

Solution 1: Remain in the Agreement
            By withdrawing from the Paris Climate Agreement, the United States is likely to lose its status as a world leader, considering that the United States was initially a major advocate for the success of the agreement. By withdrawing from such an agreement, other nations will no longer view the United States as a leader in reducing carbon emissions. Additionally, withdrawing from the Paris Climate Agreement might provide an incentive for other nations to also withdraw from the agreement, or not completely fulfill their initial commitments. Considering that carbon emissions do not halt at each nation’s borders, the withdrawal of other nations or their lack of commitment will negatively affect the United States, as well. Although the current administration of the United States government argues that the Paris Climate Agreement allows for the international community to dictate energy usage within the United States, the agreement was designed for each member state to be in control of its own energy usage. Each nation is able to set their own goals in terms of reducing energy usage and the production of carbon emissions, as well as how they are to achieve these goals. Therefore, the United States does not have much, if anything, to lose from remaining in the Paris Climate Agreement. Rather, the United States is likely to gain many benefits from remaining in the agreement, such as healthier living conditions, an opportunity to provide Americans with jobs in the renewable energy industry, and a chance to become a world leader in an effort to reduce carbon emissions. Therefore, it is in the best interest of the United States to remain in the Paris Climate Agreement.

Solution 2: Modify the Agreement
            If the current United States administration feels as though the Paris Climate Agreement is not a fair agreement for the United States, it might be beneficial to negotiate modifications to the agreement without having to withdraw from it. One modification to the agreement might include reducing the amount of money that the United States must provide to developing nations. Currently, nations that are classified as the “developed world”,  such as the United States, are required to provide $100 billion each year to developing countries in order to help them switch to greener energy sources. Although this amount of money seems to be a feasible amount for the United States to provide in assistance to the entire international community, it could be argued that this contribution of financial aid be reduced. In this way, the United States can still remain a member state in the Paris Climate Agreement, but not feel as burdened with providing financial aid to developing nations.

Other Arguments:
            On the other hand, it has been argued that the Paris Climate Agreement has a negative effect on American businesses and the economy. This might be due to an overall decrease in job opportunities in non-renewable energy fields, such as coal mining and the oil and gas industries. Employment in these fields is likely to decline if the United States adheres to the renewable energy efforts of the agreement. Although United States’s adherence to the Paris Climate Agreement might result in a decline in employment in the fossil fuel industry, it will boost employment in the renewable energy industry. Where United States jobs are lost in the fossil fuel industry, new jobs in the renewable energy field will be created to make up for this loss, while also reducing the amount of carbon emissions produced in the United States. Therefore, remaining in the agreement, whether or not modifications are made, will prove to be a win-win situation for the United States in terms of opening up the job market while also reducing carbon emissions for healthier living conditions.

            Overall, it is crucial that the United States remains a member state of the Paris Climate Agreement. This agreement will greatly benefit the United States by providing citizens with healthier living conditions, an increase in job opportunities in the renewable energy industry, and allowing the United States to become a world leader in carbon emissions reduction efforts. It is clear that the benefits of remaining in the agreement outweigh the minor consequences.

Works Cited

Domonoske, Camila. “So What Exactly Is In The Paris Climate Accord?” NPR, NPR, 1 June
2017,www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2017/06/01/531048986/so-what-exactly-is-in-the-paris-climate-accord.

Leary, Neil. “Why The U.S. Should Stay In The Paris Climate Agreement.” The Huffington Post,
TheHuffingtonPost.com, 21 Nov. 2017, www.huffingtonpost.com/neil-leary/why-the-us-should-stay-in_b_13114958.html.

Comments

  1. UnknownMay 1, 2018 at 7:20 AM

    I really agree with the policy option that you have outlined in your memorandum. I think you have very clearly outlined the different policy options involved in the issue and the pros and cons of those issues. The problem facing a loss of jobs is the fact that the United States has a history of non-reintegration programs. As you said, jobs would open up in the renewable energy sectors. However, people would only be able to move from one job sector to the other if the United States were to implement programs that would educate and reintegrate the unemployed into higher job sectors. This is not against your point by any means, but something to consider were the United States to stay in the Paris Climate Agreement. I also agree with the statement that the United States cannot stop the earth's core temperature from rising to over 2 degrees Celsius on its own. This has to be a global effort.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. UnknownMay 1, 2018 at 1:42 PM

      Thank you so much for your feedback, Rachael! I completely agree that Americans will have to be educated on jobs in the renewable energy field before it is possible for there to be a major boost in this field. Therefore, I definitely think that the United States should implement programs to educate the unemployed in this area of the job market. Although this will cost the United States money, I believe it will be worth it in order to comply with the regulations of the Paris Climate Agreement and to allow for better living conditions throughout the U.S. and the international community. In addition, I believe that educating and training Americans for occupations in the renewable energy industry will greatly benefit the economy in the long run by reducing unemployment rates.

      Delete
  2. UnknownMay 1, 2018 at 1:41 PM

    This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
  3. UnknownMay 5, 2018 at 10:26 PM

    Your memorandum was very well written, and I agree with your conclusion. It is essential that the U.S. stays in the deal because the U.S. might lose its reputation as a world leader. This has been the only universal deal that has most of the world's countries involved. By pulling out, the U.S. would be in the minority. There might be some short-term losses to entering the deal, but there will be more gains in the long term. The future is green energy. If we do not make the switch to green energy sooner rather than later, we might soon be lagging behind other countries. Since the deal is non-binding, it seems pointless to exit the deal in the first place. The deal is more symbolic than anything. By exiting the deal, we send a message to other countries that we are not committed to helping to reduce carbon emissions. The U.S. must stay in the deal to become part of the force making the change, We cannot afford to be on the wrong side of history for this issue.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. UnknownMay 7, 2018 at 6:44 PM

      Thank you so much for your feedback, Matt! I definitely agree with your statement that the United States only has short-term losses by remaining in the Paris Climate Agreement, and that the United States is likely to gain more from being in the agreement in the long run. I also agree that remaining in the agreement is very beneficial to the leadership status of the United States, which will allow for the United States to become a leader in renewable energy usage and in reducing carbon emissions. Overall, remaining in the Paris Climate Agreement seems to be a win-win situation for the United States, considering that it will allow for a reduction of carbon emissions and boost the nation’s leadership status.

      Delete

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

U.S Foreign Policy towards Middle East

After World War II, the overriding concern of American foreign policy was finding a new way to check Soviet expansion and influence throughout the world. The Middle East, specifically, was a vulnerable target for the U.S. and Soviet Union after British and French colonialism. That said, US foreign policy towards the Middle East was not completely linear during the past century. Instead, it can be divided into two periods — during the Cold War and after the Cold War. During the Cold War, U.S. foreign policy was mostly a reaction to Soviet strength, position, and action. [1] After the Cold War, the Middle East — being considered as part of the Third World, was to be “exploited” for the needs of the industrial societies and to “fulfill its major function as a source of raw materials and a market.”[2] In other words, peace and oil have been the main focus of US foreign policy in the Middle East after the Cold War.  During the Cold War, the Soviet goal was to achieve strategic pari...
Read more

Memorandum on US policy on the Paris Agreement

TO: President Donald Trump FROM: Matt Fitzgerald DATE: April 29, 2018 SUBJECT: Memorandum on US policy on the Paris Agreement Introduction Climate change has been increasingly affecting Earth ever since the industrial revolution. Earth has been becoming warmer every month. Sea levels have been rising, and coastlines have been disappearing. Something needs to be done so that the effects of climate change do not become permanent. There have been many failed global attempts to decrease our carbon emissions, and many countries including the three largest polluters, the U.S., China, and India are reluctant to do so. Only one attempt looks promising to help start the trend towards using green energy. The Paris Accords might not be perfect, but it is a good start to the world using green energy. Option 1 Pulling out of the Accords will be a reckless long-term decision. The U.S. needs to be the leader of the free world. The U.S. is the largest polluter in terms of population. W...
Read more

Memorandum on United States Foreign Policy Regarding North Korea

Memorandum Memorandum on United States Foreign Policy Regarding North Korea To: President Donald Trump CC: Professor Shirk From: Foreign Policy Analyst, Victoria Hassan Subject: The North Korean Nuclear Arsenal Dilemma Issue: If not already, North Korea is very close to achieving nuclear armed international ballistic missile capability that is capable of reaching the United States and other regions of North America. Even to experts, North Korea’s motive and intentions for building up a nuclear arsenal have been quite unclear and unpredictable. Recently, there has been much debate as to whether or not the United States should take military action regarding North Korea’s reluctance to denuclearize the entire Korean Peninsula. However, U.S. military action and complete U.S.  inaction are not the only options for dealing with North Korea. Option 1: Trump-Kim Summit Peaceful Negotiations Avoiding military action and possibly the use of nuclear weapons agai...
Read more