The US has become the first nation in the world to formally withdraw from the Paris climate agreement.
President Donald Trump announced the move in June 2017, but UN regulations meant that his decision only takes effect today, the day after the US election.
The US could re-join it in future, should a president choose to do so.
The Paris deal was drafted in 2015 to strengthen the global response to the threat of climate change.
It aims to keep the global temperature rise this century well below 2C above pre-industrial levels and to pursue efforts to limit the temperature increase even further to 1.5C.
The delay is down to the complex rules that were built into the Paris agreement to cope with the possibility that a future US president might decide to withdraw the country from the deal.
Previous attempts to put together a global pact on climate change had foundered because of internal US politics.
The Clinton administration was unable to secure Senate backing for the Kyoto Protocol, agreed in 1997.
So in the run up to the Paris climate talks, President Barrack Obama’s negotiators wanted to ensure that it would take time for the US to get out if there was a change in leadership.
Even though the agreement was signed in December 2015, the treaty only came into force on November 4,2016, 30 days after at least 55 countries representing 55% of global emissions had ratified it.
No country could give notice to leave the agreement until three years had passed from the date of ratification.
Even then, a member state still had to serve a 12-month notice period on the UN.
So, despite President Trump’s announcement in June 2017, the US was only able to formally give notice to the UN in November last year. The time has elapsed and the US is now out.
While the US now represents around 15% of global greenhouse gas emissions, it remains the world’s biggest and most powerful economy.
So, when it becomes the only country to withdraw from a global solution to a global problem it raises questions of trust.
For the past three years, US negotiators have attended UN climate talks while the administration has tried to use these events to promote fossil fuels.
While on the campaign trail, Joe Biden said he would seek to re-join as soon as possible – if he was elected President.
Under the rules, all that is required is a month’s notice and the US should be back in the fold.
However, even if the US chose to re-enter the agreement, there would be consequences for being out – even for a few months.
President Trump made leaving Paris a key part of his election platform in 2016, tying it into his vision of a revitalized US with booming energy production, especially coal and oil.
Donald Trump’s perspective on the Paris agreement was that it was unfair to the US, leaving countries like India and China free to use fossil fuels while the US had to curb their carbon.
For more than a century, fossil fuels have been the source of the world’s power. The only thing about it is that it has been harming the environment in the process, contributing to greenhouse gas emissions, carbon emissions, and climate change. And as more and more people become aware of the harmful impact of fossil fuels, they’re looking into safer, alternative energy sources to do their part in helping the environment.
Unfortunately, in their efforts to make positive changes, it’s going to lead to misconceptions in conducting research. This can then sway decisions, and that’s okay… It’s natural to have questions about how renewable energy works and why it’s the better option over fossil fuels because if you’re going to make the switch, you need to understand what you’re switching to.
There are, of course, different ways to generate renewable energy, so it’s understandable to want to know if solar power is the best way to generate clean energy over hydropower or if making the switch really will save on your electric bill… But in searching for answers to those questions, you’re also going to run into mistruths and falsehoods that simply aren’t true…
As you know, you can’t believe everything you see or read online, so to set the record straight, if you’re planning on switching to renewable energy or just considering it, here are some common misconceptions you want to avoid.
Misconceptions About Renewable Energy to Avoid
1. Renewable Energy Sources Can’t Provide Enough Electricity For Your Needs
There is a great concern among skeptics that wind and solar energy can’t meet the world’s growing needs for electricity, especially during certain seasons and times of the day. Well, the funny thing about this particular skepticism is that wind and solar power are infinite resources that can be used all the time; non-renewable sources are actually deteriorating in supply.
According to the North American Electric Reliability Corporation (NERC), not only is renewable energy feasible but it’s making the grid more reliable as well. In fact, the US could reach an 80% renewable energy penetration rate by 2050. So to say that renewable energy can’t provide enough electricity to meet the world’s needs is pure blasphemy.
2. Renewable Energy is Expensive
One of the biggest draws to switching to renewable energy is because it lowers your electric bill! Why else do you think people are having solar panels installed on their roofs? To speak further on that, people who aren’t able to have solar panels installed are still able to reap the benefits of renewable energy simply by switching to alternative electricity.
People in Texas are switching electricity providers and are now able to find the least expensive energy rates in TX. It’s cheap because it’s a natural resource that doesn’t require any manmade efforts. People don’t have to invest millions of dollars for the sun to rise or for the wind to blow, therefore, renewable energy is a great way to not only help the environment but also lower your electric bill.
3. Renewable Energy Kills Birds
It’s been said that clean energy kills birds, and that’s just not true. Now, it’s important to note that wind turbines have caused some bird deaths by flying into the turbines but not the way people are making it out to be. According to the National Audubon Society, bird deaths are more likely due to cats, tall buildings, and the greenhouse effect of excessive pollution.
4. Renewable Energy Isn’t a Reliable Source
This myth is more so directed towards solar and wind energy. The theory is that because sun and wind can’t be produced around the clock that it isn’t reliable. Well, this is where people go wrong. Wind and solar energy actually go hand-in-hand.
Wind speeds tend to pick up at night and solar energy is produced during the day but just because they’re not sources that are produced around the clock doesn’t mean that they’re unreliable. Things like batteries and other energy storage sources have made wind and solar energy very reliable sources, giving you the flexibility to use the power whenever you need it.
So, just because the wind isn’t blowing or if the sun isn’t visible to you, that doesn’t mean your house will shut down. Both wind and solar energy are abundant sources. Biomass, hydropower, and geothermal are energy sources that indeed do produce electricity around the clock.
Pope Francis has issued an encyclical, calling for fossil fuels to be “progressively replaced without delay”.
The pontiff urges the richer world to make changes in lifestyle and energy consumption to avert the unprecedented destruction of the ecosystem.
Environmentalists hope the message will spur on nations ahead of the UN climate conference in Paris in December.
However, parts of the document, leaked earlier this week, have already been criticized by some US conservatives.
The document has been dismissed by two Republican presidential candidates.
The encyclical, named “Laudato Si (Be Praised), On the Care of Our Common Home”, aims to inspire everyone – not just Roman Catholics – to protect the Earth.
The 192-page letter, which is the highest level teaching document a pope can issue, lays much of the blame for global warming on human activities.
Pope Francis writes that: “We have come to see ourselves as her lords and masters, entitled to plunder her at will.
“The violence present in our hearts, wounded by sin, is also reflected in the symptoms of sickness evident in the soil, in the water, in the air and in all forms of life.”
The Pope criticizes what he calls a “collective selfishness”, but says that there is still time to stop the damage, calling for an end to consumerism and greed.
Vatican spokesman Federico Lombardi launched the pontiff’s second encyclical at a news conference on June 18.
The release comes six months before international leaders gather in Paris to try to seal a deal to reduce carbon emissions.
It has been widely welcomed by environmental groups, with WWF president Yolanda Kakabadse saying it “adds a much-needed moral approach” to the debate on climate change.
Greenpeace leader Kumi Naidoo highlighted passages calling for policies that reduce carbon emissions, including by replacing fossil fuels with renewable energy.
But a leak of the document, published by Italy’s L’Espresso magazine on June 16, got a frosty response from skeptical conservatives in America, including two Roman Catholic presidential candidates.
Presidential hopeful Jeb Bush said he did not get his economic policy from his bishops, cardinals or pope.
Meanwhile Rick Santorum questioned whether Pope Francis was credible on the issue of climate science.
However, many academics have welcomed the pontiff’s input.
The UN’s climate change chief Christiana Figueres says the Pope’s message will influence talks in Paris this year on a deal to tackle global warming.
Developing countries are demanding firmer promises of financial help from rich countries so they can adapt to inevitable changes in the climate and get clean energy to avoid contributing to further warming.
Christiana Figueres said their position would be strengthened by Pope Francis’ insistence that this was the clear moral responsibility of the rich.
The encyclical will be welcomed by poor countries in Africa and Latin America.
The big question is how it will play in the USA, where it has already been dismissed by a Republican presidential candidate Jeb Bush, who is a Catholic.
Leading Republicans have warned the UN that they will undo President Barack Obama’s climate policies – so if the encyclical sways any of the conservative Catholics in Congress that could prove significant.
According to new reports, the Rockefeller family, which made its vast fortune from oil, is to sell investments in fossil fuels and reinvest in clean energy.
The Rockefeller Brothers Fund is joining a coalition of philanthropists pledging to rid themselves of more than $50 billion in fossil fuel assets.
The announcement will be made today, September 22, a day before the UN climate change summit opens.
Some 650 individuals and 180 institutions have joined the coalition.
It is part of a growing global initiative called Global Divest-Invest, which began on university campuses several years ago, the New York Times reports.
Pledges from pension funds, religious groups and big universities have reportedly doubled since the start of 2014.
Rockefeller Brothers Fund director Stephen Heintz said the move to divest from fossil fuels would be in line with oil tycoon John D. Rockefeller’s wishes.
The Rockefeller family is to sell investments in fossil fuels and reinvest in clean energy
“We are quite convinced that if he were alive today, as an astute businessman looking out to the future, he would be moving out of fossil fuels and investing in clean, renewable energy,” Stephen Heintz said in a statement.
The philanthropic organization was founded in 1940 by the sons of John D. Rockefeller. As of July 31, 2014, the fund’s investment assets were worth $860 million.
“There is a moral imperative to preserve a healthy planet,” Valerie Rockefeller Wayne, a great-great-granddaughter of John D. Rockefeller and a trustee of the fund, is quoted by the Washington Post as saying.
A climate change summit is due to start on September 23 at the UN headquarters in New York, with 125 heads of state and government members expected to attend.
It is the first such gathering since the unsuccessful climate conference in Copenhagen in 2009.
UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon hopes leaders can make progress on a universal climate agreement to be signed by all nations at the end of 2015.
On September 21, hundreds of thousands of marchers took to the streets in more than 2,000 locations worldwide, demanding urgent action on climate change and calling for curbs on carbon emissions.
Business leaders, environmentalists and celebrities also joined the demonstrations, which were organized by The People’s Climate March.
This website has updated its privacy policy in compliance with EU GDPR 2016/679. Please read this to review the updates about which personal data we collect on our site. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our updated policy. AcceptRejectRead More
Privacy & Cookies Policy
Privacy Overview
This website uses cookies to improve your experience while you navigate through the website. Out of these, the cookies that are categorized as necessary are stored on your browser as they are essential for the working of basic functionalities of the website. We also use third-party cookies that help us analyze and understand how you use this website. These cookies will be stored in your browser only with your consent. You also have the option to opt-out of these cookies. But opting out of some of these cookies may affect your browsing experience.
Necessary cookies are absolutely essential for the website to function properly. This category only includes cookies that ensures basic functionalities and security features of the website. These cookies do not store any personal information.
Any cookies that may not be particularly necessary for the website to function and is used specifically to collect user personal data via analytics, ads, other embedded contents are termed as non-necessary cookies. It is mandatory to procure user consent prior to running these cookies on your website.
