The US not fulfilling its commitment in Paris will cause a damage of 100 billion dollars to the world economy. Says Professor Robert Cope, Department of Earth and Planetary Sciences, Rutgers University
By: Professor Robert Cope, Department of Earth and Planetary Sciences, Rutgers University
Even before the Paris Agreement was signed in December 2015, market forces and green policies began to tilt the world towards a future of lower carbon emissions. Carbon dioxide emissions in the US peaked in 2007, and emissions in China are estimated to have peaked in 2014. Industries such as solar, wind and energy storage are expanding rapidly.
However, as a climate scientist and as a scientist involved in climate policy, I know the market forces and the current political policies - and both together are far from sufficient in the way of limiting the increase in global temperatures, as specified in the Paris Agreement.
Therefore, Trump's decision to withdraw from the Paris Agreement can have many consequences for the United States and humanity. But how far-reaching will these effects be?
Part of the uncertainty comes from the way the climate system will respond to humanity's greenhouse gas emissions. If we're lucky, the climate will be less sensitive than scientists think it is; If we're unlucky, he'll be more sensitive. But most of the uncertainty comes from how the 194 countries that signed the Paris Agreement and the global economy will react to Trump's decision.
The optimistic scenario
The long-term goal of the Paris Agreement is to limit global warming to 1.5 to 2.0 degrees Celsius above pre-industrial temperatures, or about 0.5 to 1.0 degrees Celsius above the current average temperature.
Current U.S. policy, even without the power plant cap regulations proposed by the Obama administration, is sufficient to reduce greenhouse gas emissions to about 16% below 2000 levels by 2020. But significant new policies at the federal and state levels are needed to meet U.S. commitments. B. Under the Paris Agreement, reduce emissions from 26 percent to 28 percent below 2005 levels by the year 2025. Trump's decision to withdraw from the Paris Agreement, and the blocking of the federal policy to cut greenhouse gas emissions mean that these goals are unlikely to be realized.
In the meantime, however, China and Europe are poised to take on the role of climate leadership after the U.S. has compromised. So, if the U.S. exit from the Paris Agreement does not derail international progress, Trump's move may be largely symbolic. (Indeed, according to the terms of the Paris Agreement, the exit will not take effect until November 4, 2020 - the day after the next presidential election). However, US industry could suffer and so could the US's reputation as a reliable diplomatic partner.
Not much change will be felt on the planet. Over the five years between 2020 and 2025, the U.S. will emit a total of about 2.5 billion tons more of carbon dioxide or other greenhouse gas than if it did so on the Paris Agreement track. This amount is equivalent to an increase of 6 percent per year One equal to the amount of global carbon dioxide emissions.
Until recently, the federal government used the estimate of the social cost of carbon dioxide, which is only one way to calculate the damage caused by climate change, of about $40 per ton. According to this estimate, the additional emissions caused by the US if it does not meet its commitment in Paris, will cause 100 billion dollars in damage to the world economy - a significant number, but small compared to the size of the world economy. If state governments in California and elsewhere take part of the commitment Left by the waiver of the federal government, as some governors pledge they will do, the damage will be less.
If, after Trump, the US returns to a healthy global climate regime and returns with a delay of several years to the long-term goals of Paris, then the climate will not be greatly damaged by the temporary deviation. The main damage will be to US leadership in the clean energy industry.
The pessimistic scenario
The Paris Agreement would not have been signed without American leadership. Perhaps, despite the efforts of China and Europe, it will fall apart without the US.
President Trump has often talked about opening coal mines. This is not likely to happen without significant subsidies - coal is no longer competitive as a source of electricity against natural gas or solar or wind energy alternatives that are increasingly being seen.
But if Trump's vision for the Paris Agreement is "cancelled" and a vision for a booming coal economy is realized, an analysis my colleagues and I did showed that the costs to the US could be severe.
Climate models indicate that the global average temperature by the middle of the century will probably be 0.2-0.8 degrees higher than today under the Paris Agreement track and under the Trump track 0.8-1.6 degrees higher than today. The models also show that under the Paris Agreement the temperature in the last two decades of the century should stabilize, while under the Trump trajectory it will be warmer by more than 2 degrees, and in a pessimistic scenario even 4 degrees.
Sea level projections made by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) show that the average sea level in the world at the end of the century will be close to 1.55 meters higher than what was stipulated in the Paris Convention compared to its height in 2000.
Emerging science on the instability of the Antarctic ice sheet suggests that it may reach a height of one to three meters - or even more - in Trump's orbit. And, due to the slow response of the ocean and the ice sheets to changes in temperatures, Trump's trajectory will cause the sea level to rise many meters in the next centuries - perhaps more than 30 meters.
The quantitative risk data shows that the warming will impose costs on human health, agriculture and the energy system. This will also increase conflicts around the world. And finally, a rising sea will reshape coastlines across the US and the world.
The more extreme scenario
The pessimist's case assumes that future disasters will come from the climate and its effects. The extreme pessimistic scenario seems on another level.
The Paris Agreement is an agreement starting from a cooperative system of global governance, in which organizations such as NATO, the United Nations and the European Union play central roles - a system that some of President Trump's key advisers seek to undermine.
If the policy of isolationism, including the withdrawal of the Paris Agreement and the weakening of the Western Alliance, lead to a global trade war, and then to an economic recession, closing significant parts of the economy could lead to a greater decrease in greenhouse gas emissions than any deliberate policy.
The US experienced a small version of this phenomenon between 2007 and 2009, when the economic crisis was the main cause of a 10 percent drop in US emissions. Most economic models, including those used to produce projections of future greenhouse gas emissions, are unable to predict sudden changes such as these.
Ironically, Trump's decision to withdraw from globalization, including the Paris Agreement, in this scenario will reduce emissions. But a recession is one of the most harmful ways to do this - one that will cause great distress to the American workers whom Trump claims to help.
Translation: Avi Blizovsky
For the article on THECONVERSATION website
More of the topic in Hayadan:
- Trump is about to announce the withdrawal of the US from the climate agreement in Paris
- Trump's budget proposal: funding climate change research is a waste of money
- In Paris, the agreement was signed to limit global warming to 1.5 degrees
- "We are making a cynical and cunning effort by those with an interest to attack the science that explains global warming"
9 תגובות
One more thing for Shomersaf - Bush was president before Obama and he strongly opposed the agreement that was signed in Japan before and which was then called the Kyoto Agreement - the same nonsense in changing the name.
And I did not write that the agreement is good for the non-developing or developed countries - I wrote that the agreement is not good for oil producers and good for alternative energy producers, for developing countries like Israel it is actually good because it can bring in money at the expense of the United States, for example.
And if you ask the head of that African tribe in the movie he will also say that this is good because he can get money and use the women and children for work.
This agreement is not good for the planet - because it did not reduce anything in practice, because the countries do not meet the goals, and there is no evidence that it stopped or reduced global warming, and there probably will never be such evidence either, because it is hardly possible to measure that there is any warming at all, and therefore there is no chance to carry out A measurement that shows a halt in the trend of warming.
On the other hand, this lowers the order of priority from the fight against other pollutants more significant than CO2, the "horrible and terrible" gas, perhaps we have forgotten a little that this "pollutant" is the most important gas for life on earth (more essential for life than oxygen), without which there is no life and no growth , and that our entire body is made up of compounds created from it, and that each of us emits it with every exhalation.
In relation to the African, it was a documentary film that was broadcast on the bronze television science channels.
It has nothing to do with the fact that Europeans, Israelis, Chinese and Japanese are trying to sell cell panels to Africans, the head of such a primitive African tribe will not spend money on cell panels, nor on their maintenance, as we know cell panels also break down and maintaining cell panels costs money,
And why does he have cell phones if he has enough women and children that he can take advantage of?
To the gatekeeper, thanks for the compliments, but they are unnecessary because the writing here is basically anonymous.
You try to drag me into useless personal arguments because you don't know me and I don't know you.
I don't use talkbacks to write to the body of another writer, and not to give compliments or insults to other writers, it's especially stupid on a site where anyone can enter with any nickname they choose, you never know who wrote the talkback.
On the other hand, if you have something relevant to say, I would be happy to discuss it with you, and if you did not understand something in what I wrote, I would be happy to explain it to you.
Again and again and again my father utters nonsense:
Starting with "the wise interpretation of the Paris Agreement" as if it were for the benefit of the developed countries and to the detriment of the developing countries:
Prosh that he is the B L!
Continued in "Obama's desire for popularity" - nonsense,
So is the "story" of "Until Obama, the United States did not want to join the agreement",
To the commenter's knowledge, until Obama the Kyoto Treaty was in force and the Paris Agreement replaced it,
Since the Paris Agreement, the understanding that change is necessary and therefore also
Huge companies engaged in oil production are diverting resources to the development of green energy sources,
The commenter's "scientific" calculations are based on nothing,
So is the story about the "film" he saw,
Since European (and Israeli) entrepreneurs are introducing the use of solar electricity to Africa,
Pumps that operated on diesel engines are replaced by electric pumps
When the electricity comes from solar panels,
Manual resources are a backup in case of a malfunction,
As the saying goes, give the "geniuses" an opening here and we'll get them!
Already according to the opening in the response of an anonymous (unidentified) user,
It turns out that it's a nonsense that's all nonsense,
Even if there was something true in his response
It was difficult to understand because of the many spelling errors and the sloppy language,
That's why it would be better if he turned a deaf ear...
Beyond the debate is how much global warming is due to CO2 emissions.
This agreement they signed in Paris is an agreement that allows rich countries to force emissions at the expense of poor countries that receive money in order not to emit.
There is a conflict of interests of a lot of money and politics here - these poor countries are interested in this money, of course, the countries that do not have oil are interested in developing alternative energy sources, while oil-rich and emission-rich countries like the United States only lose from the matter, because they are unable to stop the emission and the agreement makes them pay A lot and also hurts their oil producers.
Because of this, until Obama, the United States did not want to join the agreement.
Obama had an interest in being popular and being liked by the Europeans and that is why he signed this agreement, Trump has the opposite interest as previous presidents of the United States did not agree to the whole issue even before Obama.
The whole issue of this agreement is politics and money only - there is nothing between it and science or a significant improvement in air pollution and the fact is that in practice emissions have not been reduced and the solution to the problem of global warming is not progressing anywhere.
The side effects of this issue is the mass mobilization of money for propaganda, for brainwashing, for turning the issue into a taboo from my mind that should not be questioned, and a new religion, a populist issue and debate between right and left...
I saw a movie about one of the phenomena of the agreement that says it all, in Africa a small farmer in a remote village has a water pump to irrigate his fields, to this farmer came messengers from Europe and persuaded him to convert his diesel powered pump to manual pumping and in exchange for deactivating this diesel engine and the emission units he saves by doing so He receives money from a European country.
What happened in that African village that the women (including pregnant women, lactating women...) were recruited against their will for the drudgery of manually pumping water in three shifts...
The only damage will be to thieves and pseudo-scientists who wanted to steal money from the United States and for that purpose made up stories in flames without any type.
The pseudo-scientists who fabricate delusional models of the end of the world have had to look for more respectable work.
You can be calm: in the next ten years the global temperature (according to real measurements) will rise by approximately 0.1 degrees Celsius, until 2100 the temperature will rise by a maximum of 1 degree Celsius. All of this in obedience to the tested outline of the rise in temperatures in the last 120 years. The sea level will rise an average of 3 millimeters per year, that is, one meter in 330 years, also according to the proven plan that will last for a hundred years. All this without any subsidies (which are stealing money from the public and transferring it to the pockets of the rich).
In addition, a partial transition to solar electricity throughout the world will be carried out without any subsidy. This is because the cost of solar electricity today is a quarter to a third of the cost of electricity from fossil and nuclear fuels. China is preparing for the solar revolution in a plan called the 2020 plan, the intention of this plan is to rationally combine solar electricity infrastructure with electricity from other sources. Stolar electricity will be at the rate of 20 to 30 percent of the total central infrastructure of electrical energy. Other countries will follow China's lead. Germany, Arab desert countries and many other countries. For those who don't know: Israel started this year with a series of 6 pilots for centralized solar electricity in Israel. The first pilot began when several dozen participants committed themselves to supply contracts of 20 cents per kilowatt hour. At the moment, the series of pilots are aimed at providing 5 percent of the electricity consumption in the country through solar electricity. Later, during the 21st century, the percentage will rise from 5 percent to a higher percentage (say, between 20 and 30 percent).
Why don't you hear anything about the progress of solar energy that I explained above while you hear endlessly about global warming? Very simply, because global warming scaremongering is a scam aimed at stealing money from the public, while with solar energy there is no possibility of stealing money.
incidentally. I am thinking of buying shares of companies that invest in solar energy so that I can earn something from the information that has been disclosed.