When President Donald Trump decided to withdraw from the Paris Climate Agreement this June, it confirmed the administration’s intent to pull back on international efforts to combat global climate change. The Cipher Brief’s Fritz Lodge spoke with the Director of Population, Environmental Security, and Resilience at the Wilson Center, Roger-Mark De Souza, about what practical effect this decision will have on efforts to combat global climate change, and how this affects U.S. national security.
The Cipher Brief: What are the practical vs. the symbolic effects of the U.S. withdrawal from the Paris Agreement on global climate policy?
Roger-Mark De Souza: The Trump Administration has withdrawn the U.S., but they have to continue meeting the requirements of the Paris Agreement for four years, and then at that point they will be able to withdraw. So we are looking at a practical withdrawal from the agreement four years from now.
Symbolically, what it does is send a global message about the degree to which the U.S. government is looking at climate change issues at the federal level. That message is about putting America First, and it raises deep questions about whether America First can coexist with a recognition of how important climate change is to U.S. security, prosperity, and the way that the U.S. engages with partners globally.
Other countries are pushing the United States to find ways forward on climate change issues, but this withdrawal means that – from diplomatic and international relations perspective – the U.S. government will continue to put only U.S. interests at the forefront.
TCB: What are the U.S. obligations over the next four years as it completes this withdrawal process?
De Souza: There is a clause under the agreement for the United States to cut carbon dioxide emissions by 26 to 28 percent by 2025. Every country was able to determine the particular levels that it would like to reduce its emissions by, and what concrete actions it would like to take, and the United States committed to reducing its emissions within the 26 to 28 percent framework.
TCB: In your mind, what are the economic ramifications of the U.S. backing out of this agreement?
De Souza: Renewable energy jobs have been taking off in the United States. When we look back at 2016, there were about 800,000 Americans employed in that sector, which is nearly five times as many jobs as we see in the coal sector. The U.S. clean energy industry job creation is outpacing job creation in the fossil fuel industry, so this is really a situation where we are fighting against economic development in terms of new jobs being created for Americans.
The economic implications will be an impact on job creation, as well as a geopolitical reaction to this symbolic withdrawal from the Paris Agreement, which will affect trade relations and further encourage other countries to consider placing tariffs on U.S. products.
TCB: Thinking about this geopolitical reaction, do you see this happening yet? Are other countries moving forward on climate change or elsewhere without the United States?
De Souza: We are seeing a reaction. First of all, look at the countries who have not signed the agreement. There is Syria, Uzbekistan, and Nicaragua. We are now in league with these countries.
There are other countries, particularly China, which could step in as a new leader on climate negotiations. China could potentially provide new leadership on the Paris Agreement implementation and actually become a global climate stabilizer. The extent to which that leadership could move over to other sectors, such as trade, production, global security leadership, is going to be important.
We have also heard a lot of messaging coming out of the European Union, particularly from France and Germany. Those countries are thinking about what this means in terms of U.S. engagement on multiple fronts and what will happen moving forward.
Overall, it will be very important to pay attention to China, to look at what’s happening in the European Union, and also to bear in mind that India may also be positioning itself to play a more influential role here.
TCB: What does this really mean for the fight against climate change? Can the world effectively take steps to combat climate change without U.S. involvement, and what does this mean for U.S. national security? The national security implications of climate change?
De Souza: That’s a very important question.
On the military side, there are some very real impacts on military operations to look at. We know that a number of U.S. military bases are under threat from sea-level rise. We know that when more people internationally are displaced by climate change impacts there is an increased call on military forces to provide emergency assistance. In general, climate change will create a greater international demand for military and security resources.
So this does affect U.S. military readiness and ability to respond, but it will also call on the resources of our military and security community to respond to domestic and international climate events, which will continue to emerge. It effects our readiness, and there are opportunity costs to having to respond to new threats.
Additionally, it is interesting because we are seeing more and more corporations in the United States stepping up and saying “look, from a business perspective, we need to be thinking about climate change as part of our business model.” The corporate sector is stepping up and looking at what is needed to address climate change impacts. Internationally, many countries are beginning to look at working with the U.S. on a corporate level, as well as the state and municipal level, while continuing to push on the federal level.
Finally, the issue of coastal threats from climate change is important in the United States, especially in states like Louisiana. At some level, the federal government will have to engage in order to ensure the wellbeing of those communities.
