What does the latest political shock mean for international cooperation on climate?
Just as the UN climate agreement entered into force, the election of Donald Trump as US president raised immediate questions about the durability and likely effectiveness of action to limit global warming to 2°C with an aim towards 1.5°C.
Setting out his views after the election, Trump’s path to ‘energy independence’ made grim reading. He said: ‘Rather than continuing the current path to undermine and block America’s fossil fuel producers, the Trump administration will encourage the production of these resources by opening onshore and offshore leasing on federal lands and waters.
We will streamline the permitting process for all energy projects, including the billions of dollars in projects held up by President Obama, and rescind the job-destroying executive actions under his administration. We will end the war on coal, and rescind the coal mining lease moratorium, the excessive interior department stream rule, and conduct a top-down review of all anti-coal regulations issued by the Obama administration.’
This matters because 15% of annual global greenhouse-gas emissions are from the US – second only to China (30%). There are three key downsides: the US fails to achieve the emissions reduction commitments set out in its nationally determined contribution, resulting in either an overshoot of the global target or a need for other countries to achieve more.
Failure by the US to engage, either by a lack of action or by withdrawing from the agreement, will provide a basis for other countries to backslide on moves to achieve their targets; and financial contributions to support climate action in developing countries will not materialise, putting at risk programmes to enhance climate resilience and adopt low-carbon technology.
There are, however, reasons not to be too gloomy. Climate science has not changed and societies and economies around the world will continue to experience extreme weather, forcing governments to act. The economics of low-carbon energy, particularly renewables, continues to improve and, when more efficient energy storage comes on stream, the cost effectiveness of renewables will surely out-Trump fossil fuel electricity generation.
And the shift to electric vehicles is, in part, being pushed by poor air quality in major cities around the world, not just to tackle climate change. So the business case to reduce emissions is becoming more compelling and it is difficult to see major companies, such as Google, Apple and GE, making an about-turn on their low-carbon investments.
Although it is clearly a setback that the US is unlikely to play a meaningful role in the global action to halt dangerous climate change, it is certainly no reason to give up.