Skip to main content

The response to U.S. President Donald Trump’s decision to withdraw from the Paris agreement on climate change has been swift but often contradictory. For example, Bill McKibben, founder of 350.org, could only offer faint praise for the accord in a December 2015 New York Times op-ed, charging that it did just enough “to keep both environmentalists and the fossil fuel industry from complaining too much.” McKibben changed his tune this past week, claiming that the U.S. withdrawal from the accord “undercuts our civilization’s chances of surviving global warming.”

Other advocates of the Paris climate deal, including many leading voices in the U.S. business community, have also offered rather unsatisfactory arguments for the United States to stay in the agreement: that it is non-binding and doesn’t actually require emissions cuts. Under this rationale, Washington should stay in to maintain influence over the negotiations, which is a

To read the full article

Most Read Articles

The Pandemic Depression

The Global Economy Will Never Be the Same

Carmen Reinhart and Vincent Reinhart

Beware the Guns of August—in Asia

How to Keep U.S.-Chinese Tensions From Sparking a War

Kevin Rudd

The Fragile Republic

American Democracy Has Never Faced So Many Threats All at Once

Suzanne Mettler and Robert C. Lieberman

Will the Coronavirus End Globalization as We Know It?

The Pandemic Is Exposing Market Vulnerabilities No One Knew Existed

Henry Farrell and Abraham Newman