The the world from the decision of the US

The Paris climate Agreement is an arrangement within nations in order to deal with greenhouse gas emission. This meeting was set to respond to the threat of continued increase of global temperature, by slashing the emission of carbon dioxide and other emission from burning fossil fuel. This agreement is not penalising nations who cannot make the commitments nor legally binding. The aims are to hold the increase of global temperature to 1.5 to 2 °C and cut the gas emission by 40 – 70%. in order to reduce the impact of climate change, low the emission of greenhouse gas emissions and making finance flows lowering greenhouse gas emission and climate resilient development such as extreme flood and droughts. At the beginning, nearly 200 countries joined to the Paris climate Agreement, except for Syria, Nicaragua and US. Syria destroyed from war, and Nicaragua holdout because felt that the agreement was not enough to put limits and helping poor countries. Successively both Syria and Nicaragua joined, leaving the US the only nation out of Paris Climate Agreement. This essay will analyse the consequences that will bring to the world from the decision of the US by staying out the game. From this agreement is possible to see only two outcomes: who will win? Who will lose? Who will benefit or lose the most and what will happen to the humanity in next five decades?

Donald Trump and his campaign have been described as one the most controversial of the last decade in US history. Since day one Trump’s administration has only one concern: America and Americans first, and in June, in fact, president Trump said that: “American workers are being put at an economic disadvantage by the deal”, in particular referring to coal workers. 4 He also said that deal is disadvantageous to the US and gives “exclusive benefits of other countries”, therefore it will bring only harm to the average American citizens. For Trump, the real winner is the US which is out of the deal, however, things might be different from how actually looks like.

We Will Write a Custom Essay Specifically
For You For Only $13.90/page!

order now

From the Paris Agreement, there is two different type of winners, short and long-term. In the short-term US will lose the trust from European allies, a legacy last since WWII. In a recent NATO meeting in Brussels, Trump did not confirm the US’s commitment to mutual defence. The chancellor Angela Merkel said: “We Europeans truly have to take our fate into our own hands … We have to know that we must fight for our future on our own, for our destiny as Europeans.” 6 Losing a strategic ally as EU could cause future severe distress to the US economy. From the Paris Agreement France came out as a strong and reliable ally, which with excellent diplomacy built bridges with other countries gaining respect and confidence.

So far China was following the US in green renewable energy race, but now, is investing £292 billion in renewable power by 2020, making the great shift from coal toward cleaner fuels, which will also create 13 million jobs in the sector, crippling drastically the American renewable energy market. In the next five years, China will be leading the market of renewable energy – followed by EU, which is in a continuous crescendo, moving from the West to the East. In a long run, clean-renewable energy will benefit not only the planet, also the economy, as nowadays is more and more shifting toward new technologies and non-renewable sources (fossil fuels) related jobs are dropping. 7

Before Trump, coal industries were drastically decreasing, however, some coal companies due to political influence could actually benefit (in a short run). However, only the people on executives level will take the whole benefits, and not the average miner.

Regarding the loser’s side, in a long-term everybody and everything is going to lose. Anthropogenic climate change is the major cause of desertification in hot desert-border countries, such as Sub-Sahara, Middle East or part of India, where due to a lack of rain, creates long periods of drought. On the opposite spectrum, seaside countries with low-lying coastal regions or island will be completely “eaten” the water. Is estimated that by 2025 Bangladesh a country heavily populated, could cause a displacement of over 25 million people, due to the rise of the sea level. Causing one of the greatest refugee catastrophes in the last few decades. As a matter of fact, this situation would influence globally and in multiple places at the same time, which mean it would create one of the greatest humanitarian crisis in the history. Underdeveloped or the developing countries, will be the ones which will suffer the most, as most of them are in the danger zone. Poor countries afflicted by constant droughts, floods, cyclones etc. will only become poorer. First world countries such as the US will be dramatically afflicted, where hurricanes will be stronger, and therefore costlier for US government (Hurricane Harvey cost $400 billion).

Scientists have estimated that by 2050 over 100 million people will be uprooted from their home and consequently reach for more secure, tranquil and more developed countries such as EU and US. By looking at a recent mass migration from Syria due to the civil war, we saw that a far away from local war caused a mass migration, where looking for better place to live landed in European countries, which brought scepticism toward immigrants. That activated a series of chain mechanism which brought us series of consequences such as Brexit, Muslim ban or the rise of a right-wing politician in a different part of Europe. If such a minuscule butterfly effect caused so much issue to the western economy, what would be the geopolitical and global economic situation when will be ten times greater?

            It is very hard to say what will happen in the future, even with our great knowledge and latest technologies, one thing is sure that it would be harder both political and economic perspective. However, is still possible to win this game, a game where the prize is the survival of humankind. We live in a variegated and heterogeneous world, but we all share a common goal, now more than ever leader all around the world have joined their strength and pursue this global crisis. The socio-political and economic damage from climate change will be unprecedented, and as the USA is the second largest country for carbon dioxide emission (followed by China), should be more concerned about their priorities. As the technology moves forward, economics must progress with new technologies, as science should not know any countries, because of it the torch that brightens the world, and should belong to all humanities. Developed countries should clean technology free from intellectual property right to poor ones, as one day those people might knock to our doors, we have to decide either take everyone in our home or looking powerless outside the window and see them suffer.