Forgetting Paris

National Review Online

Monday, January 27, 2025

 

Donald Trump is, rightly, determined that we will not always have Paris.

 

Among the executive orders he signed shortly after his inauguration was one to take the United States out of the Paris climate accord. In 2016, President Obama had committed the U.S. to Paris by executive agreement. What the pen makes, the pen can unmake. In 2017, Trump 45 issued an executive order intended to take the U.S. out of its Parisian cage. In 2021, President Biden produced his pen, and the U.S. was back in, only for its door to be unlocked again by Trump 47 this month.

 

Trump regards the Paris accord as “unfair,” “one-sided,” and a “rip-off.” While “one-sided” is an exaggeration (European nations have done more to damage their economies in the interests of “Paris” than the U.S. has), otherwise the agreement is indeed woefully misbegotten.

 

China has been the world’s largest emitter of greenhouse gases (GHG) since 2006. By 2021, its GHG emissions exceeded those from all developed countries. To be sure, the West, led by the U.S., has emitted more between 1750 and today (although by 2023, China ranked second in that table), but the rest of the world has benefited immensely from the technological advances of which those historical emissions have been a side effect, as the astonishing growth in — and widening of — human prosperity since the industrial revolution that began in the mid-18th century shows.

 

China is often praised for its massive build-out of “green” technology, but this is driven, not by altruism or fear that a changing climate poses an existential threat, but by a cold-eyed focus on Beijing’s economic and political objectives. Investing in renewable energy is in keeping with the priority that China, which is relatively oil-poor, puts on self-sufficiency and on export-fueled growth. Chinese exports of inexpensive renewable equipment — from solar panels to wind turbines — have reinforced Western illusions about the extent to which renewables can replace fossil fuels, while undermining Western manufacturers that make them. The result risks creating a Western energy dependency on China where none existed before. Something similar is now occurring with electric vehicles.

 

Meanwhile, China has continued to invest heavily in coal, nuclear, oil, and gas (including fracking). By trapping itself within the Paris framework, the U.S. was playing along with Chinese ambitions, positioning itself to squander America’s natural energy advantage, and inflicting terrible harm on its auto sector. That had to stop.

 

The emphasis placed in the Paris accord on cutting carbon emissions has also led to a massive reallocation of resources toward renewable (and other) technologies that were not and are not ready for prime time. Much of that money would be better devoted to nuclear power, adaptation, and strengthening resilience to whatever the climate may eventually bring our way. The last could range from instituting better forest management (apart from the direct damage they cause, forest fires are responsible for significant GHG emissions) to putting more electricity cables underground to building better sea defenses for low-lying coastal cities. The list goes on.

 

Moving away from the capital misallocation and intrusive regulation that comes with carbon-paring would boost growth. The U.K. and Germany pride themselves on their climate leadership. The effect on their economies is a cautionary tale of what that role can mean. It is not an example to follow. But history offers a more encouraging lesson. The richer humanity becomes, the better it can cope with Mother Nature.

 

There is another small problem with the Paris Agreement. It is failing, and it will continue to fail. Countries are, quite predictably, not sticking to their commitments, and their failure to abide by them will increase as the commitments become more onerous. The average global temperature in 2024 was more than 1.5 degrees Celsius (2.7 degrees Fahrenheit) above pre-industrial levels, crossing a threshold that Paris was meant to avoid. Temperatures may fall back in 2025, but as things currently stand there is a good chance, at least according to projections used by the U.N., that 1.5 degrees will become a new floor. All such projections must be taken with enormous amounts of salt, but according to the U.N. Environment Program, GHG emissions would have to fall by 42 percent by 2030 and 57 percent by 2035 to hold the line at 1.5°C. Given the economic disruption that would entail, there’s no hope (thankfully) of cutbacks on anything like that scale.

 

Such targets are incompatible with political stability, surging global energy demand, and the reality that, even as GHG emissions fall in the Western world, they are rising in other poorer countries as they, too, aim for a better life. China and India are being followed by Indonesia, and countries such as Brazil, Argentina, and Guyana have every intention of boosting their oil and gas production. Fossil fuels still supply around 80 percent of the world’s energy. Taken as a whole, renewables go some way to satisfying the underlying increase in demand, but that’s it. Sufficient money to pay for a green(er) transition in less prosperous parts of the world will not be forthcoming.

 

The science of climate change is, we are repeatedly assured, “settled.” Even if for the sake of argument that were true, the policy response is not and never can be. Policy involves trade-offs, setting priorities, risk-reward calculations, and, in democracies anyway, a continuing political debate. And there is no policy advantage for the U.S. in committing to a pact that operates against our geopolitical and economic interests, and that, whatever we do, is going to fall far, far short of its objectives.

 

Farewell, Paris — once again and hopefully, this time, forever.