Climate Matters
Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump have spent a lot of time and energy eroding each other’s Achilles Heels. The conservative front pounces on anything that could shed more light on Hillary’s email scandal, while the liberal media baits Trump with provocative statements on immigration and his history of sexual misconduct. In this incessant exchange of insults, one might forget that neither candidate has addressed the issue of climate change and proposed a strategy for working with other countries to mitigate the brewing environmental disaster. Yes, Hillary, it’s easy to call global warming an “overwhelming challenge” and pronounce your willingness to attend lavish international conferences that get nothing done. Sure, Donald, it’s funny to proclaim environmental concerns as a figment of China’s imagination and then point to the devastation Asian firms have caused in Detroit.
Mr. Trump, have you looked at pictures of northern Chinese cities drenched in smog, or listened to the unequivocal expertise of most scientists? The United States’ hegemony rests not on its ability to force other nations to take responsibility for our problems and provide global public goods. Rather, our hegemony relies on our willingness to set an example for other countries.
The United States does not need leaders like George W. Bush, who refused to ratify the Kyoto Protocol because of the asymmetric burdens it placed on developed and developing nations. Does Mr. Bush want Bangladeshi or Nepalese firms to increase their production costs and therefore hamper their progress? Countries like the United Kingdom suffered most from pollution during their Industrial Revolutions and only became environmentally-conscious once they had reached a certain level of economic development. Only mature economic countries have the capacity to absorb the costs of environmental preservation without demanding large sacrifices from their citizens.
Obama has impressed many Americans with his commitment to protecting our natural wonders, safeguarding millions of acres of land. Indeed, he has bypassed Congress in many cases and used his executive powers to establish standards for energy efficiency and air/water pollution. His résumé on international environmental negotiations, however, leaves much to be desired.
After the 2015 United Nations Climate Change Conference in Paris, leaders from around the world—including Obama—retreated to their respective countries to proclaim their commitment to and success in fighting global warming. Really? Do they think that countries and firms will give up their financial ambitions and instead strive to limit global emissions to two degrees Celsius? With no precision regarding the size of each country’s contribution, and no enforcement mechanisms, the deal accomplishes nothing but create a guise of progress. The agreement will inevitably result in the collective action problem, a condition in which all actors defect on their commitments in anticipation that others will pay for the cost of providing the good.
Hillary Clinton will have to do more than sign agreements and write lengthy standards; she will have to provide economic incentives for reducing emissions to companies who have long ignored the externalities that their factories created.
The United States could learn from Europe, whose countries have remarkably high ratings on the Environmental Protection Index. In 2005, Europe implemented the Emissions Trading Scheme (ETS). Covering the dirtiest industries and thousands of factories throughout Europe, the plan allocates tradable allowances for greenhouse gases to each firm. To exceed the designated amount of emissions, a company must purchase credits from other firms. This system motivates firms to reduce their emissions without infringing on their profits. Every few years, ETS lowers the emissions cap, forcing firms to lower emissions but also increasing the value of the credit.
I believe the United States could create an analogous agreement with like-minded countries like Canada. However, I caution the United States from working in large coalitions, as smaller groups of countries often strike more meaningful concessions and can better monitor their commitments. Nonetheless, the next president must forge strong agreements not only with domestic companies, but also with other governments to build momentum.
Unfortunately, there are very few examples in which world leaders have cooperated to help the environment. Fatalists and pessimists like Donald Trump deny that anything can be done to alleviate the problem. Optimists point to the Vienna Convention and Montreal Protocol on chlorofluorocarbons in demonstrating the international community’s capacity to act when it’s urgent. But can we really wait until it’s urgent?