Can Trump decision to exit Paris accord actually hurt US economy?.

[Juggy777]

The Economists from Grantham Institute for Climate Change at the London School of Economics, have claimed that US economy will suffer because of Trump decisions to exit the Paris climate deal.

Furthermore they have also claimed that had US stuck to Obama’s plan (original Paris deal), then US would have saved $39 billion by 2030, but I feel that they’re exaggerating the amount.

Lastly I do understand that there may be some environmental side effects once US exists from this deal on November 4th, but I don’t agree with their views that US economy will suffer because of Trump decision to exit the Paris climate deal, however I’m keen to know what do you’ll think of this research?.

Source:

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2020/aug/13/trump-exiting-paris-accord-will-harm-us-economy-lse-research

[1714992380]

1714992380

[exstasie]

Lastly I do understand that there may be some environmental side effects once US exists from this deal on November 4th, but I don’t agree with their views that US economy will suffer because of Trump decision to exit the Paris climate deal, however I’m keen to know what do you’ll think of this research?

I'm in no position to debate the science. Putting aside that discussion, there are some believable reasons why there could be serious economic losses under certain climate change scenarios: https://www.cnn.com/2018/11/23/health/climate-change-report-bn/index.html

The costs of climate change could reach hundreds of billions of dollars annually, according to the report. The Southeast alone will probably lose over a half a billion labor hours by 2100 due to extreme heat.

Farmers will face extremely tough times. The quality and quantity of their crops will decline across the country due to higher temperatures, drought and flooding. In parts of the Midwest, farms will be able to produce less than 75% of the corn they produce today, and the southern part of the region could lose more than 25% of its soybean yield.

Heat stress could cause average dairy production to fall between 0.60% and 1.35% over the next 12 years -- having already cost the industry $1.2 billion from heat stress in 2010.

When it comes to shellfish there will be a $230 million loss by the end of the century due to ocean acidification, which is already killing off shellfish and corals. Red tides, or algae bloom that deplete oxygen in the water and can kill sea life -- like those that triggered a state of emergency in Florida in August -- will become more frequent.

But these losses would be realized over the next 75-100 years. Good luck getting politicians to think in those terms. They care about the next 2-4 years (the next election cycle), that's about it!

[jackg]

It's probably a very costly agreement to the US. As they produce more co2 than every country in Europe already does.

It also means that Bill Gates actually doesn't have much of an influence on the US government (and that's probably not a bad thing).
Although it doesn't make sense for smaller countries to play their part and larger ones to just ignore the problem entirely...

[sana54210]

40 billion dollars when we are talking about USA is basically nothing, and we are talking about 10 years. By comparison USA is spending 750 billion dollars per year on military, that means 7.5 trillion dollars until 2030 if there is no increase which will definitely happen for sure. So it is totally possible that they could lose 39 billion dollars by 2030 if they do not follow the accords.

However the worse thing is we are talking about is the weather the climate and that will be changing a lot because Trump cares more about his donators (oil companies) do whatever they want to do to make a short term profit, those companies do not care about what happens to earth 50 years from now, they care about their profits right now and that will destroy the earth for the future.

[davis196]

I'm not an expert in this field,but I think that not participating in the Paris climate deal means less regulations and less taxes for the US companies.How can this be damaging to the US economy in any way?
I'm not a big fan of the Paris climate deal.There's a lot of hypocrisy and a lot of lies surrounding this deal.
Countries like China and India might never comply with the Paris agreements,even though have signed that agreement.

[Hydrogen]

Since Trump assumed the Presidency in 2016, the united states has closed 50 coal fueled power plants. Meanwhile in china, plans were recently announced to construct 700 new coal power plants. The Paris Accords heavily punish the private sector and economy of nations like the united states for "destroying the environment". While giving nations like china a free pass to pollute and destroy the environment and planet as much as they like. Draw whatever conclusions you choose from this.

The main sector of the US economy which is not "environmentally friendly" is the military. I doubt you'll ever see a proposal for american military vehicles, ships or planes with a lower carbon footprint improved fuel mpg. Range, lower maintenance and fuel economy are some of the main advantages chinese and russian militaries enjoy over america's armed forces. Its not an advantage they would want mentioned or would likely plan on abandoning anytime soon.

[HeRetiK]

Short term it won't matter, but long term the US stands to fall behind, technologically speaking. Clinging onto legacy tech such as coal will only hurt further down the line. And that's ignoring the global economic impact the catastrophe we're currently heading towards to will have.

The costs of climate change could reach hundreds of billions of dollars annually, according to the report. The Southeast alone will probably lose over a half a billion labor hours by 2100 due to extreme heat.

Farmers will face extremely tough times. The quality and quantity of their crops will decline across the country due to higher temperatures, drought and flooding. In parts of the Midwest, farms will be able to produce less than 75% of the corn they produce today, and the southern part of the region could lose more than 25% of its soybean yield.

Heat stress could cause average dairy production to fall between 0.60% and 1.35% over the next 12 years -- having already cost the industry $1.2 billion from heat stress in 2010.

When it comes to shellfish there will be a $230 million loss by the end of the century due to ocean acidification, which is already killing off shellfish and corals. Red tides, or algae bloom that deplete oxygen in the water and can kill sea life -- like those that triggered a state of emergency in Florida in August -- will become more frequent.

But these losses would be realized over the next 75-100 years. Good luck getting politicians to think in those terms. They care about the next 2-4 years (the next election cycle), that's about it!

More like 20-50 years and unless something is done it will get only worse after that. Climate change is moving pretty damn fast, relatively speaking. Even so it's too long a timeframe for most politicians to honestly consider.

I'm not an expert in this field,but I think that not participating in the Paris climate deal means less regulations and less taxes for the US companies.How can this be damaging to the US economy in any way?
I'm not a big fan of the Paris climate deal.There's a lot of hypocrisy and a lot of lies surrounding this deal.
Countries like China and India might never comply with the Paris agreements,even though have signed that agreement.

China and India are both more on track than the US:
https://climateactiontracker.org/

[FanEagle]

I think there could be even an upside in the economical sense. Obviously we are talking about getting worse in climate reasons and that is a bad thing not just for USA but for all over the world, we have seen California burn down just a few years ago and just start of this year Australia was on fire, and people are still saying "where is climate change there is snow here" and stupid stuff like that which is really not something I can accept.

However if you look at it purely in cash form, we are talking about oil companies and other energy companies doing whatever they want and making even more profit without caring about the climate, which should return a lot more profits technically speaking. I don't know if they can manage to do it but they should be able to without regulations.

[The Sceptical Chymist]

Clinging onto legacy tech such as coal will only hurt further down the line.

Is the US clinging onto "legacy tech" as old as coal?  That's news to me, though I have to admit that I'm no expert when it comes to how our country is powered.  I'd like to think the whole world has moved on from dirty fuel sources such as coal, since there are so many other options available.

Now, whether Trump's decision with respect to the Paris agreement could affect the global economy, that's anyone's guess.  From reading that article and his statements, it would appear that this is a political decision made in an election year with no regard to the underlying issues--and that's a shame, but this is Trump we're talking about here.

I have got my fingers and toes crossed that he does not get reelected in November and that his replacement will at least attempt to undo some of the damage Trump has done to the country (and the world, for that matter).

[hugeblack]

They are politics and economics against the environment. Environmental concerns will come late, especially if financial or economic crises occur.
Trump's policy is based on economic reforms, so this agreement is disturbing compared to what China is doing in the world without paying anything.
The effect will also appear in the long term, which is far from the ideas of politicians.
If you want change, press the legislators to accept the agreement, but with the increase in economic crises, it is difficult to find someone who will defend the environment or temperature changes.

[HeRetiK]

Clinging onto legacy tech such as coal will only hurt further down the line.

Is the US clinging onto "legacy tech" as old as coal?  That's news to me, though I have to admit that I'm no expert when it comes to how our country is powered.  I'd like to think the whole world has moved on from dirty fuel sources such as coal, since there are so many other options available.

At least Trump is. He's been very supportive of the coal industry over renewables over the last few years; which while it can't stop progress, can sure stiffle it. It seems like the coal lobby is generally pretty strong, not just in the US, mind you.

[abhiseshakana]

Is the US clinging onto "legacy tech" as old as coal?  That's news to me, though I have to admit that I'm no expert when it comes to how our country is powered.  I'd like to think the whole world has moved on from dirty fuel sources such as coal, since there are so many other options available.

Now, whether Trump's decision with respect to the Paris agreement could affect the global economy, that's anyone's guess.  From reading that article and his statements, it would appear that this is a political decision made in an election year with no regard to the underlying issues--and that's a shame, but this is Trump we're talking about here.

I have got my fingers and toes crossed that he does not get reelected in November and that his replacement will at least attempt to undo some of the damage Trump has done to the country (and the world, for that matter).

I think Trump is a nationalist, not a globalist, so the issues of global warming, climate change, and other environmental issues that are usually raised by globalists do not attract Trump's attention. Like his former adviser, Steve Bannon, Trump is pro nuclear and fossil oil. For Trump, environmental issues are engineered by anti fossil oil and coal groups with the aim of harming the American economy. Although Steve Bannon has been dismissed as Trump's political adviser, his thoughts have deeply influenced Trump. This policy decision was made more because of the interests of the oligarchs who supported Trump and the republicans from the oil industry and arms contractors. In foreign policy, the United States continues to use the principle of control oil you control the nation.

America's exit from the Paris agreement opens up many opportunities for the leadership of other countries and the creation of new, more relevant decisions due to the absence of direct American interference in decision-making. But it also raises the possibility of a domino effect from this American attitude to other countries.

[Cnut237]

Is the US clinging onto "legacy tech" as old as coal?  That's news to me, though I have to admit that I'm no expert when it comes to how our country is powered.

Coal is in probably terminal decline, but gas has increased to make up the difference. Renewables are growing slowly.


https://ourworldindata.org/energy#energy-consumption-by-source

I have got my fingers and toes crossed that he does not get reelected in November and that his replacement will at least attempt to undo some of the damage Trump has done to the country (and the world, for that matter).

Biden has said he would rejoin the Paris Agreement.

Biden will rejoin the Paris Agreement, but simply rejoining is not enough. Biden will use every tool of American foreign policy to push the rest of the world to raise their ambitions alongside the United States. A Biden Administration will: Re-enter the Paris Agreement on day one of the Biden Administration and lead a major diplomatic push to raise the ambitions of countries’ climate targets.

https://joebiden.com/climate-plan/#

I'm not familiar with the intricacies of US politics, but am I right in saying that 'day 1' of a Biden administration would actually start in January? So the Nov 4 withdrawal completion would still take effect, i.e., Biden couldn't cancel it, and would have to rejoin a couple of months later.

I think Trump is a nationalist, not a globalist

Certainly. From the outside, it looks like Trumpism is a return to US isolationism. This of course plays right into China's hands. This is really not the time for the US to be relinquishing their role as the de facto world leader! We all hope Biden wins in November.

[target]

There were people who reviewed this Paris dealing and they were saying this dealing isn't going to make the country productive and industrialize. This dealing will prevent a country to have factories to manufacture products because of the allowed gas emissions.

China had been violating this dealing but they can't just prevent the country so why not just manufacture like how China did and make America great again and bring jobs back to the locals.

[DoublerHunter]

^ If anyone can change Trump's state of mind of withdrawing the Paris Accord it would be beneficial for the country and its people's health, but I think Trump's priority is to earn a huge amount of money for his purpose or otherwise for the country's sake. And speaking about the US economy, the US was once the loan source of the other third world countries,  so after 10 years the GDP of the U.S won't be hurt, even agreeing or NOT with Paris agreement. Nevertheless, this is my assumption.

[Febo]

Can Trump decision to exit Paris accord actually hurt US economy?

1. Countries that will act fast and prepare for the future will gain most. They will then sell solutions and technology to countries that will act last.
2. Trump if had not exited from something cant do anything more. His power ended. There is only few more months to elections he s to scared to do anything meaningful.

[mu_enrico]

It won't hurt the US economy (probably will save lots of money), but it will make the earth dirtier. It makes sense for Bitcointalk economist (me) lul, but will have negative impacts on the environment. It's a tradeoff, and Trump chooses wealth over "sustainability."

But to be fair, what about China dirty coal energy? https://asiatimes.com/2020/07/china-reverts-to-its-dirty-coal-ways/

[exstasie]

Clinging onto legacy tech such as coal will only hurt further down the line.

Is the US clinging onto "legacy tech" as old as coal?

Coal-fired plants peaked around 2007 but it still accounts for ~1/4 of all electricity generated in the US: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coal_power_in_the_United_States#Trends,_comparisons,_and_forecasts

The average share of electricity generated from coal in the US has dropped from 52.8% in 1997 to 27.4% in 2018.

I'm curious how much those numbers have changed with the loosened coal mining restrictions under the Trump administration.

I have got my fingers and toes crossed that he does not get reelected in November and that his replacement will at least attempt to undo some of the damage Trump has done to the country (and the world, for that matter).

I have mixed feelings. As a risk asset investor (BTC, gold, silver, occasionally stocks) I want Trump to get reelected. He's good for big business and he's good for market performance. As a human being, I'd like to see anyone else elected.

[audaciousbeing]

The Economists from Grantham Institute for Climate Change at the London School of Economics, have claimed that US economy will suffer because of Trump decisions to exit the Paris climate deal.

Furthermore they have also claimed that had US stuck to Obama’s plan (original Paris deal), then US would have saved $39 billion by 2030, but I feel that they’re exaggerating the amount.

Lastly I do understand that there may be some environmental side effects once US exists from this deal on November 4th, but I don’t agree with their views that US economy will suffer because of Trump decision to exit the Paris climate deal, however I’m keen to know what do you’ll think of this research?.

Source:

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2020/aug/13/trump-exiting-paris-accord-will-harm-us-economy-lse-research

Most times when decisions such as this are made, the economic imporatance that the leaders always want us to believe is the reason for their actions is always secondary because the real reason is not something they believe will sell to the public. Behind the scenes could be the test of power or because they need to stick it to another country or group of people are ready to pounce on the opportunities that would be created as a result of such decisions.

If the economic part is something they are now focusing on at this time, I think the US is not a country that would take such huge decision with being sure of the economic part to their advantage and now the elections are coming, the decisions needs to be seen as more economic than anything else.

[HeRetiK]

I have mixed feelings. As a risk asset investor (BTC, gold, silver, occasionally stocks) I want Trump to get reelected. He's good for big business and he's good for market performance. As a human being, I'd like to see anyone else elected.

I too want to see the world burn, but I already had my fill with 2020 so an end to this madness would be nice.

Most times when decisions such as this are made, the economic imporatance that the leaders always want us to believe is the reason for their actions is always secondary because the real reason is not something they believe will sell to the public. Behind the scenes could be the test of power or because they need to stick it to another country or group of people are ready to pounce on the opportunities that would be created as a result of such decisions.

Behind the scenes it's most likely just money and lobbying. Simple as that. Maybe ego. There's little power to be gained from declining a voluntary gentlemen's agreement to alleviate the impact of global warming. Only instability.