Despite the declarations of President Trump, the U.S. continues to be tied to the Paris Agreement on climate change. However, its tenure does not imply that the commitments are being respected. The executive order signed on Monday by the head of state, designed to roll back a large part of the environmental legacy of Barack Obama, will impede the path toward the aims set out by the agreement.
The policy change does not just reduce the level of U.S. backing in the fight against climate change. The attitude of such an influential nation, home of a major part of the scientific investigation into the phenomenon and, at the same time, possessing an industrial development that disproportionately contributes to the cause of the problem, gives license to other countries to not play their part. Therefore, the impact of U.S. non-compliance is even more critical.
Trump’s order demands that the Environmental Protection Agency dismantle the Clean Power Plan from the previous administration. This had been created with the intention of closing down hundreds of coal power plants, freezing the construction of new installations, and replacing them with clean energy methods, such as solar and wind power generators.
The U.S., the second most contaminated country on the planet and the first per capita, is committed to reducing greenhouse gas emissions by 26 percent in relation to the levels recorded in 2005. The target date of that objective was fixed for 2025. However, this will not be possible without the regulations of the Clean Power Plan and other measures, the tampering of which is of major concern to the international community, including efficiency targets for vehicles and the moratorium on the opening of new coal mines on state-owned land.
The Clean Power Plan was put forward by Obama in 2014 as a way to convince the Chinese president, Xi Jinping, to commit to combating polluting emissions. Chinese resistance to that idea was overcome at the time, and the road was left clear to add the great Asiatic power to the agreement signed in Paris in 2015.
Now however, the roles are reversed and China vows to continue moving forward, even without the anticipated participation of the United States. Neither have other big players, such as India, shown any sign that they are considering a reversal. The endeavor of those key nations is a beacon of hope for the rest of the world. Costa Rica, although comparatively modest in size, should do everything in its limited power to encourage this. In particular, our country should not hesitate in following those grand examples.
The U.S., apart from creating grave hazards for the planet, risks conceding to the others the lead position in the development and adoption of sources of energy that, besides from benefiting the environment, could be more advantageous for the economy in the future. In the U.S. itself, coal power is facing a battle against the increasingly competitive solar and wind production.
The dismantling of the environmental legacy of Obama will take a long time and every step will be disputed in the courts. Various states, including the formidable New York and California, announced resistance to the relaxing of the safeguards against climate change. Nevertheless, the uncertainty brought about by the pivot taken by the Trump administration could have regrettable effects for a fight that, as the Chinese president rightly said in Switzerland, is being fought for future generations.
Pese a las declaraciones del presidente Donald Trump, Estados Unidos sigue adherido al Acuerdo de ParÃs sobre cambio climático, pero su permanencia no implica respeto a los compromisos adquiridos. La orden ejecutiva firmada el lunes por el mandatario para dar marcha atrás a una buena parte del legado ambiental de Barack Obama impedirá alcanzar las metas establecidas en el convenio.
El cambio no solo disminuye el aporte de los estadounidenses a la lucha contra el cambio climático. Las actitudes de una nación tan influyente, hogar de buena parte de la investigación cientÃfica sobre el fenómeno y, al mismo tiempo, dueña de un desarrollo industrial que contribuyó de manera desproporcionada a crear el problema, ofrece una excusa o licencia a otros paÃses para no hacer su parte. El impacto del incumplimiento estadounidense es, en consecuencia, todavÃa mayor.
Estados Unidos, el segundo paÃs más contaminante del planeta y el primero per cápita, se comprometió a reducir las emisiones de gases de efecto invernadero en un 26% en relación con los niveles registrados en el 2005. El cumplimiento de esa meta fue fijado para el 2025, pero no será posible sin las regulaciones del Plan de EnergÃa Limpia y otras medidas cuyo relajamiento preocupa a la comunidad internacional, incluidas las metas de eficiencia fijadas para los vehÃculos y la moratoria contra la apertura de nuevas minas de carbón en tierras estatales.
El Plan de EnergÃa Limpia fue esgrimido como argumento por Obama, en el 2014, para convencer al presidente chino Xi Jinping de comprometerse a combatir las emisiones contaminantes. Vencida la resistencia china en aquel momento, el camino quedó despejado para sumar a la gran potencia asiática al convenio firmado en ParÃs en el 2015.
El desmantelamiento del legado ambiental de Obama tardará mucho tiempo y será disputado a cada paso en estrados judiciales. Varios estados de la unión, incluidos los formidables Nueva York y California, anuncian resistencia al relajamiento de las regulaciones contra el cambio climático. No obstante, la incertidumbre introducida por el giro de la administración Trump podrÃa tener efectos lamentables para una lucha que, como bien dijo en Suiza el presidente de China, se libra en favor de las futuras generaciones.
This post appeared on the front page as a direct link to the original article with the above link
.
Washington is no longer content with slow exhaustion; it has adopted a strategy of swift, symbolic strikes designed to recalibrate the international landscape.
The message is unmistakable: there are no absolute guarantees and state sovereignty is conditional when it clashes with the interests of powerful states.
Venezuela is likely to become another wasted crisis, resembling events that followed when the U.S. forced regime changes in Libya, Afghanistan and Iraq.
We are faced with a "scenario" in which Washington's exclusive and absolute dominance over the entire hemisphere, from Greenland and Canada in the north to the southern reaches of Argentina and Chile.
The message is unmistakable: there are no absolute guarantees and state sovereignty is conditional when it clashes with the interests of powerful states.
Venezuela is likely to become another wasted crisis, resembling events that followed when the U.S. forced regime changes in Libya, Afghanistan and Iraq.
We are faced with a "scenario" in which Washington's exclusive and absolute dominance over the entire hemisphere, from Greenland and Canada in the north to the southern reaches of Argentina and Chile.