Sydney Pezza-Luther (Blog Post 4)

The Paris Agreement is crucial to reduce the greenhouse gas emissions which is a leading cause to climate change.  The effects of climate change can be catastrophic and some can even be seen now with rising sea temperatures and sea levels, increasingly damaging storms, and increase of temperature which has resulted in deadly heat waves around the globe.  As a result, it seems to be a no brainer that countries around the globe want to do their part and reduce emissions before the effects of climate change worsen. Within the Paris Agreement 174 countries plus the European Union signed to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.  However, two countries are not apart of this agreement and due to Trump, the United States recently joined in. Therefore, making Syria, Nicaragua and the United States the only countries not involved with the Paris Agreement.
Trump’s decision to pull out of the Paris Agreement was not rational and was based on pleasing his voters rather than bettering the environment.  The United States is one of the largest contributors of emitting greenhouse gas into the atmosphere and Trump’s reasoning to leaving the agreement is focused on the short term.  He claims that by staying in the Paris Agreement it would cause jobs to be shipped overseas and therefore, would create a loss of American jobs. However, the Paris Agreement opens the door to numerous green jobs across the nation which emphasize the use of renewable energy. As a result, Trump did not save any jobs from pulling out of the Paris Agreement since the use of renewable energy sources are coming to an end.  For example, already the coal industry is already plummeting to the lowest it has been and the use of coal has decreased dramatically.
Not only is pulling out of the Paris Agreement bad for the environment and sustainable jobs it also negatively affects the credibility of the United States.  For example, since the United States is not apart of this major agreement between 175 parties, the U.S. will lose their ability to pressure large emerging countries. Numerous mayors, governors, businesses and universities within the U.S. have decided to go against Trump’s decision and uphold the policies of the Paris Agreement.  As a result, with private industries even going against his decisions along with many others it creates a loss of power for the United States.

Pulling out of the Paris Agreement has no positive effect on the United States and will not save any jobs since nonrenewable sources, such as coal, are already being fazed out.  Trump’s decision will have detrimental effects in the long term as the effects of climate change increase.  In addition, pulling out of this agreement poorly effects the standings of the United States and will decrease its power overall.  As a result, there is no benefit of pulling out of the Paris Agreement, which shows Trump’s decision to back out of the agreement was not rational and was to briefly support his voters.

Comments

  1. Victoria PierreDecember 9, 2017 at 8:55 PM

    Sydney, I completely agree with you and I think that we should not have pulled out of the Paris Agreement. My concern for this is more of a social concern and how other countries will see us. I think this decision makes us look like we have no interest not just in the environment, but having relationships with other countries to better the globe. I do not know why Americana have this fear of someone taking jobs from us when this agreement may have taken jobs from ourselves.

    ReplyDelete
  2. UnknownDecember 10, 2017 at 12:35 PM

    Exactly, through pulling out of this agreement it separated us from the rest of the world while also limiting us as well, socially and economically.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Tom PilatDecember 10, 2017 at 3:44 PM

    Well said Sydney, Pulling out of this agreement did more harm than it did good. Not only is this extremely detrimental to the environment, it puts the United States in a lower positioning to opponents.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Jared RostkowskiDecember 10, 2017 at 4:21 PM

    Trump's decision to pull out of the Paris Agreement was terrible. Leaving the agreement hurt the US a lot more than it helped. Not to mention that it sheds a very bad light on the US and our president. Very well-written.

    ReplyDelete
  5. UnknownDecember 10, 2017 at 5:07 PM

    Though individual states and private industry has done a great job of fighting back against our withdrawal from the Paris agreement, the withdrawal alone sends a message that is detrimental to U.S. standing, especially in the areas of science and the environment.

    ReplyDelete

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Blog 3 Jared Rostkowski Why NAFTA is not "The worst trade deal in the history of trade deals, maybe ever"

Why NAFTA isn't “The worst trade deal in the history of trade deals, maybe ever” Jared Rostkowski On September 25th 2016 during the first presidential debate of 2016, then Presidential candidate Donald Trump described the North American Free Trade Agreement as “The worst trade deal in the history of trade deals, maybe ever.” NAFTA is the trade agreement between the U.S., Canada, and Mexico, which eliminated tariffs between the three countries. Trump has continued to voice his displeasure with the trade deal, mostly with Mexico. Anyway, NAFTA is not the worst trade deal in the history of trade deals, in fact, it is actually a trade deal that the 3 countries benefit greatly from the trade deal, and we should not pull out of it anytime soon.  So what does Trump dislike about the deal. His main displeasure comes with the fact that many companies from the U.S. are moving manufacturing to Mexico, to take advantage of Mexico’s cheap labor. Trump argued that companies like For...
Read more

Blog Post 4 - Yousuf Sander

Global terror has plagued the international community in increasing frequency and tragedy for the last two decades. The rise of groups like Al-Qaeda, ISIS, Hamas, and others have left thousands dead and given rise to new fear, and an elusive enemy. These groups have used ever more brutal tactics to stage devastating attacks on civilians in both their home countries and abroad. In the early 2000s, the U.S. began a so-called “ War On Terror ” to combat the rise of such groups, only to have the even more dangerous organization of ISIS rise out of the ashes of our own operations in Iraq. These groups are hard to fight and even harder to dismantle, so what are our options in the War on Terror? I believe that the problem stems from the ostracized environment in which immigrant Middle eastern communities exist in the West.   As long as we continue to marginalize Muslim communities in the U.S. and Europe, we will continue to be fostering an environment that makes it easy for terrorist gr...
Read more
Yousuf Sander                          Why Syrian Intervention is a Bad Play for the U.S. Foreign intervention has become a staple policy choice if the United States since the early decades of the 20 th century. Time and time again, we have intervened in order to protect our interests, installing dictators in Latin America, toppling them in the middle east, all in order to protect our foreign interests. However, what is the right course of action when a crisis occurs that does not put our interests at stake? How, as the world ’ s foremost superpower, can we sit by and do nothing as the crisis evolves in Syria? Though intervention may seem like the obvious choice, we must weigh the costs, and our decision must be strategically based and thought out. For this reason, I don ’ t believe intervention is the right option due to the reactionary and impulsive nature ...
Read more