Michael Le Page in NewScientist (8 April 2017) suggests that if the United States will not lead on climate change, it could be dragged:
The nightmare scenario that Trump’s inauguration posed for the nearly 200 countries signed up to the Paris climate agreement has now become reality. The world’s second-biggest emitter of greenhouse gases has given up on even trying to meet its target under the agreement.
Now what matters is how the world responds. If other countries stand by and let the US brazenly flout its commitments, the entire agreement could slowly unravel as its credibility evaporates. But what can the other nations do when the agreement includes no enforcement measures?
There is an alternative approach, and many think it could lead to faster emissions cuts. It is introducing a global price on carbon, and slapping carbon tariffs on goods from any country that refuses to join in.
Such a global carbon price has historically been dismissed as politically infeasible. But that was before Trump’s flagrant climate rollback. Suddenly, an intriguing possibility has arisen: could the outrageous behaviour of the US unite nations to take action on climate that will be effective?
It is the role of governments to look to the general welfare of their citizens – and that must include pressuring countries run by recalcitrants to live up to their duties, when their failure to do so will negatively impact your own citizens. One of the problems of having a democracy in which virtually anyone can be elected to high office is that we end up with leaders whose entire conception of the role of government is not congruent with a model which will lead to efficiency – i.e., long term survival. Trump’s emphasis on regulation reduction, the destruction of the EPA, even the reduction in specific coal regulations, as well as many other activities are memorable for how they will increase corporate profits – not for how they will affect the public welfare.
Of course, the United States has long been known as the home of free enterprise as well as government role ignorance. President Coolidge is famously known for the misquote (which speaks more for the misquoters than for President Coolidge),
“The business of America is business” or “The business of the American people is business.”
The accurate quote is “the chief business of the American people is business.” Comparing the two clarifies that the accurate quote refers to the citizenry; the first is easily interpreted to refer to America in all the roles. I have not investigated whether this is a deliberate misquote, or merely a sloppy editor thinking to compress a sentence; but it does its part in discrediting the important regulatory role government has in society.
I also found this remark interesting from Le Page’s article:
For many economists, the risk of trade wars is the strongest argument against carbon tariffs. However, world leaders will need to weigh this risk against the immense and growing costs of climate change. There is an opportunity here for countries that are serious about tackling climate change to bypass the ineffectual Paris agreement and club together to impose a global carbon price.
Here again, Trump might make the decision easier. He has been threatening to slap big tariffs on goods from China to boost US industries, an action that could spark a trade war. If it happens, imposing carbon tariffs on US goods would be one of the ways China and others could respond while maintaining the moral high ground. We live in interesting times.
And would Trump survive a trade war? Is he a good enough politician to turn that to his advantage? Or would the resultant hit on the economy finally result in his being boosted out of office?
