Global Climate Policy

ANDY’S POINT (On Global Climate Policy):

While withdrawal from Climate Accord reduces our global sway and was foolishly short-sighted (simply to satisfy Trump voters in Fossil States), how much damage has it actually caused? Aren’t industry (Multi-nationals) and cities moving ahead anyway on Decarb? And the Intended Nationally Determined Contributions (INDCs) don’t get us but a third of the way to the target of limiting temperature rise to 2C, right?



GRANT’S COUNTERPOINT (On Global Climate Policy):

While I do agree with you that certain states and selected cities are moving ahead on de-carbonization of their energy mix, and that no, in the global scheme of things related to accumulated emissions over the last century, that it doesn’t really make a difference in the short term as to how much ‘damage’ has been done as a direct result of the Trump administration related to global climate systems.
However I do contend that damage has been done to the momentum of structuring global economic policy to integrate or internalize the negative atmospheric cost of additional greenhouse gasses released. The leadership gauntlet that could have been shared more equally, if not handed diplomatically to a charismatic and compelling climate intelligent leader, requires the cooperation if not outright leadership of the United States and China and Europe, and of selected representation of the developing and transition economies. It is imperative we continue the dialog and the pressure on restructuring our consumptive industries and economies in order to secure a reasonably habitable planet based on a system that values the environment, rather than freely allowing its exploitation.



View & Purchase the latest edition of CCBJ here.