* Your assessment is very important for improving the workof artificial intelligence, which forms the content of this project
Download Is Trump Right or Wrong to Withdraw from the Paris
Attribution of recent climate change wikipedia , lookup
Media coverage of global warming wikipedia , lookup
Global warming wikipedia , lookup
Climate change in Tuvalu wikipedia , lookup
Climate change and agriculture wikipedia , lookup
Scientific opinion on climate change wikipedia , lookup
Climate change mitigation wikipedia , lookup
Climate change adaptation wikipedia , lookup
Climate change feedback wikipedia , lookup
Climate engineering wikipedia , lookup
Climate governance wikipedia , lookup
Effects of global warming on humans wikipedia , lookup
United Nations Climate Change conference wikipedia , lookup
Surveys of scientists' views on climate change wikipedia , lookup
Climate change, industry and society wikipedia , lookup
Solar radiation management wikipedia , lookup
Low-carbon economy wikipedia , lookup
Mitigation of global warming in Australia wikipedia , lookup
Effects of global warming on Australia wikipedia , lookup
Climate change in the United States wikipedia , lookup
Climate change and poverty wikipedia , lookup
Economics of global warming wikipedia , lookup
Public opinion on global warming wikipedia , lookup
Years of Living Dangerously wikipedia , lookup
Views on the Kyoto Protocol wikipedia , lookup
Citizens' Climate Lobby wikipedia , lookup
German Climate Action Plan 2050 wikipedia , lookup
Politics of global warming wikipedia , lookup
Carbon emission trading wikipedia , lookup
Business action on climate change wikipedia , lookup
2009 United Nations Climate Change Conference wikipedia , lookup
Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme wikipedia , lookup
Is Trump Right or Wrong to Withdraw from the Paris Agreement? A cost-based analysis by climate risk analytics firm CARBON DELTA David Lunsford, Oliver Marchand, Elke Schaper, Sara Stocker, Amir Habchi June, 2017 - Zürich, Switzerland CARBON DELTA AG Wunderlistrasse 45 8037 Zürich Switzerland Contact: [email protected] Website: http://www.carbon-delta.com IS TRUMP RIGHT OR WRONG TO WITHDRAW FROM THE PARIS AGREEMENT? The decision of U.S. President Donald Trump to pull out of the Paris Agreement has sent chills across the globe. Trump left the Paris Agreement on the grounds that it would be overly costly and very unfair to the U.S. economy, killing hundreds of thousands of jobs and harming industries he suggested were already stricken by the twin-forces of globalization and technological change. Analysts all over the world are analyzing all aspects of the move by Trump. One major question being whether Trump has a legitimate reason for his claims of unfairness towards the US - most of them assuming that this is yet another unjustified national political move. As co-founders of a climate risk analysis startup-firm, we had the same preconception. So on a flight from Zurich to London, we ran our economic impact models focusing on the US, China, India and the EU. It turns out we were wrong, but so is Donald Trump. Here’s why. The data says that Donald Trump actually has a point. It is widely accepted that the US has ambitious climate goals. In the first 15 years of implementing its pledge under the Paris Agreement, the per capita emission reduction costs for the US would indeed exceed that of the other countries we studied. Highly developed nations have few low-hanging fruits to curb carbon emissions. For developing nations such as China and India, cheaper, more cost efficient, infrastructure investments suffice to comply with the proposed cuts in greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions. To us, this meant: Trump is right. In the first years with commitments under the Paris Agreement, the economic burden would be much larger for the U.S. compared to China, India and the EU. But this was not the end of the story. Why Donald Trump is essentially wrong nonetheless. When comparing longer term per capita reduction costs, both China and India approach U.S. spending levels on emission reductions at around the year 2035. At this stage, large investment is required for developing nations to reach deeper reduction levels, as cheaper opportunities run out. According to Carbon Delta’s analysis, by the year 2050, both China and India will have strongly surpassed the US and EU on their per capita spending levels for emission reduction goals, even as these countries continue to grow their populations and further industrialize their economies. In 2050 the US and EU are far behind India and China and these countries endeavor to meet the longer term goal of climate stabilization below 2°C. A note on fairness and the prisoner’s dilemma of climate change reductions. In our model, we focused on Trump’s main assumption: That the current Paris Agreement was unfair as it is economically harsher on the US than on the other major emitting countries. Clearly, this is a one-sided notion of fairness. Once again, climate change is a textbook example of the prisoner’s dilemma to the world: All countries would benefit from its implementation. Yet, for a single country, if all other countries follow strict reduction targets, defecting from the agreement would be beneficial from a purely short-term economic perspective. If all countries choose to defect though, the negative effects would be carried by all countries alike, including the US. Also, other arguments of fairness are apparently completely ignored by Trump: How are historic 2 | CARBON DELTA AG | www.carbon-delta.com | [email protected] IS TRUMP RIGHT OR WRONG TO WITHDRAW FROM THE PARIS AGREEMENT? emissions weighted compared to future emissions? How much leeway is given to developing countries to catch up with developed nations’? What are the values of leadership and technological opportunities? These are all legitimate questions of fairness, and so, all other future costs of climate change aside, we focused on the economic burden of complying with the Paris Agreement’s NDCs (“Nationally Determined Contributions”) for the largest four GHGemitting countries: China, US, India and the EU. Background With Michael Bloomberg leading a task force warning investors about climate risks, the subject of climate change risk has definitely reached the interest of asset managers, pension funds and reinsurance companies. Carbon Delta is a Zürich-based environmental fintech startup that also emerged from this trend. We provide climate risk data for the financial industry, computing the Climate Value-at-Risk for over 25,000 companies. To dissect Donald Trump’s claims, we focused on two metrics: 1. he total mitigation costs necessary to achieve the NDCs and afterwards implement the long term 2°C-target, also agreed under the Paris Agreement; and 2. the per capita contribution for emission reductions in relation to gross domestic product (GDP). All attempts at quantifying the long-term costs of mitigation actions must make certain assumptions, including the future demographics of countries under the study, population and economic growth rates, business-as-usual emission levels, reduction requirements and carbon prices. We used the same economic models that Carbon Delta designed to assess the impact of climate change on over 25,000 different publicly listed companies. The below section summarizes our results for the United States, the European Union, China and India - the four largest GHG-emitting countries in the world. Table 1 – Total Mitigation Costs by country (mUSD) 2030 2035 2050 United States 121'293 222'923 611'116 European Union 15'927 78'912 228'249 China 2'400 270'614 1'214'012 India 3'154 315'573 1'258'962 3 | CARBON DELTA AG | www.carbon-delta.com | [email protected] IS TRUMP RIGHT OR WRONG TO WITHDRAW FROM THE PARIS AGREEMENT? Table 2 – Impacts on GDP per capita 2030 2035 2050 United States 0.53% 0.87% 1.79% European Union 0.07% 0.33% 0.83% China 0.01% 0.82% 2.44% India 0.04% 2.55% 4.49% Cross-National Comparison of Mitigation Costs Expected US leadership on mitigation efforts The United States’ current overall GHG emissions are second only to China. On March 31, 2015, the United States submitted what has been dubbed a moderately ambitious NDC, pledging to reduce its net greenhouse gas emissions by 17% below the 2005 level by 2020 and 26–28% below the 2005 level by 2025 while making “best efforts to reduce its emissions by 28%”. With an annual per capita emission level of roughly 22.5 t CO2eq, the United States´ participation in and support of the NDC-agenda has so far been considered instrumental to limit global warming to 2oC. Yet, its reduction commitment alone would not be sufficient to limit global warming to below 2°C, unless other countries make comparatively bigger efforts to offset the United States’ ambition level. While the now dismantled Clean Power Plan introduced in August 2015 would have gone some way towards meeting the NDC target for 2020, achieving the more ambitious 2025 target would require the implementation of current policies to be expedited and strengthened. The European Union is economically not fulfilling it’s role The European Union, long one of the driving forces of international climate change politics, has committed to lowering its emissions by 80-95% in 2050 relative to a 1990 baseline. In doing so, the European Union is in pursuit of one of the most stringent mitigation goals of all parties to the Paris Agreement. Nevertheless, the costs of accomplishing this ambitious GHG emission reduction goal are lower than the costs of the targets set forth by the US, China and India. China is a late starter for mitigation efforts During the COP 15 in Copenhagen in 2009, China was unwilling to commit to a climate deal that would have hampered its then soaring economy, thereby derailing the Copenhagen climate summit. Since then, China has become an important driver of 4 | CARBON DELTA AG | www.carbon-delta.com | [email protected] IS TRUMP RIGHT OR WRONG TO WITHDRAW FROM THE PARIS AGREEMENT? global climate change governance, contributing to much of the positive momentum that was infused into climate change politics recently. Having merely committed to lowering its emission-intensity within its NDC, China is still allowed to moderately increase its emissions up to 2030. This explains the relatively low initial total mitigation costs and impact on per capita GDP. However, after 2030, the costs associated with reaching a long-term GHG target of 2°C will increase considerably. India becomes the climate champion over time Following Donald Trump’s decision to withdraw, India was quick to air its unwavering support for the Paris Agreement. Caught between a balancing act of transitioning its economy to a lower carbon intensity while allowing economic growth to reduce poverty, India’s climate pledge has been limited to moderate emission cuts until 2030. Especially agriculture, the sector which sustains many of India’s poor, has largely been left out of the near-term GHG emission reduction goal. India’s low mitigation costs up until 2030 reflect this development strategy. However, the 2°C target imperative will require India to contribute more decisively to emission mitigations in the long term. Accordingly, both total mitigation costs and the cost impact on per capita GDP skyrocket between 2030 and 2050. Detailed Cost and Financial Impact Analysis In summary, the below graphs indicate the findings within Carbon Delta’s analysis on how GHG reduction costs between these four major-emitting countries will converge and even reverse over time. According to our analysis, the United States would have to bear comparatively high costs up until 2030 to achieve the GHG reduction goals under its NDC climate pledge. Hence, the mitigation costs associated with the immediate future provide some grounds for Donald Trump’s assertion that the Paris deal works at the detriment of the United States relative to other large emitters. However, the economic burden falling on the other three countries within this study increases steeply as of 2030, especially in India and China. Thus, Donald Trump is partly right in that the US is facing higher costs under the Paris Agreement in the short term, but is flat wrong in claiming that the role falling on the US to tackle climate change is unfair. In the end, the question that political leaders should focus on is not one of single economic metrics, but national and international utility. Since the U.S. is the world’s largest historical emitter of greenhouse gases, it only makes sense for the U.S. to take the lead role in tackling climate change. If no country is willing to take the lead, bearing slightly higher short-term costs than others, then country leaders will surely become trapped in a prisoner’s dilemma. Unfortunately, this scenario could lead to the worst outcome for our planet and ultimately bounce back to damage a large swath of countries, as an estimated USD 2.5 trillion in economic value is estimated to be lost this century due to climate change. 5 | CARBON DELTA AG | www.carbon-delta.com | [email protected] IS TRUMP RIGHT OR WRONG TO WITHDRAW FROM THE PARIS AGREEMENT? Total Projected Mitigation Costs Mitigation Costs (mUSD) 1,400,000 1,200,000 1,000,000 800,000 600,000 400,000 200,000 United States European Union 2030 2035 China India 2050 GDP Loss per Capita 5.00% 4.50% 4.00% 3.50% 3.00% 2.50% 2.00% 1.50% 1.00% 0.50% 0.00% United States European Union 2030 2035 China 2050 6 | CARBON DELTA AG | www.carbon-delta.com | [email protected] India