The Tragedy of Commons – USA and Climate Change
The collective action problem is alive and kicking, reports Venkataraman Ganesh following an interview with the Delegate of the United States of America (USA) on the sidelines of the annual ministerial segment of the High Level Political Forum on Sustainable Development conducted under the auspices of the United Nations General Assembly – Economic and Social Council (ECOSOC).
Reporter: What’s the stance of the United States of America on the Sustainable Development Goals?
Delegate of USA: There are some widely condemned stances of the United States of America with respect to the Sustainable Development Goals. Beginning with practicality of these goals – USA completely believes in sustainable development and believes that these are the ideal goals that we must strive for. However, when the word ideal comes in, we need to face reality. With the current resources and the current world coordination that we have, these goals are not possible at all. Most of these goals and targets are unrealistic to most, if not all countries.
Reporter: And to get to the elephant in the room: what’s United States of America’s stance on climate change?
Delegate of USA: The entire world seems to think that pulling out of the Paris agreement means that USA does not care about the environment, but what they fail to realize is that USA is the largest contributor to the SDGs itself. Even though USA does not match the 1% of GNI donation goal, it remains the largest donor to the SDGs. What these countries have to keep in mind is that the Paris agreement will affect the US economy and reduce the USA’s ability to donate to these goals. Furthermore, the Paris Agreement gives an unfair advantage to China and India to dominate the global market. Our national economy would have suffered because of carbon cuts while these countries would have just eaten into our share of global trade.
Reporter: Don’t you feel that USA, by virtue of being the largest emitter of green house gases in per capita terms, has the obligation to do a lot more to tackle climate change than India and China?
Delegate of USA: A significant part of the money USA makes - during the process of which there is emission of
greenhouse gases - goes towards helping other countries in the form of aid, in the form of contributions to IMF, World Bank and the United Nations. It is very easy for other nations to criticize US policies, but for the first time, USA is taking a stance. In the past, USA has never taken a clear stance - it has always been ambiguous about its position. For the first time, USA is publically stating what its position on multiple issues is, and by doing this, reducing unnecessary politics.
Reporter: If I understand you correctly - do you mean to say that the USA is compensating for its emissions in other ways, and not by directly cutting down on carbon emissions?
Delegate of USA: The United States of America understands the responsibility that comes with being the largest and the strongest country in the world. However, USA does not consider the aid and other assistance that it provides to other countries as compensation.
Reporter: But if USA is not compensating, it is still not doing anything to reduce carbon emissions, right?
Delegate of USA: Well, the thing is that it is not possible to trust countries like Russia and China. These countries support agreements only insofar as it is convenient and beneficial for them and do not hesitate to violate agreements when it is not in their favour. The United States prefers not to act in bad-faith.
Reporter: With respect to your national review: how well poised is the USA to achieve the SDGs?
Delegate of USA: We have been trying our best to achieve the SDGs. As far as Goals 1-10 is concerned, we have been making good progress, and the same is documented in our voluntary national review. However, Goals 11-17 are proving to be a lot more difficult to achieve. Especially Goal 13 - Goal 13 links SDGs to global agreements like Kyoto Protocol, Paris Agreement etc. and this is problematic.
Reporter: To talk about some of the domestic policy measures that the USA has undertaken, President Trump has been relaxing a lot of executive orders that were put in place by President Obama to protect the environment, especially with regards to use of fossil fuels. Why is it that despite being a technologically advanced nation, the United States of America is using fossil fuels?
Delegate of USA: A cost benefit analysis of renewable energy versus that of fossil fuels shows that we have a lot more to gain using fossil fuel. This however, is not our long term agenda. We need better technology, and we welcome aid from other countries to improve our technology, and it is towards this that we had made a suggestion to set up a technology transfer regime.
Reporter: Is there any plan to increase the percentage contribution of renewable energy to USA’s energy needs?
Delegate of USA: Yes, there is.
Reporter: And how much would this percentage increase be by 2030?
Delegate of USA: Ideally, we hope to have at least 60% of our energy needs met through renewable energy by 2030.
Reporter: Would USA be willing to sign a binding agreement stating the same?
Delegate of USA: No. USA does not believe in binding agreements - we feel that they are ineffective and counter-productive. We will not accept any sort of binding agreement whatsoever.
