The Trump administration on Monday, Nov. 4, informed the United Nations that the United States would proceed with its plan to withdraw the country from the Paris Agreement on climate change, despite being the world’s second most polluting country and the world’s largest industrial and economic power. Nearly 200 countries have signed on to the climate change agreement, which aspires to reduce greenhouse emissions on a mass scale and assist poor countries that are at the most at risk from the effects of climate change.
Secretary of State Mike Pompeo made the announcement on Twitter, saying that the U.S. model for dealing with climate change is “realistic” and “pragmatic.” He followed with a statement which said that the Paris Agreement would harm the U.S. economy.
The decision follows an announcement made by President Trump in June 2017 that the U.S. would cease its participation in the 2015 Paris Agreement. For students around the University of Oregon, the withdrawal has prompted a discussion on how environmental issues are dealt with both nationally and internationally.
“Personally, I’m not happy about it,” said Lauralei Singsank, a senior double-major of political science and music at UO. “To have a good society in a global age, especially with something like climate change where your emissions aren’t bounded by any kind of country’s border, it’s significantly less successful when you try to stay isolationist.”
Singsank’s thoughts and feelings on climate change derive from her home in Maui, Hawaii, where rising sea levels pose a major threat to the tourism industry in places like Waikiki Beach. She feels angry and pessimistic at the rate at which the U.S. government is responding to climate issues which are threatening the economic stability of her home.
“If we lose six inches or so of shoreline, then that could really be catastrophic,” Singsank said. “I don’t see our country taking a stand quick enough to stop, limit and reverse the effects of climate change that we are already seeing at home.”
For others, however, the withdrawal is seen as an important step towards economic stability.
Will Christensen, a sophomore finance major and member of the University of Oregon College Republicans, sees the Paris Agreement as “a waste of time” and economically unrealistic in the way that it aims to get rid of fossil fuels entirely. Natural gas, which emits 50 percent less carbon dioxide when combusted in new power plants than typical coal plants, is the better alternative, he said.
“If we’re going to start making good, long term progress, we’re going to have to start somewhere in proliferation with natural gas,” Christensen said. “That will make it much easier to eventually transition to sustainability.”
Christensen uses a free-market approach when thinking about environmental issues. When the market reacts without government intervention, consumers will, by default, demand more sustainable alternatives, he said.
“As the quality of living goes up, people tend to care about the environment more,” Christensen said. “We don’t need people at the government level to step in for us. Being environmentally friendly is in a business’s best interest because they save money by being more efficient.”
The United States’ involvement in the Paris Agreement won’t be finalized until the 2020 election on Nov. 3, where, the following day, the formal withdrawal from the Agreement will take effect.
For Alysa Wulf, a senior public relations major at UO, the Paris Agreement should be an opportunity for the U.S. to mend ties among citizens both in the states and worldwide. Voters should be educated on candidates’ stances on the subject and think about how it will create a sense of global unity.
“A lot of what is happening right now has to do with division and not unity,” Wulf said. “I think the U.S. should use and distribute its resources because we have so much more to offer than others. It could only be positive.”
