Even as the US officially pulled out of the Paris Agreement earlier this week, it might be too soon to lose hope on the country's long-term commitments to climate action. If a Democrat wins the upcoming presidential elections, which are set for November 2020, a reaccession process could begin shortly after the withdrawal is complete. In the meantime, however, the effect on trade policy could be significant.
US President Donald Trump confirmed on Monday (4 November) that he would trigger the process needed to withdraw America from the Paris Agreement, the earliest possible date under the landmark accord’s legal provisions. The current timetable means that the US will terminate its involvement the day after 2020’s presidential election on 4 November. If a Democrat is elected, “they could technically relaunch accession to the Paris Agreement as soon as they come to power in January”, confirmed Paul Watkinson, chairman of the UNFCCC’s Subsidiary Body for Scientific and Technological Advice.
The US climate negotiating team remains part of the negotiations until then and will participate in the COP25 discussions in Madrid, which they have never previously blocked.“It is a technical team that’s very concerned about respecting the framework of the Paris Agreement, which facilitates a possible US return,” Watkinson stressed. Among the US priorities, any reference to loss and damage should avoid being introduced, as this would compromise American participation in the future.
A commercial tool as reinforcement?
If Trump is re-elected, it will be business as usual. Parties will meet in November 2020 in Glasgow to announce their new commitments but the pressure will be reduced. With this in mind, the EU has tried to work with the biggest carbon emitter, China, but also with other US actors, like California.
The debate on the use of other tools is also progressing. With trade issues at the forefront, the US could be the first in the crosshairs of a Paris-Berlin-backed idea, supported by the next Commission president, Ursula von der Leyen. Both countries are in favour of a carbon border tax, which could be imposed on the least environmentally sensitive countries. “The fact is that we could have our first climate dispute with the US, and I don’t think that it’s desirable for anyone,” Spain’s environment chief, Teresa Ribera, told the New York Times. Spain took over COP25 hosting duties after Chile pulled out.
At commercial level, tensions rose between the two blocks thanks to a tax imposed by the US on hundreds of mainly European agri-food products. The US is mainly worrying German car manufacturers though, threatening them with extra taxes. Every year, the EU exports nearly $60 billion worth of cars to the US. “It is the ultimate weapon, so if the EU pretends to impose a carbon tax on US products, they will roll it out. But it is unlikely that the EU will shoot first,” a source from the European institutions said.
“It is the ultimate weapon, so if the EU pretends to impose a carbon tax on US products, they will roll it out. But it is unlikely that the EU will shoot first,” a source from the European institutions said. The irony of this trade war is that it could ultimately be quite beneficial to the climate cause, as Germany would produce fewer large cars, due to lack of market, and the US, which exports mainly to Europe, would be forced to slow down its carbon-heavy exports.
[This article originally appeared on euractiv.com]
EURACTIV
Climate diplomacy needs to release itself from the shackles of ‘systemic’ politics in order to achieve a climate agenda that is driven by human security interests, including equity and justice, and strengthen climate change initiatives at local, national and regional levels, in order to bridge the gap caused by the slow pace of progress at the international level.
Leaving No One Behind is the mantra of the 2019 UN-Water campaign. Foreign policy agendas of countries should apply the principle and integrate the voices of the most marginalised into the decision-making process, argues Dhanasree Jayaram.
Water is a matter of survival and plays a critical role in social, economic and environmental activities as well. With a rise in global demand for water, water crises have consistently featured among the World Economic Forum’s top global impact risks. Water insecurity, i.e., the lack of water availability for basic human needs and socio-economic development, undermines billions of livelihoods and poses significant risks for peace and prosperity by thwarting progress and fuelling displacement and conflict.
With climate change increasingly being seen as a security issue, we ask what role the United Nations Security Council could and should play. To answer this question, we are joined on the Climate Diplomacy Podcast by UN expert and Chatham House Associate Fellow Oli Brown. In this podcast, Oli explains some of the challenges that the UN Security Council has had in tackling climate change and outlines the prospects for action in the future.