Donald Trump's Destruction of the Paris Climate Accord https://theintercept.com/2017/06/01/will-trumps-slow-mo-walkaway-wo...

NAOMI
_KLEIN

Will Trump’s Slow-Mo

Walkaway, World in Flames
Behind Him, Finally Provoke
Consequences for Planetary
Arson?
Everything that is weak, disappointing, and inadequate about the Paris climate
accord is the result of U.S. lobbying since 2009.
Naomi Klein

June 1 2017, 11:33 a.m.

DONATE ⟶ f t

1 of 12 2023-05-18, 3:56 p.m.

Donald Trump's Destruction of the Paris Climate Accord https://theintercept.com/2017/06/01/will-trumps-slow-mo-walkaway-wo...

Donald Trump walks back into an elevator after emerging for a minute to speak to the
media at Trump Tower following meetings on Dec. 6, 2016 in New York City. Photo: Spencer
Platt/Getty Images

NOW THAT IT SEEMS virtually certain that Donald

Trump will withdraw the United States from the Paris climate accord,
and the climate movement is quite rightly mobilizing in the face of
this latest dystopian lurch, it’s time to get real about something: Pretty
much everything that is weak, disappointing, and inadequate about
that deal is the result of U.S. lobbying since 2009.

The fact that the agreement only commits governments to keeping

warming below an increase of 2 degrees, rather than a much safer firm
target of 1.5 degrees, was lobbied for and won by the United States.

The fact that the agreement left it to individual nations to determine

how much they were willing to do to reach that temperature target,
allowing them to come to Paris with commitments that collectively put
us on a disastrous course toward more than 3 degrees of warming, was
lobbied for and won by the United States.

The fact that the agreement treats even these inadequate commitments
as non-binding, which means governments apparently do not have
anything to fear if they ignore their commitments, is something else
that was lobbied for and won by the United States.

The fact that the agreement specifically prohibits poor countries from
seeking damages for the costs of climate disasters was lobbied for and

2 of 12 2023-05-18, 3:56 p.m.

Donald Trump's Destruction of the Paris Climate Accord https://theintercept.com/2017/06/01/will-trumps-slow-mo-walkaway-wo...

won by the United States.

≡
The fact that it is an “agreement” or an “accord” and not a treaty — the
very thing that makes it possible for Trump to stage his action-movie
slow-mo walk away, world in flames behind him — was lobbied for and
won by the United States.

I could go on. And on. Often the U.S. had help in this backroom
bullying from such illustrious petro-states as Saudi Arabia. When
aggressively lobbying to weaken the Paris accord, U.S. negotiators
usually argued that anything stronger would be blocked by the
Republican-controlled House and Senate. And that was probably true.
But some of the weakening — particularly those measures focused on
equity between rich and poor nations — was pursued mainly out of
habit, because looking after U.S. corporate interests is what the United
States does in international negotiations.

Whatever the reasons, the end result was an agreement that has a
decent temperature target, and an excruciatingly weak and half-assed
plan for reaching it. Which is why, when it was first unveiled, James
Hansen, arguably the most respected climate scientist in the world,
called the agreement “a fraud really, a fake,” because “there is no
action, just promises.”

3 of 12 2023-05-18, 3:56 p.m.

Donald Trump's Destruction of the Paris Climate Accord https://theintercept.com/2017/06/01/will-trumps-slow-mo-walkaway-wo...

U.S. Sen. Brian Schatz, right, speaks as Sens. Edward Markey, Maria Cantwell, and Tom
Carper listen during a news conference to urge President Donald Trump not to withdraw
from the Paris climate accord at the Capitol, May 24, 2017, in Washington. Photo: Alex
Wong/Getty Images

But weak is not the same as useless. The power of the Paris
Agreement was always in what social movements resolved to do with
it. Having a clear commitment to keep warming below 2 degrees
Celsius, while pursuing “efforts to limit the temperature increase to
1.5 C,” means there is no room left in the global carbon budget to
develop new fossil fuel reserves.

That simple fact, even without legal enforcement behind it, has been
a potent tool in the hands of movements against new oil pipelines,
fracking fields, and coal mines, as well as in the hands of some very
brave young people taking the U.S. government to court for failing to
protect their right to a safe future. And in many countries, including
the U.S. until quite recently, the fact that governments at least paid
lip service to that temperature target left them vulnerable to that
kind of moral and popular pressure. As author and 350.org co-founder
Bill McKibben said on the day the Paris deal was unveiled, world
leaders set a “1.5 C goal — and we’re damn well going to hold them to
it.”

In many countries, that strategy continues regardless of Trump. A few

weeks ago, for instance, a delegation from low-lying Pacific Island
nations traveled to the Alberta tar sands to demand that Prime

4 of 12 2023-05-18, 3:56 p.m.

Donald Trump's Destruction of the Paris Climate Accord https://theintercept.com/2017/06/01/will-trumps-slow-mo-walkaway-wo...

Minister Justin Trudeau stop expanding production of that carbon-

intensive fuel source, arguing that his failure to do so violates the ≡
spirit of the fine words and pledges he had made in Paris.

And this was always the task for the global climate justice movement
when it came to Paris: to try to hold governments to the strong spirit,
rather than the weak letter, of the agreement. The trouble is that as
soon as Trump moved into the White House, it was perfectly clear
that Washington was no longer susceptible to that kind of pressure.
Which makes some of the histrionics in the face of the news that
Trump seems to be officially withdrawing a bit baffling. However the
Paris Agreement decision went, we all already knew that significant
U.S. backsliding on climate was in the cards under Trump. We knew it
as soon as he appointed Rex Tillerson to head the State Department
and Scott Pruitt to head the EPA. We had it confirmed when he signed
his Keystone XL and Dakota Access Pipeline executive orders in his
first week on the job.

For months we have been hearing about the supposed power

struggles between those who wanted to stay in the agreement
(Ivanka, Tillerson) and those who favored leaving (Pruitt, chief
strategist Steve Bannon, Trump himself ). But the very fact that
Tillerson could have been the voice of the “stay” camp should have
exposed the absurdity of this whole charade.

It was oil companies like the one Tillerson worked at for 41 years
whose relentless lobbying helped ensure that the commitments made
in Paris lack any meaningful enforcement mechanisms. That’s why
one month after the agreement was negotiated, Exxon Mobil, with
Tillerson still at the helm, came out with a report stating that “we
expect oil, natural gas, and coal to continue to meet about 80 percent
of global demand” between now and 2040. It was a bald expression of
hubris by the purveyors of business as usual. Exxon knows full well

5 of 12 2023-05-18, 3:56 p.m.

Donald Trump's Destruction of the Paris Climate Accord https://theintercept.com/2017/06/01/will-trumps-slow-mo-walkaway-wo...

that if we want a decent chance of keeping warming below 1.5-2

degrees, the stated goal of the Paris Agreement, the global economy ≡
needs to be virtually fossil-free by mid-century. But Exxon could offer
those assurances to its investors — and claim it supported the
agreement — because it knew that the Paris accord had no binding
force.

It’s the same reason why the Tillerson faction of the Trump
administration thought it could reconcile staying in Paris while
simultaneously dismantling the centerpiece of the United States’
commitment under the agreement, the Clean Power Plan. Tillerson,
better than almost anyone on the planet, knows how legally weak the
agreement is. As CEO of Exxon, he helped make sure of that.

So as we try to make sense of this latest drama, make no mistake: The

Trump administration was never divided between those who wanted
to shred the Paris Agreement and those who wanted to respect it. It
was divided between those who wanted to shred it and those who
wanted to stay in it but completely ignore it. The difference is one of
optics; the same amount of carbon gets spewed either way.

Some say that’s not the point — that the real risk in the U.S.
withdrawing is that it will encourage everyone else to lower their
ambition, and soon everyone will be breaking up with Paris. Perhaps,
but not necessarily. Just as Trump’s health care disaster is
encouraging states to consider single payer more seriously than they
have in decades, Trump’s climate arson is so far only fuelling climate
ambition in states like California and New York. Rather than
throwing in the towel, coalitions like New York Renews, which is
pushing hard for the state to transition entirely to renewable energy
by 2050, are getting stronger and bolder by the day.

Outside the U.S., the signs aren’t bad either. The transition to

6 of 12 2023-05-18, 3:56 p.m.

Donald Trump's Destruction of the Paris Climate Accord https://theintercept.com/2017/06/01/will-trumps-slow-mo-walkaway-wo...

renewable energy is already proceeding so rapidly in Germany and

China, and prices are dropping so sharply, that forces far larger than≡
Trump are propelling the shift now. Of course it’s still possible that
Trump’s withdrawal will provoke global backsliding. But it’s also
possible that the opposite will happen — that other countries, under
pressure from their populations who are enraged by Trump’s actions
on pretty much every level, will become more ambitious if the U.S.
officially goes rogue. They might even decide to toughen the
agreement without U.S. negotiators slowing them down at every turn.

And there is another call that is increasingly being heard from social
movements around the world — for economic sanctions in the face of
Trump’s climate vandalism. Because here’s a crazy idea: Whether or
not it’s written into the Paris Agreement, when you unilaterally
decide to burn the world, there should be a price to pay. And that
should be true whether you are the United States government, or
Exxon Mobil — or some Frankenstein merger of the two.

A year ago, the suggestion that the U.S. should face tangible
punishment for putting the rest of the rest of humanity at risk was
laughed off in establishment circles: Surely no one would put their
trade relationships in danger for anything so frivolous as a liveable
planet. But just this week, Martin Wolf, writing in the Financial
Times, declared, “If the U.S. withdrew from the Paris accord, the rest
of the world must consider sanctions.”

We’re likely a long way from major U.S. trading partners taking that
kind of a step, but governments are not the only ones that can
impose economic penalties for lethal and immoral behavior.
Movements can do so directly, in the form of boycotts and divestment
campaigns targeting governments and corporations, on the South
African model. And not just fossil fuel corporations, but Trump’s
branded empire as well. Moral suasion doesn’t work on Trump.

7 of 12 2023-05-18, 3:56 p.m.

Donald Trump's Destruction of the Paris Climate Accord https://theintercept.com/2017/06/01/will-trumps-slow-mo-walkaway-wo...

Economic pressure just might.

≡
It’s time for some people’s sanctions.

Naomi Klein’s new book, “No Is Not Enough: Resisting Trump’s Shock Politics
and Winning the World We Need,” will be published this month.

8 of 12 2023-05-18, 3:56 p.m.