Today, in a not so unexpected move, President Trump announced his decision to remove the United States from the Paris Climate Accord, an international agreement which was established during the time of the Obama administration.
Under the agreement, the United States, along with many other nations, would be pledging to reduce emissions by a certain amount compared to 2005 levels, (26% - 28% in the case of the USA) by the year 2025, as well as make financial contributions that will help developing nations adjust their energy infrastructure.
There are many interesting facets to this development, and If you can take a break from the one-sided, bandwagon reaction that is happening throughout Social Media Land, I would like to go over some of these with you.
An important point in this debate is that Trump wants to grow the economy. Growing the economy is good for everyone. Trump would like to hit a mark of 3% sustained growth of GDP. This is doable but some experts think it may be an unsustainable rate. We grew at a rate of 2.1 percent in Q4 2016, and 1.2% in Q1 2017. Although Trump's goal may be ambitious, it is no surprise that he will do everything in his power to accomplish it. The Paris accord would essentially make this desired growth rate impossible.
President Trump said today: "At one percent growth, renewable sources of energy can meet some of our domestic demand but at three or four percent growth, which I expect, we need all forms of available American energy..."
Would it be better to simply give up before his presidency even really got started? No, of course not, who would ever say that that is a better attitude than to strive for this 3% growth rate.
I think this is part of make america great again. The US hasn't seen a sustained growth over 3% since the year 2000.
Agreeing to the deal as it is written would mean that the United States would put an increased reduction of greenhouse emission (fossil fuel consumption) into effect in the very near term. Scaling up as time goes on.
By doing this, many industries would be affected. If you watch Trump's speech from today, he mentions Paper, Cement, Iron, Steel, Coal, and Natural gas losing significant percentages of their production output. He also cites that "manufacturing" as a whole would take a hit, including automobile manufacturing.
In total this loss of production would set us back $3 TRILLION in GDP and 6.5 million jobs. (by 2040) That is very substantial.
These stats come from a study by the National Economics Research Associates (NERA). You can read the actual study here.
Some critics are saying that these numbers do not accurately account for innovation and growth in alternative energy companies. And that increased output from them would compensate for lost jobs and production. I can definitely accept that as true and I'm not surprised that Trump would use overly exaggerated numbers. But still, even given an optimistic growth in alternative energy jobs you would only make a dent in this massive loss of production.
Also, what reason is there to think that the rate of innovation in clean energy would increase because of the accord. I would argue that the opposite is true. Where would clean energy companies be getting the resources they need to complete these improved designs? From thin air? The Paris climate deal does not fund domestic businesses or give subsidies to american clean energy companies, it merely cuts our production capacity for backbone industries such as coal, iron (steel), and concrete. Surely this would actually slow the rate of technological developments in all areas.
The truth is that clean energy will innovate and grow anyways, because it is a good thing for everyone, and it can save us money in the long run, and because it is a business. So the fact that this will compensate for some of the lost GDP does not change much.
Innovation costs money. It means buying upgrades and paying people to be smart. This money will not magically spring forth from mother earth just because she feels a little better. Actually, THE MONEY COMES FROM OUR GDP. America as a whole will be getting less done, making (and selling) less products. Innovation is a universal phenomenon. Meaning that innovation in one area can affect all other areas. The less business we do over the economy as a whole, the less benefit any one business in particular will stand to gain by way of collective experience. (i.e. workers at solar city will have less effective cars to drive to work in, so they will be less likely to innovate new solar panels etc. etc. etc.)
Think of this fictional example scenario: Car manufacturer GM plans to build a new building to house R+D. Over the course of time between finding and hiring the various contractors, to the final completion of the building, a lot of work has to be done. This work is contingent on GM paying the contractors for the materials they use in construction. These materials will be more expensive and less effective the more the output of their respective industry is crippled. I'm talking about the concrete in the foundation, the steel in the support structure, and all the energy it took to make and transport these items. The total cost, if we follow the Paris deal, is higher. Over all this will result in slower construction times for the GM R+D building because of the total amount of time lost to the decreased production and delivery of raw materials.
Let's say for argument sake that because of decreased production capacity, this R+D building takes 4 months longer to complete than normal. This causes a delay of 4 months to the start of research from a new group of GM engineers in vehicle safety technologies. Meaning that safer tech is brought to market 4 months slower, and people are less safe on the road than absolutely could be.
This leads to a globally increased rate of highway injuries, thus thwarting advancement across all industries.
This concept is somewhat tangential to the original thought I proposed which is that "Innovation is collective across all disciplines." But it is simply a brain exercise to get you to understand this type of thinking. Not a statement of something that is certain to happen.
Everything is additive.
You've probably heard the argument: "More people are employed by clean energy companies than they are by the coal industry." While this may be true, reducing coal usage does not just affect the coal industry, it affects all the industries which rely on the power coal generates. (mentioned above)
We are just in an infinite loop at this point. The US has goals. We would like to meet those goals in due time. Accepting the terms of the accord will only put us behind.
In contrast to the USA, 2 of the other big fossil fuel burners, India and China, have much more relaxed schedules.
China does not pledge to reduce their usage AT ALL until the year 2030. At which point they are expected to hit a "peak" where they will be expected to start tapering off growth rate.
Although relations between China and North Korea are not superb, China remains North Korea's largest trading partner. So a good economy in China can spell good things for N. Korea as well. Trump does not want us to fall behind here.
A lot of the backlash to the Trump withdrawal is the concept that America is not taking the stance of a leader. America remains a safe country because of our incredible industry and capacity for production. To limit this factor would be diminish our position as a leader in terms of these crucial factors. This is not something we can sacrifice in order to appear philosophically high and mighty.
This all boils down to maintaining Americas ability to remain ahead of the pack.
The second major reason for leaving the Paris accord is the funding for developing nations. As part of the agreement, $100B per year is supposed to be raised for poor nations in order to help them create alternative energy solutions.
Our part would be the largest contribution. Potentially up to %30 of the total but Obama set a precedent of $3 Billion pledged thus far with $1B actually paid up. The world at large has pledged $10B thus far, with the $100B mark being the scaled up goal for the future.
As Benjy Sarlin of nbcnews.com argues:
"Trump described this amount as "costing the United States a vast fortune," but it's a minuscule portion of the budget, where total federal spending in the 2016 fiscal year was $3.9 trillion."
Who care's if it's a minuscule part of the budget. Of course it is. Every individual issue you look at is going to be minuscule to the budget of the entire united states. It's 3 Billion dollars. That is, let's say, "A fortune" if not "A vast Fortune." And don't forget, this payment will only get larger in the future in order to scale up to the proposed $100B goal worldwide.
Many prominent figures had a reaction to Trump's decision.
The best one yet comes from former President Barack Obama himself:
Obama decried Trump's decision in a statement released Thursday.
"The nations that remain in the Paris Agreement will be the nations that reap the benefits in jobs and industries created," the former president said.
How does this make any sense? The US does not stand to reap in any "benefits in jobs and industries created." The only nations getting bonus jobs and industries are the ones WE would be paying for through the UN Green Climate Fund.
He added: "I believe the United States of America should be at the front of the pack. But even in the absence of American leadership; even as this Administration joins a small handful of nations that reject the future; I'm confident that our states, cities, and businesses will step up and do even more to lead the way, and help protect for future generations the one planet we've got."
This is the leadership criticism. It isn't leadership to fall behind in GDP growth rate. It is the president's job to guide us safely to the future in a world full of potentially unstable, dangerous, and threatening people, groups, or nations. Primarily this means we need to stay ahead in production, jobs, and technology, so that our ideology of freedom and democracy can overpower any competitors. He sees this job as eclipsing the need to appear as a type of moralistic leader in a deal which has a much more impactful language for the US than for other countries. When you look at it this way, it's not as difficult as you might think to agree with President Trump.
How about we at least protect the one country we've got, before we worry about the whole planet, Mr. Obama?
What if some major clean energy production facilities were bombed? Would that help us become a leader in green tech? If you want to see the greatest improvements in technology, and hence the greatest benefit to all humanity, we have to keep our researchers alive and their facilities in tact. We are and will continue to be a leader in clean energy, regardless of the Paris deal.
People work on clean energy because it's the right thing to do. We can rely on that.
When we see "Major companies asking Trump to stay in the deal." - These pleas are often accompanied by boasts that "X Company (cough, google, cough, apple) will continue to work hard for clean energy and the environment." This is just a marketing plug to get some feel good publicity out there to feeble minded bandwagon ridin' customers.
Google, we know you are going to continue to lead in green tech, musk, we know you are going to keep powering with clean energy, that's what you do. It's profitable to ride a wave of public opinion and make yourself look like the superhero good guy. That's what they are doing with these "Pleas."
The problem is that many people simply do not understand the scope of reality or the present scale of nation states and the forces of interaction between them. They seem to only be able to digest at most one to two key words from their magic screens at a time, and are prone to choose sides blindly and on a basis of whim.
There is one more interesting side effect to today's decision that is definitely worth mentioning:
Elon Musk, solar panel and electric car king, has decided to quit the Trump advisory panel on account of the President's decision to leave the Paris deal today.
Elon Musk is quickly becoming one of the world leaders in innovative technologies of all types. From Tesla Motors and SolarCity, to having his hands in first round investments in some of the most important AI companies of our time. Not to mention the world's first successful private orbital rocketry business, SpaceX.
When he talks, people listen. He's sort of a cousin of Mr. Trump's in terms of his excessive, and effective, use of twitter to influence the masses.
This move send more of a message than any 140 character text blurb though.
Why did he do this?
Does this have anything to do with the billions of dollars being sent abroad to be spent on, among other things, solar panels? Dear reader, do I really need to explain to you that Elon Musk's SolarCity is the worlds largest solar company by market share?
Or is he really just that morally perfect, everyone?
No. This move, like any other, is to sway public opinion to his camp. Not that most people would have a hard time finding a reason to like Elon.
He is using the fervor of the masses to do something shocking, so that people will remember his name. Of course it worked.
But, objectively speaking, is that really what would be best for advancement of clean energy in the USA? Not really. Isn't it more valuable to have a chance to sit in meetings with the President himself and advise him, than it is to pull a nose in the air, publicity stunt intended to coagulate the sappy customers of tweet-happy top 5 TECHers and his own sprawling corporate domains into a morally superior self-righteous throng?
So. Objectively. Has Elon Musk not chosen selfishly?
It's actually the same as the argument as "we can help more in the accord than out." Musk could "help more inside the administration than out." The difference is that musk wouldn't be required to reduce the number of hours he spends working and to pay other trump advisers millions of dollars in order to remain an adviser.
Finally, I'd like to talk about President Donald Trump's belief that climate change is a hoax, and that he doesn't even believe it is real.
I am clearly not in this camp. I fully understand that climate change is a real and dangerous phenomenon. I just think that we will all be happier, more effective workers in a society that is not falling behind in it's GDP goals. I think we are taking more of a leadership role by showing the world that we can't be tricked into taking the short straw. This will give us the platform we need to make real quality advances in clean energy and every other useful tech field.