Memorandum on U.S. Foreign Policy Towards Paris Climate Agreement


TO: President Donald Trump
CC: Mark Shirk
FROM: Foreign Analyst Trang Nguyen
DATE: April 2nd, 2018
SUBJECT: Foreign Policy Regarding the Paris Climate Agreement
Introduction

In 2017, the Trump administration submitted a formal written notification of its withdrawal from the Paris Agreement to the United Nations. The Paris Agreement is a globally agreed upon framework to take steps to deal with changing the climate. The agreement requires countries to put forward pledges to aid in the global effort to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, prevent the earth from heating more than 1.5 degrees Celsius, and encourage the flow of technology and financing. The U.S. also pledged 3 billion dollars to give to developing countries to aid them in reducing their emissions. This does not only benefit the U.S. but also encourages other countries to do things that are in the long-term interest of the U.S. economy and security interests. Therefore, I believe it is in the U.S. national interests to stay in the agreement and try to meet the target.

Problem statement:

The Trump administration’s decision to withdraw the United States from the Paris Agreement is a foreign policy misstep that will remove American leadership from the international community. Moreover, U.S. is one the largest producer of greenhouse gas emissions in the world. Therefore, it should be the goal of the United States to cooperate with the international community to tackle this serious global threat.
Policy Option 1: The United States should stay in and try to meet the target in the Paris Agreement.
There is a broad scientific consensus that human-based emissions of greenhouse gases will cause serious environmental, economic, and health consequences. The greatest obstacles, however, are political. Greenhouse gases, while significantly caused by a few countries, are spread globally. Hence, the climate benefits of taking action will likely be less than the costs. That’s why every country should be on the table of this agreement, especially the United States considering its level of gas emission.
Even if the Paris deal was not enough to achieve climate stabilization targets, it is still an important step toward reaching a politically sustainable framework for global action against climate change. The commitments in the Agreement imply that real progress would require the alignment of long-term emission reduction efforts with the short-term economic and geopolitical interests of top emitters such as the United States and China. These commitments, therefore, are not legally binding - which is why so many nations were able to join the agreement as they did - because they represent modest actions that brought nations together.

Policy Option 2: The United States can leave the Paris Agreement and use the money and resources for technological innovation.

Despite the polarization of the climate debate in the U.S. Congress, energy innovation maintains bipartisan support. That is, Trump's 2017 budget, which proposed deep cuts to Department of Energy innovation initiatives, such as the Office of Science and ARPA-E, never came through Congress on both sides of the aisle. Moreover, there is also a legislative pathway to commercialize advanced nuclear technologies that has garnered broad bipartisan support. That said, this is not an ideal policy option and should only be adopted if the first one is unachievable.

Conclusion:
Continued membership on the Paris Agreement will privilege the wind and solar industry, yet also broaden low carbon standards that create a level playing field for all sources of low carbon energy and assure that gas displaces coal. That is, the Paris Agreement undoubtedly give the U.S. the chance to influence international climate work and energy market. It will not only be beneficial for its citizens’ well-being but also in the long term provide business opportunities for the renewable energy industry.


Sources:
Marin, L. (2017, April 20). Why the US should stay in the Paris climate agreement - The Boston
Globe. Retrieved from
https://www.bostonglobe.com/opinion/2017/04/20/why-should-stay-paris-climate-agreement/w2akTLmxR891Yhz1ziSduO/story.html
Nordhaus, T., & Trembath, A. (2017, June 08). Trump's Paris Agreement Withdrawal in Context.
Retrieved from
https://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/world/2017-06-05/trumps-paris-agreement-withd
rawal-context
Galston, W. A., Gross, S., Muro, M., Roberts, T., Tongia, R., Victor, D. G., . . . Thomas, V.
(2017, November 20). Trump's Paris Agreement withdrawal: What it means and what
comes next. Retrieved from
https://www.brookings.edu/blog/planetpolicy/2017/06/01/trumps-paris-agreement-withdr
awal-what-it-means-and-what-comes-next/

Comments

  1. UnknownMay 1, 2018 at 1:14 PM

    First, I would like to take the time to say that I thought that you wrote a very strong argument and defended your points very well. One thing that I was wondering, going off some of the ideas that we threw around during class, do you think that carbon emissions should be placed under restrictions, or do you believe that this will happen naturally as the United States continues to promote alternative forms of energy? I agree that the cost of the earth's core rising more than 2 degrees Celsius would be quite a great deal higher than the cost of paying some money towards developing countries and using money to reform our energy initiatives. However, I believe that this needs to be stressed more to the general public. One of the biggest problems with politics in my opinion is the fact that people are too worried on the short term and forget about the long term, especially when fixing long term problems has an initial short term cost. I think that this is usually especially true for policies regarding the climate change issue.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. UnknownMay 7, 2018 at 12:50 PM

      Thank you Rachael for your comment. I definitely think that carbon emissions should be placed under restrictions whether or not U.S. is to focus greatly on alternative forms of energy. Pricing carbon emissions through a carbon fee is one of the most powerful incentives that governments have to encourage companies and households to pollute less. Under this system, the price to pollute sets the strength of the economic signal and determines the extent to which green choices are encouraged. For example, a stronger price on emissions will lead to more investment in cleaner energy sources such as solar and wind power. And although a carbon fee makes polluting activities more expensive, it makes green technologies more affordable as the price signal increases over time.

      Delete
  2. UnknownMay 1, 2018 at 1:16 PM

    I enjoyed reading your memo - it is very well-written and it has a clear argument, Trang! I definitely agree with your conclusion that the best policy option for the United States is to remain in the Paris Climate Agreement. By remaining in the agreement, the United States will be viewed as a world leader in reducing carbon emissions, while also actively combating climate change on an international level. I think that by leaving the agreement, but still adhering to the plans outlined in the agreement, would essentially ruin the “world leader” image that the United States currently maintains. This would also contradict the argument made by President Trump for withdrawing from the agreement. Of the two policy options you provided, which one do you think President Trump is most likely to carry out?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. UnknownMay 7, 2018 at 1:13 PM

      Although option 1 is the better option, I think the Trump administration will be more likely to go with option 2. It is indeed concerning that we have politicians who refuse to take actions toward climate change or even deny that it exists.

      Delete
  3. UnknownMay 5, 2018 at 9:57 PM

    Overall, your memo was very well written. it was concise and to the point. Your argument was strong and I 100% agree with it. The U.S. is the was the world leader when it came to starting green energy initiatives. Dropping out of the agreement would make us look bad to other countries, especially since the deal is non-binding to begin with. Also, if the U.S. pulls out of the deal, then it might start a domino effect in which other influential countries choose to drop out. If this deal succeeds with curbing greenhouse emissions to below 1.5 degrees Celsius without the U.S., it will look like we are truly the more backwards country. Option one is clearly the much better option. By taking up out world leader status and being one of the leaders of reducing greenhouse emissions, other will soon follow.

    ReplyDelete

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