The Pros And Cons Of The Paris Agreement

The Paris Agreement is an agreement to reinforce the global response to climate change by limiting the rise in temperature to 2 degrees and was established in 2015 by 195 nations, with 147 ratifying it. To attain this goal, a strong framework with the support of countries is essential and required. However, the U.S. is no longer one of the countries that will support the Paris Agreement since June 1st, 2017, due to economic, political and institutional circumstances. President Trump's decision to halt U.S. participation in the Paris Agreement is to protect the country from an economic disadvantage. In the U.S., adherence to the Paris Accord costs 2.7 million jobs that will be lost by 2025 according to the National Economic Research Associates

So we can't build the plants, but they can, according to this agreement. India will be allowed to double its coal production by 2020" (The White House 2017). President Trump clearly identifies the advantages that other countries gain from the disadvantages of the U.S. Meanwhile, countries like China and India continue to expand their coal production, and the U.S. according to the agreement, has to terminate its production. Despite terminating this, the agreement holds a production cut of 12 percent for paper, 23 percent for cement, and 38 percent iron and steel. This results a cost of $3 trillion in lost gross domestic product (GDP), 6.5 million industrial jobs and an income loss of $7,000 for households (The White House 2017). As shown, the agreement to Trump will be a reduction in many significant areas. Trump and his administration insisted that the Paris Agreement is unequal because foreign countries are taking the U.S. advantages. Two-thirds of the voters do not agree with Trump because they claim that proceeding with the reduction plan is important, disregarding what other countries do (William A. Galston 2017). In addition, thousands of mayors, governors, and chief executives support the agreement and have

Galston, et al. published “Trump’s Paris Agreement Withdrawal: What it means and what comes next” about the responses they have heard regarding their expectations of Trump’s decision. Mark Muro claims, “the withdrawal represents a willful abdication of America’s leadership role in the world,” because the problem is not the withdrawal but Trump’s attempt to demolish the climate policy at a federal level. Federalism allows states and cities to question the irrationality of decisions that are made and to use that against the undesired action. Timmons Roberts said that the withdrawal allows an opportunity to understand the influence of politics and politics of our country’s industries. Roberts response is similar to Galston’s because they both see a positive factor in Trump’s decision. It opens up the freedom to understand the country in different contexts to identify weaknesses in the system. The American Petroleum Institute has a yearly budget of $244 million to influence policy. The private voices of fossil fuel firms and groups at work are causing a delay on the issues that exist. This concludes a silence of the majority of Americans who support their own and other countries that what to resolve world issues (Timmons Roberts 2017). The responses suggest that America’s role in the world is changing because leaving the agreement is viewed as a lack of care for the future generation. The government’s actions do not speak of the majority voters because the