It’s now been nearly three months since the United States pulled out of the Paris Agreement under former President Donald Trump. President Biden, who worked with former President Barack Obama and then-Secretary of State John Kerry to sign the agreement in 2016, rejoined the climate accord on Wednesday through executive action. While it is encouraging to see the U.S. reengage on the global climate stage, many criticisms of the agreement have been legitimate. For example, it has no enforcement mechanisms to hold countries such as China accountable for their growing roles in climate change. As with so many international agreements, it is abstract, symbolic, and little more than an exercise in rhetorical diplomacy.
Nevertheless, if we must rejoin the Paris Agreement as Biden has done, it should act only as a floor for genuine international climate action. While U.S. emissions reductions over the last decade far outweigh that of any other nation, the past four years have been painful for diplomatic endeavors. Trump made it clear to the world that the U.S. was not interested in cooperation on the issue of climate change. And while he made fair points about enforceability and accountability of the Paris Agreement, he abdicated a position of leadership that, while imperfect, held more advantages than disadvantages when it comes to global engagement.
The Biden administration should use its newfound diplomatic clout and influence from rejoining the Paris Agreement as a way to establish genuine action in terms of global climate policy. This is the mindset we should be taking when we look at U.S. engagement on the issue of climate change — rejoining the Paris Agreement in and of itself is not enough. It doesn’t actually do much. More than anything, it is a statement of leadership, belief, and intent that the U.S. can and must influence global climate policy. But it leaves the door open as to what that policy looks like.
So what do legitimate, actionable climate solutions on the international stage look like?
First, a realization. A major problem with programs such as the Green New Deal is that they’re impossible to replicate outside the U.S. What country in the world is radically going to phase out fossil fuels, regulate its industries into oblivion, and spend up to $100 trillion to stop climate change? If the U.S. is serious about acting as a global leader, we can only do so by pioneering solutions that will appeal to other countries as well, such as policies that accelerate and incentivize rapid innovation or leverage private sector buy-ins. Similarly, our intended nationally determined contributions, which establish how much a country commits to reducing emissions under the Paris Agreement, should not be determined by a stifling litany of regulations, taxes, and executive orders. Studies show how prohibitively damaging and expensive these would be. Rather, they should focus on market-based, pro-innovation solutions that ensure clean economic growth.
Second, in practice, actionable global climate policy should take the form of trade agreements between countries. “Clean Free Trade” is the concept by which countries agree to remove all tariff and non-tariff trade barriers to the free exchange of environmental goods and services, allowing for a free flow of capital, knowledge, and innovation across borders. One of the most effective ways for the U.S. to influence this is by joining the existing Agreement on Climate Change, Trade, and Sustainability, which eliminates such trade barriers and creates voluntary licensing guidelines.
Indeed, we should be looking to unleash the export of U.S. clean energy to the rest of the world. Countries like China and India need U.S.-made clean energy technology to reach their targets. Countries should be incentivized to innovate and export such technology solutions rather than stifled by arbitrary, top-down rules. This competition would naturally accelerate and expand global clean energy markets.
Third, we should continually engage our allies closely on the issue of environmental sustainability. The U.S., through the Department of Energy, is already engaged in many bilateral trade agreements that address sustainability, such as research partnerships, conservation projects, and wildlife protection initiatives. We can exercise enormous influence through trade deals along these lines, stimulating both economic growth and environmental protection. For example, a trade deal could expand access to U.S. markets for Brazilian producers if they commit to protecting the Amazon rainforest. Similarly, we should identify issues of strategic importance and work with our allies to develop coordinated responses. For example, China owns the vast majority of the world’s critical mineral supply chains, which are crucial to clean energy technologies. We should work with allies, such as Australia, India, and South Africa, who also have significant critical mineral resources, on crafting a strategy that ensures supply chain continuity outside of China. In the same manner, we should be wary of Russia and China’s increasing interest in global nuclear plant construction and counter this with our own global nuclear technology plan that leverages allied infrastructure, resources, and intelligence.
Rejoining the Paris Agreement is not much more than a statement of intent, yet it can also become the floor for much greater, genuine climate action on the global stage. But it is only by leveraging what the U.S. is best at — free trade, technological innovation, and multilateral engagement — that global climate policy can make a real and lasting impact.
Christopher Barnard is the national policy director at the American Conservation Coalition.
