The White House has declined to say whether Donald Trump believes human activity contributes to climate change as the president pulled America out of the Paris agreement.
Administration officials were also unable to offer revised US carbon emission targets or say what changes to the global landmark accord would persuade Trump to re-enter it. But they did offer assurance that America will abide by the lengthy exit process outlined in the deal, waiting three-and-a-half years to formally withdraw.
Trump announced on Thursday the US would join Nicaragua and Syria as the only countries to shun the Paris agreement, characterising it as “a reassertion of America’s sovereignty” and saying he was “elected to represent the citizens of Pittsburgh, not Paris”. There was a chorus of condemnation from world leaders, former president Barack Obama and Trump’s defeated election opponent Hillary Clinton, who branded it “a historic mistake”.
Shortly after Trump spoke in the Rose Garden at the White House to applause from supporters, two senior administration officials briefed reporters in the west wing. The officials, who did not wish to be named, did nothing to alter perceptions of the US president as a climate change denier when asked whether he believed human activity was a contributory factor.
One official replied: “So I think the fact that the president in his speech today said he wants to come back and renegotiate a better deal for the United States and for the world I think speaks for itself.”
The journalist shot back: “So is that a yes? It’s a yes or no question.”
The official said: “Again, I think that speaks for itself.”
The journalist pressed: “It doesn’t speak for itself, so is that a yes? Does he believe human activity contributes to climate change?”
The official said: “I have not talked to the president about his personal views on whether – I was not with the president on his trip. I did not talk to the president about his personal views on what is contributing to climate change.”
The official insisted his own views were irrelevant, while a White House staff member interjected: “Can we stay on topic please?” The official echoed: “Can we stay on topic please?” – implying that Trump’s views on the causes of climate change were irrelevant to the Paris decision.
On 27 March the same official proved evasive on Trump’s views when questioned by the Guardian. This week Sean Spicer, the White House press secretary, also said he had not asked the president’s opinion on the matter. Scott Pruitt, the head of the Environmental Protection Agency, has said he “would not agree” that carbon from human activity is the primary cause of global warming while, in 2014, Trump referred to it as a “hoax”.
On Thursday, in a speech that kept a campaign pledge and echoed the fiery “America first” nationalism of his inaugural address, Trump said: “As of today, the United States will cease all implementation of the non-binding Paris accord.”
During Obama’s tenure, the US had agreed under the accord to reduce emissions by more than a quarter below 2005 levels by 2025. The administration officials declined to specify new targets or give even a rough estimate of America’s intended nationally determined contribution to limiting greenhouse gas emissions. But they pointed to America’s existing record. “I think leading the world is pretty good, right?” one said. “I think that speaks for itself.”
The Paris accord came into effect on 4 November 2016. It makes provision for parties to withdraw, but notice can be given only three years after it kicks in. Withdrawal would take effect a year after that, meaning November 2020, a date that coincides with the next US presidential election – raising the prospect that the issue remains alive during the campaign.
“First of all, the whole withdrawal process will be consistent with the Paris agreement,” an official said. “So the Paris agreement has to be in force for three years before you can actually submit a notice formally for withdrawal, which takes at least a year.
“During this period, the United States will not acknowledge or do anything to implement the current pledge put down by President Obama. Now what’s the negotiating process? I think that’s going to be determined by the president as we move forward.”
The leaders of France, Germany and Italy joined to express regret at Trump’s decision and insisted the agreement “cannot be renegotiated”. One of the administration officials responded: “If you look at the Europeans, if you look at other major economies or allies or partners, they have a strong interest in finding common ground with the United States and again, we don’t want to get out ahead of ourselves here on what may be discussed or not.
“There are a lot of different issues related to the international climate agenda that may not necessarily fall into the Paris bucket per se.”
He added: “The president is very sincere when he says he wants a better deal, he wants to negotiate, potentially bringing us back in Paris depending on what that looks like ... I think it’s a little bit more nuanced than stay in or not.”
Officials at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT) challenged a set of talking points issued to support Trump’s decision as misleading. A statement from MIT said: “The relevant MIT researchers believe that the Paris agreement is an unprecedented and vital effort by nearly 200 countries to respond to the urgent threat of global climate change.”
Administration officials were also unable to offer revised US carbon emission targets or say what changes to the global landmark accord would persuade Trump to re-enter it. But they did offer assurance that America will abide by the lengthy exit process outlined in the deal, waiting three-and-a-half years to formally withdraw.
Trump announced on Thursday the US would join Nicaragua and Syria as the only countries to shun the Paris agreement, characterising it as “a reassertion of America’s sovereignty” and saying he was “elected to represent the citizens of Pittsburgh, not Paris”. There was a chorus of condemnation from world leaders, former president Barack Obama and Trump’s defeated election opponent Hillary Clinton, who branded it “a historic mistake”.
Shortly after Trump spoke in the Rose Garden at the White House to applause from supporters, two senior administration officials briefed reporters in the west wing. The officials, who did not wish to be named, did nothing to alter perceptions of the US president as a climate change denier when asked whether he believed human activity was a contributory factor.
One official replied: “So I think the fact that the president in his speech today said he wants to come back and renegotiate a better deal for the United States and for the world I think speaks for itself.”
The journalist shot back: “So is that a yes? It’s a yes or no question.”
The official said: “Again, I think that speaks for itself.”
The journalist pressed: “It doesn’t speak for itself, so is that a yes? Does he believe human activity contributes to climate change?”
The official said: “I have not talked to the president about his personal views on whether – I was not with the president on his trip. I did not talk to the president about his personal views on what is contributing to climate change.”
The official insisted his own views were irrelevant, while a White House staff member interjected: “Can we stay on topic please?” The official echoed: “Can we stay on topic please?” – implying that Trump’s views on the causes of climate change were irrelevant to the Paris decision.
On 27 March the same official proved evasive on Trump’s views when questioned by the Guardian. This week Sean Spicer, the White House press secretary, also said he had not asked the president’s opinion on the matter. Scott Pruitt, the head of the Environmental Protection Agency, has said he “would not agree” that carbon from human activity is the primary cause of global warming while, in 2014, Trump referred to it as a “hoax”.
On Thursday, in a speech that kept a campaign pledge and echoed the fiery “America first” nationalism of his inaugural address, Trump said: “As of today, the United States will cease all implementation of the non-binding Paris accord.”
During Obama’s tenure, the US had agreed under the accord to reduce emissions by more than a quarter below 2005 levels by 2025. The administration officials declined to specify new targets or give even a rough estimate of America’s intended nationally determined contribution to limiting greenhouse gas emissions. But they pointed to America’s existing record. “I think leading the world is pretty good, right?” one said. “I think that speaks for itself.”
The Paris accord came into effect on 4 November 2016. It makes provision for parties to withdraw, but notice can be given only three years after it kicks in. Withdrawal would take effect a year after that, meaning November 2020, a date that coincides with the next US presidential election – raising the prospect that the issue remains alive during the campaign.
“First of all, the whole withdrawal process will be consistent with the Paris agreement,” an official said. “So the Paris agreement has to be in force for three years before you can actually submit a notice formally for withdrawal, which takes at least a year.
“During this period, the United States will not acknowledge or do anything to implement the current pledge put down by President Obama. Now what’s the negotiating process? I think that’s going to be determined by the president as we move forward.”
The leaders of France, Germany and Italy joined to express regret at Trump’s decision and insisted the agreement “cannot be renegotiated”. One of the administration officials responded: “If you look at the Europeans, if you look at other major economies or allies or partners, they have a strong interest in finding common ground with the United States and again, we don’t want to get out ahead of ourselves here on what may be discussed or not.
“There are a lot of different issues related to the international climate agenda that may not necessarily fall into the Paris bucket per se.”
He added: “The president is very sincere when he says he wants a better deal, he wants to negotiate, potentially bringing us back in Paris depending on what that looks like ... I think it’s a little bit more nuanced than stay in or not.”
Officials at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT) challenged a set of talking points issued to support Trump’s decision as misleading. A statement from MIT said: “The relevant MIT researchers believe that the Paris agreement is an unprecedented and vital effort by nearly 200 countries to respond to the urgent threat of global climate change.”
No comments:
Post a Comment