The United Nations, Climate Change and the Rogue Nation

 

The first United Nations-sponsored meeting that attempted to construct an international process to protect the planet from climate change took place in Berlin in 1995. This meeting was labeled Conference of Parties 1 (COP1), referring to the nations partaking in the negotiations. At the 1996 COP2, the United States supported the scientific findings on climate change offered by the UN scientific body, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). The Kyoto Protocol was adopted at COP3 in 1997, and would have required the United States to reduce its global emissions an average of seven percent below 1990 levels. The Protocol was signed by President Clinton, but was not ratified by the US Senate. The Bush Administration rejected the Protocol in 2001.

 

The Paris Climate Agreement was adopted at COP21 in December 2015. Many of you will remember the Peoples’ Climate March in New York City, where 400,000 marchers demanded action on the threat of global climate change. The agreement was also preceded by a letter to all nations entitled Laudato Si by Pope Francis, calling for international action to protect the Earth and humanity. The Paris Climate Agreement was signed by some 195 nations, including the United States, and called for action to keep global warming temperature increases 2 degrees Celsius (3.6 degrees Fahrenheit) below pre-industrial temperatures, and aspirationally at no more than 1.5 degrees Celsius warming.

 

In June 2017, President Trump announced the intention to withdraw from the Paris Climate Agreement, transforming our country into a rogue nation. This announcement was quickly followed by disastrous Hurricanes Harvey (Houston), Irma (Southern Florida), Maria (Puerto Rico) and Michael (Florida Panhandle). 2018 brought the catastrophic wildfires in California and above the Arctic Circle.

 

COP24 is being held in Katowice, Poland, as this article is being prepared. Further international action is required, since it is now estimated that the Paris Climate Agreement emission targets would probably allow global warming to increase by 3 degrees Celsius. Recognizing the danger of the US withdrawal from the climate agreement, a number of parties participated in the Global Climate Action Summit, September 12–14, 2018, in San Francisco. California Governor Jerry Brown hosted the meeting, attended by elected leaders from the state and local level. At the summit, a group of 29 organizations announced the commitment to spend four billion dollars to combat climate change over the next five years. Rallies and other actions in support of the summit took place with Sierra Club members in New York City, Albany, Buffalo, and other cities and towns throughout New York State in September.

 

In October, a report by the IPCC was released in Incheon, Korea, in anticipation of COP24. The meeting was held at the direction of the United Nations. The report was prepared by 91 authors from 40 countries and addressed the benefits of maintaining a 1.5 degree Celsius increase, which would include a much more livable planet, protection of some coral reefs, a more extensive Arctic ice cap, less species loss, and a smaller rise in sea level. While physically possible, efforts to cap climate change at 1.5 degrees Celsius would require immediate action of unprecedented proportions.

 

On November 23, a report of 13 US federal agencies, the National Climate Assessment, was released. The report reviewed the ongoing and predicted results of climate change, and foresaw lower crop yields, increasing drought and severe storms, crumbling infrastructure in the South, wildfires spreading to the Southeast and economic decline. These results were immediately attacked by the Trump administration, which suggested new techniques are needed for future studies.

 

As the Conference of the Parties 24 began in early December, some nations announced strong steps to develop renewable energy and lessen fossil fuel emissions. France pledged €71 billion over 10 years to triple onshore wind power capacity and produce 5 times the amount of solar power. Japan adopted legislation to stimulate the development of offshore wind.

 

On the other hand, while 19 of the top 20 industrial countries endorsed the goals of the Paris Climate Agreement at the November G20 economic summit, only the United States failed to support the agreement. As the Climate Conference began on December 3, 2018, the Trump administration stated it would be eliminating subsidies for electric vehicles and “renewables” in the future.

 

The power of the oil and gas industry has reached its apex with President Trump, who is completely taken with the financial strength of the industry and its ability to keep him and other supporters in power. The dismissal of the reality of climate change permits the US to work contrary to the goals of every other nation to control emissions. The September 13 meeting between US Energy Secretary Rick Perry and the Russian Energy Minister to discuss how the two countries can jointly control world gas distribution is the most recent example of the industry’s influence over our politics. How in fact did our country’s energy secretary gain a pass to discuss oil and gas deals with Russia, which is still officially under US financial sanctions?

 

The insidious activities of the US under the Trump administration in the energy field are noteworthy and blatant. Shills for the energy sector were placed in charge of prime government agencies: Rick Perry in the Energy Department, Scott Pruitt in the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), Ryan Zinke in the Interior Department and Rex Tillerson as Secretary of State.

 

We know that methane gas released to the atmosphere is 105 times more potent than carbon dioxide in the first 15 to 20 years of release. Ignoring science and the public good, one of Scott Pruitt’s first acts was to halt the monitoring of methane release by the oil and gas corporations, claiming it was too expensive. Incredulously, Pruitt visited Morocco in December to negotiate the sale of US-produced liquefied methane gas. This September, the EPA proposed rules to limit gas company responsibility to inspect and repair its infrastructure for methane gas leaks.

 

Among other gifts to the gas industry, Secretary Zinke has proposed opening millions of acres of public land to fracking, permitting drilling in the Arctic and along the entire coast of the United States, limiting the reporting of hazardous chemicals used in drilling, and permitting flaring and release of excess methane directly into the atmosphere.

 

There is no denying that the Trump administration thinks big. Touted to “make America great again,” one major effect of the president’s trade wars is support for the oil and gas industry on a global scale. This is done in several ways. One is to cripple the burgeoning solar and wind industries. An early tariff imposed by Trump was a 30% duty on imported solar panels. A second round of tariffs against this industry involved a 25% tariff imposed on Chinese panels, one of the world’s largest producers. These actions roiled the rapidly growing US solar industry, which employed 200,000 in 2017.

 

Each round of tariffs includes a demand for an increased purchase of American oil and gas products. In European Union (EU) talks, Trump’s rantings — about our withdrawal from NATO and how the Europeans were taking advantage of Americans — were calmed when the EU agreed to purchase a greater amount of methane gas and oil products from the US. A similar tactic has been used against China. It is noteworthy that within several days of the recent G20 summit, China agreed to resume purchasing more gas and oil from the US.

 

Even Trump’s “withdrawal” from the Iran nuclear deal has turned into a focused campaign to promote American oil and gas interests. Reports indicate that the US is strong-arming countries, such as India and Japan, to stop importing Iranian gas and oil products. Any shortage of gas or oil in these countries can, of course, be filled by the US.