Sonntag, 25. Oktober 2020

[Politics] Musings on Trump, Biden and climate change

Note: This post strictly represents my thoughts. Other opinions are available. I've included a fair few references but tried to not clog everything up.


~~ Do you remember the Paris Agreement? ~~


I do. I remember being quite anxious and pessimistic that the results of the 2015 climate conference would be non-existent or, at best, wishy-washy. To the great surprise of many people, the countries involved came out of it with something quite a bit more ambitious than predicted. At the same time, the agreement came under fire from various sides. But I'm not sure that's such a bad sign; if you've got criticism from all directions, it might as well mean that you're looking at a pretty fair and balanced compromise.


This is why I think Donald Trump's decision to withdraw from the agreement is wrong. I'm not saying he wasn't allowed to do it, and I understand that from his viewpoint, it made sense to do so. There are various problems with that decision though. One can criticize all kinds of aspects of the paper but fact is that Trump was explaining his exit with misconceptions about the nature of the treaty.


There is also the argument used in his favor that the agreement is ineffective. However, there are people whom I would allow this argument, and Trump isn't one of them. He has shown, many times, that he doesn't really have a grip on climate science.


Now couple that with all the environmental rollbacks in his term and the argument becomes nonsensical. If he doesn't really care much about the environment and doesn't "believe in" global warming, why would he (or any other climate change denier) be worried that the agreement doesn't mitigate the damage as much as possible? This is a non-sequitur. If a doctor tells you that you should drink more water, you don't reduce your water intake even further. Yet that is more or less what withdrawing from the climate settlements amounts to, if you're actually convinced the science is right about the issue.


Generally speaking, that's a reason why I would be very careful with people who criticize the Paris agreement; it can often be quite enlightening to research what informs their own standpoint, and what aim they pursue by speaking up about it. Are they fair and unbiased? Although awareness of the carbon problem has thankfully risen in the wake of Greta Thunberg, the shameless attacks on her and the movement led by her have shown that the fossil fuel lobby is still extremely strong and still willing to invest more money into misinformation campaigns than into a more sustainable society.


Getting back to Trump for a minute. I know he gets admiration for his strong-arm style of governing. I should mention that as somebody with two nationalities who's grown up in a country that had to be "cured" of its imperialist fever dreams, I've never really been one for patriotism and national pride; maybe because from my viewpoint, they tend to divide and work against the greater good. So all of Trump's flag-waving and sloganeering means little to me, but I recognize that this is a strong trait in many Americans and he appeals to that.


But beyond that, his politics are also informed by his character. I know some people shun discussing him as a person but look at how quickly he loses his temper; how can this be ignored? Trump and his supporters like to point out that he's not your average Joe politician. That's certainly true but the coin has another side.


I don't profess to have followed his endeavors before his entry into politics but I think, after more than four years of paying attention to him and reading a couple of things about him, I've got a relatively good idea of some of his character traits. Two of them are relevant here: 1) Critics have accused him of projecting his own wrongdoings onto his political adversaries. 2) He thinks of himself first and foremost.


If you add those two together, it's not hard to see where his attitude towards political deals and negotiations comes from. He assumes everyone is as selfish as him, and therefore he thinks everybody wants to take advantage of the United States. The antidote is trying to get the most out of a deal for the US... with a lack of empathy for the other party that also had to give up some of its positions in order to reach an agreement. This changes the established equilibrium normally at play with diplomacy.


I don't like this approach at all. I believe in collaboration and symbiosis - decisions from which all involved can benefit. Trump's strong-arm style has sometimes taken on the shape of extortion tactics (putting the partner under pressure so that they would accept his conditions), with mixed results. Aside from being exactly what Trump has accused others of - being unfair - it's also risky for the general fabric of the world. Why? When you always tell your following that they're being treated unfairly by other countries, it's not going to increase their positive feelings towards others.


But I digress. And although I'm an idealist, I wouldn't necessarily disapprove of Trump's way of politics if he were fighting for what I'd call a noble cause. Maybe that's hypocritical of me but imagine - the same guy, same tactics, but with a definite view towards doing something for the environment? Why not! If he had said "This agreement is no good, we're going to do a better one" and somehow managed to grab, say, the government of China and India by the cojones and forced them to sign something more drastic and binding... I'd be the first in line to applaud him. (Though one of the links at the end shows that there are two sides to this issue, too...)


There are two issues with this thought, though.


1) Political negotiations are a tightrope walk. Frankly, for Trump to suggest that the deals made by the Obama administration are insufficient is a bit insulting to the people involved. I think it's not outlandish to suggest that the Paris agreement was close to the most that could be wrought from the climate conference at that time, as much as I (and many activists) would've liked more concrete results.


2) This whole thing is a global issue. It affects people all over the world. Somebody with the mindset of "America first" is unlikely to become a fighter for a greater good. Or pudding it differently 😉, somebody like Trump would always find a way to complain about an agreement that involves the US cutting down on something. So, getting somebody with his approach as a fighter for environmental policies seems like a long shot.


For far too long, Climate politics has been a game of "who blinks first, loses". The results have been as expected, especially since politicians tend to prioritize short-term developments and like to weigh up economy against ecology. I think that is a fatal flaw in the discourse; I know it's a horrible comparison but it's a bit like taking drugs. You might feel unusually great for a moment but the long-term effects will outweigh that high. The economical costs of not acting against climate change will likely outsize the investments we can make now. The bubble is going to burst sooner or later, but the later it happens, the louder it will burst. Communicating this to the people affected is difficult, I'll admit, but politicians shouldn't try to simplify matters just so that citizens accept a simple narrative. 


There are many moral implications at work here too - just to quote one example, Inuit are already struggling with the reduction of polar ice. It's also no surprise that island states and African countries were main drivers of the 1.5K goal*. But given the Trump admin's track record on human rights in general, I think it's fair to say that they're probably not too troubled.


We're at a fork in the road. Michael E. Mann, one of the leading climate scientists and an outspoken critic of Trump and the Koch brothers' network (in turns, he became a target of aggressive slander and threats), goes as far as saying that a second Trump term will be "game over" for the climate. It is definitely one topic that the two 2020 presidential candidates greatly differ on (not that they agree on many things anyway).


The public climate (excuse the pun) seems to be changing though, so even if he gets re-elected, Trump may face more determined opposition on environmental matters. Even in the economic sectors, some actors have apparently woken up to reality. There is some solace in seeing that the free markets might actually move in the right direction. But I can't help the bitter taste knowing that most of the science was on the table in the 1990s already. And I'm not happy about the shenanigans surrounding the Supreme Court.


What if Trump doesn't get re-elected? One thing's for sure, Joe Biden is setting himself up for failure. If he loses, he'll have failed to take opportunity of a strong political movement. If he wins... well, there's simply no way he's going to execute all the things he's promised, and a lot of people will be very disappointed for one reason or another. But what gives me some hope is his, as well as many of his fellow Democrats', endorsing of science as a leading principle.


Bringing it all back to the Paris agreement. Should the USA rejoin it? In my opinion, yes. We're all dealing with two big crises at the moment, so a new and better climate agreement may not be on the cards for the quick future while Covid-19 (which in itself is like a sped-up climate crisis) takes precedence. Even then, we shouldn't underestimate the symbolic power of such a move. It would set a good example for others to follow, it could give the country a lead on new technologies (in this positive context, I approve of "America first"! 😁)... and yes, it would also have an influence on emissions.


Addendum:


If you've been wondering why there is such a disconnect between what climate scientists predict and demand and what actually gets done by politics, you may get an answer here:


The appallingly bad neoclassical economics of climate change


This peer-reviewed study points out some egregious errors leading to totally misleading conclusions... in a paper on damages by climate change that actually won the Nobel Prize for Economics!



Recommended further reading:

The Heartland Lobby (this is a really great article that delves into the dark underbelly of science denial. Every sentence should be savored. It's really that good.)


Tragedy of the Commons - Wikipedia


The Paris Climate Agreement: Deliverance or Disappointment?


Why Trump's withdrawal from Paris doesn't matter as much as you think


20 advantages and disadvantages of the Paris Agreement


Pros and Cons of Paris climate agreement (I think this is a bit too simple, but...)


The Two Sides of the Paris Climate Agreement: Dismal Failure or Historic Breakthrough? (this is an excellent write-up that also sheds light on the Kyoto protocol and why a lot of what might already be called "watered down" about the Paris accord was watered down due mainly to - yes - the US' influence)


And generally speaking, if you have doubts on scientific topics, try to peruse sites that are listed on this page by Media Bias/Fact Check. I've only just stumbled across RationalWiki which also seems to be an... interesting source.


* I know this is pedantic, but differences of temperature Î”T are normally given in Kelvin (K), not as degrees Celsius (°C)