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. With only have a fifth of the world’s population, the U.S. produces 16% of the world’s pollution.[1] As leaders of the free world and the largest polluter, we are obligated to be the role models for other countries. By pulling out of the Accords, they will be weakened because without U.S. support, and other countries might pull out too. The Paris Accords is a non-binding agreement. Pulling out of the Accords means that we are not willing to reduce our carbon emissions, and it also shows that we are not willing to do our part. This option will make the U.S. look bad, and we will lose our standing of being the leader of the free world. Renewable energy is becoming cheaper than fossil fuels. So, by pulling out of the Paris Accords, we will be lagging behind the rest of the world. Fossil fuel jobs are becoming obsolete. They are not making as much money as they used to. Renewable energy is the future, and by pulling out, we will be left behind.
Option 2
               Staying in the Paris Accords will benefit us in the long-run. In the short term, the U.S. might experience job losses due to fossil fuel jobs decreasing. In the private sector, “solar and wind jobs in the U.S. are growing at a rate about 12 times faster than the rest of the U.S. economy.”[2] The Accords will help boost the economy more which will allow even more jobs in renewable energy. By staying in the Paris Accords, the U.S. gives it much more legitimacy and will keep other countries from pulling out of the Accords. Since we are one of the three largest producers of CO2 emissions, it is our moral obligation to stay in the Accords and make goals to reduce our CO2 emissions. If the rest of the world is working on lower emissions and the U.S. is not, then U.S. will no longer look like the leader of the free word. It is a non-binding agreement so staying in the Accords is saying that we will do our part to help make Earth cleaner. Working to make sure that we reduce emissions will make the environment much healthier for everyone. Every person breaths the same air. The pollution produced in one place will find itself in another place.
Solution
               Option 2 is the best course of action to take. The accords might not be perfect, but it is a necessary first step. As the years progress, the goals will become more ambitious until we stop producing emissions that increase Earth’s temperature by 2 degrees Celsius. The U.S. has always been the leader of fighting climate change. Dropping our now will look bad, and the U.S. might lose a lot of credibility with other countries. If the rest of the world has come together on a certain issue, the U.S. has to be a part of it to maintain its leadership in the world today.

[1] Justine Sullivan, "7 Reasons the United States Needs the Paris Climate Agreement," United Nations Foundation 7 Reasons the United States Needs the Paris Climate Agreement Comments, April 26, 2017, , http://unfoundationblog.org/7-reasons-united-states-needs-paris-climate-agreement/.
[2] Sullivan, "7 Reasons the United States Needs the Paris Climate Agreement."


Comments

  1. UnknownMay 1, 2018 at 1:09 PM

    I think that you provided a well thought and put together argument in your above memorandum. I liked how you brought up the fact that pulling out of the Paris Climate Agreement has the potential to hurt the United States standing as a global leader. This is a smaller, but important point to address when considering whether or not we should pull out of the deal. In class we discussed the fact that people seemed to be unhappy with the fact that we would potentially have to donate money to developing countries and not have any control over which countries received money. Is it possible that a policy option is to remain in the deal, but perhaps make some modifications to the pledge that we agreed to under Obama. Could this potentially reduce people's hesitancy towards the idea. Just food for thought. Overall I thought that you presented a very clear argument that you defended well.

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

    I enjoyed reading your memo and it is really insightful and informative, Matt! I absolutely agree with your proposed solution of remaining in the Paris Climate Agreement. The United States is definitely viewed globally as a world leader and by withdrawing from such an important and global initiative, such as the Paris Climate Agreement, would decrease the status and the legitimacy of the United States. In addition to this, the United States would be actively decreasing their carbon emissions and, therefore, combating climate change. More specifically, the United States will be viewed as a world leader in reducing carbon emissions if President Trump decides to remain in the Paris Climate Agreement. If the United States does not remain in the Paris Climate Agreement, do you think this will provide an incentive for other nations to also withdraw from the agreement?

    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 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