Re-joining the Paris Agreement is not enough.
By: Jennifer Mleczko
Tags: Climate Change, Politics, Government, Biden, Foreign Policy

After four years of Trump, there is still a chance to save the planet. Part of it requires rethinking how we approach foreign policy.

A continuous lack of strong U.S. leadership on the global stage could lead to decades of damage to the environment as well as the U.S. economy. The past four years have shown how carefully cultivated alliances and foreign partnerships- that have spanned multiple administrations- can crumble. Could the damage be undone? And could the world rely once again on the U.S. to hold on to its promises and lead on global challenges?

The G20 leaders have just completed their summit, emphasizing the need for cooperation in fighting the pandemic and pledging their commitment to safeguarding the planet through the Paris Climate Accords. Trump vehemently opposed these statements, in contrast to Biden’s promise to rejoin the agreement on his first day in office and foster international cooperation. These starkly opposing narratives begs two questions: can the world trust the U.S. to abide by its commitments — or will countries be subject to a toxic relationship of on-again, off-again cycles that last anywhere between 4–8 years? And is rejoining the Paris Agreement even enough?

As for the first question, only time will tell if the world will treat the last four years as an anomaly or a pattern. And it was quite the anomaly: from throwing out the Paris Agreement, to the dead-in-the-water Trans Pacific Partnership (TPP), a withdrawal from the Iran Nuclear deal, the hot-cold relationship with North Korea, as well as unpredictable travel bans, trade wars, and tariffs, Trump’s four years have been tumultuous for foreign policy. It has also been disastrous for the planet, setting the world back potentially decades from achieving key climate change goals. The answer to the second question is more clear: rejoining the Paris Agreement does not go far enough.

For one, environmental experts have mixed feelings about the success of the Paris Agreement. The thing with humanitarian international agreements is that they are usually more bark than they are bite. To be successful, they rely heavily on transparency, strong compliance with reporting, and pure national ambition — of which many countries fall short. And when a country fails to meet its obligations under an agreement, one of the few mechanisms that might work is international shaming… which happens to be extremely ineffective in the face of national populism.

Not to discount the agreement’s lofty goal — getting 196 countries on board to save our planet is an undeniable and hard fought success. However, if we are to turn the clock back the past four years, the new Biden administration is going to have to go farther than ever before. Today’s nomination of John Kerry as Biden’s Special Climate Envoy — which will be housed under the high echelons of the National Security Council, is admittedly a good start. Nonetheless, Biden’s other stated initiatives come off as lackluster. While Biden does plan to convene a “climate world summit” within his first 100 days, it’s unclear how this will be any different than what the Paris Agreement aims to achieve. Biden’s plan also states that it will “lock-in enforceable commitments”…though without offering a real strategy.

Well, here’s at least one strategy. The Biden Administration can move beyond the fluff of good-will agreements and begin to address the climate crisis by ensuring concrete environmental measures are built in to every possible angle of foreign policy, including trade and national security. This, of course, on top of revamping our own national commitments.

This started happening under the Obama administration. The Trans Pacific Partnership (TPP), had it gone through, would have governed 40% of global GDP and one-third of global trade under the strongest environmental standards any U.S. trade deal has ever seen. And while criticized by environmental groups, any lack-there-of under TPP doesn’t compare to the worst case scenario of a trade deal without — which is exactly what ended up happening. The signing of the The Regional Comprehensive Economic Partnership (RCEP) last week will create the world largest trading bloc in terms of population — 2.2 billion. And unlike the TPP, this agreement included no protections or standards for the environment or labor rights. While the U.S. looked inward, countries moved forward — with or without environmental protections, and certainly without waiting for the U.S.

Besides saving the planet, there is also a strong economic argument (for those who need it). The damage done to the U.S. economy by pulling out of international agreements could span decades, with four years of foreign policy drama branded with the idea of “America First” all for nothing. As nations move ahead, they are creating their own regional agreements with the goal of strengthening their own economies. Without U.S. willingness to cooperate, countries are looking elsewhere, to closer country partners and economic powerhouses like China. These regions, coming together with goals such as decreased tariffs and enhanced free trade, will become more reliant on their trading partners for lower cost goods and services. They will benefit from strong relationships for their exports as well. Ultimately, the U.S. will be shouldered out in favor of these trading partners, potentially suffering the loss of key economic partnerships.

Trade agreements, along with other foreign policy initiatives, can give the Paris Agreement its bite. Tying environmental protection to other international objectives such as free-trade or national security through standards, technical regulations, and compliance mechanisms can foster action. This would greatly help the Paris Agreement’s enforcement struggles, while meeting important environmental, economic and global security goals.

Without strong leadership on all foreign policy fronts, countries and regions will continue to move on their own — without the U.S., and often without these critical protections essential for environmental and economic sustainability. “The U.S. has been the driving force, not just behind the global economic order, but also pursuing higher standards on free trade” said Stephen Olson, a former United States trade negotiator who worked on NAFTA. So will the U.S. abdicate that role? Or will it once again stand up to the global challenges of the 21st century? Which include, most importantly, saving our planet.