washington—president joe biden said that the united states is facing “a climate in crisis” among other challenges in his inauguration speech wednesday, marking the beginning of a presidency that promises to take unprecedented action on the global emergency.

“we face an attack on our democracy and on truth. a raging virus, growing inequity, the sting of systemic racism, a climate in crisis, america’s role in the world,” biden said. “any one of these would be enough to challenge us in profound ways. but the fact is, we face them all at once.”

many environmental activists were relieved to hear biden reinforce his commitment to addressing the climate crisis after former president donald trump consistently played down the threat of climate change over the past four years.

“what a difference a day makes,” said john noël, a senior climate campaigner with greenpeace usa. “we are at a complete 180 from the trump administration that stressed a borderline criminal approach to climate action and total deference to the fossil fuel industry.”

biden backed up his rhetoric almost immediately, signing an executive order to return the u.s. to the paris climate agreement and renew its international commitment to reduce carbon emissions in the near future as one of first actions in office. biden also signed executive orders halting the keystone xl pipeline from canada to texas and putting a temporary moratorium on oil and gas leasing activities in the arctic national wildlife refuge, both of which were intensely opposed from environmentalists.

he also asked the department of interior to review the deteriorating conditions of the grand staircase-escalante, northeast east canyons, bears ears, and seamounts marine national monuments.

natalie mebane, associate director of united states policy at 350 action, an environmental advocacy political action committee, said she was very pleased with biden’s decisions to rejoin the paris climate agreement and halt the keystone xl pipeline. “i’ve been fighting keystone since it was proposed back in 2008,” mebane said.

however, the executive order to block the pipeline seemed to irritate sen. john barrasso, r-wyo., a potential forewarning of the backlash biden’s ambitious climate agenda may create among congressional republicans.

“my concern is, of course, some of the executive orders that are coming, specifically in regard to the keystone xl pipeline – it was a speech of unity and it’s important to govern that way as well,” barrasso said, referring to biden’s calls for unity in his inauguration speech.

the new president may also face opposition from progressive democrats and activists who want to see much more dramatic action and policy on reducing carbon emissions.

“rejoining the paris agreement is great, but that’s not the end of the story. a lot of work needs to happen to establish a new identity and then live up to it. revisiting pipeline decisions is fine, but we still have to decarbonize,” said daniel bresette, executive director of environmental and energy study institute.

biden will now embark on an unprecedented climate agenda to make progress on an issue that the president sees as the greatest challenge the country and world faces. his plan includes an investment of $2 trillion in renewable energy and overhauls of transport and manufacturing in the hopes of reaching net-zero emissions by 2050.

washington — americans are increasingly concerned that climate change is both real and manmade, and major fossil fuel industries are heeding the change in public sentiment by investing in green energy.

in 2019 alone, bp and glencore agreed to investor demands to set business policy to limit greenhouse gas emissions in accordance with the 2016 paris accords and disclose the results to their stakeholders.

according to yale’s climate change communication december survey, 73% of americans think global warming is happening, while 62% think it is caused by humans. this concern stems from an increase in intensity and frequency of natural disasters as well as increased discussion among politicians, especially president donald trump, according to yale research affiliate john kotcher.

“over the last five years, we’ve seen a pretty substantial upward trend about people’s concern with climate change,” kotcher said.

trump pulled out of the paris climate accord and eliminated many obama-era environmental policies and regulations, even as his administration released the 2018 national climate assessment, a 13-agency report calling for swift action on human-induced climate change. he plans to appoint a new climate change commission headed by william happer, a climate change denier who argues that more carbon dioxide emissions are positive for the earth.

meanwhile, progressive democrats decided it was time to harness the public concern and proposed the green new deal, a sweeping resolution to reduce carbon emissions by 2030.

and some of the leading companies in the energy industry, except for coal, also heeded the public concern by changing their practices.

following the 2015 paris agreement, oil, natural gas and coal industry investors urged companies to reform their practices. in late 2017, industry investors created the climate action 100+ as an initiative to ensure the largest greenhouse gas emitters act on climate change, according to its website.

with over 300 investors totaling $33 trillion in assets, the group has persuaded over 100 companies to set policies that comply with the paris agreement.

in february, british petroleum announced that it would heed its investors’ calls for wider reporting on its climate change initiatives and join the initiative. “bp is committed to helping solve the dual challenge of providing more energy with fewer emissions,” said bp chairman helge lund in a statement.

(see a full-screen version of this timeline.)

about 20 years ago, bp invested nearly $10 billion in clean energy sources, though it faced criticism at the time that it was a public relations stunt. just 10 years later, the 2010 gulf of mexico oil spill cost the company any credibility of environmental stewardship it had gained. the latest move to join this organization is in part driven by competition from the industry’s major players, according to axios.

but bp’s commitment to the initiative goes beyond lip service. to join climate action 100+, energy companies must commit to help limit the increase of global temperatures to well below 2 degrees celsius, while also disclosing corporate information on what they are doing to achieve that goal.

“going forward, investors will expect full and transparent disclosure, and will hold the board and company executives accountable for bp’s progress against this critical commitment,” said mindy lubber, climate action 100+ global steering committee vice chair, and ceres ceo and president.

glencore joined signed on to the initiative in late february and committed to its investors to limit emissions and increase disclosures. in addition to helping limit global temperatures from increasing above 2 degrees celsius, glencore is also examining its relationship with trade associations that could undermine its goals, including those that lobby for deregulation, according to a glencore statement.

shell has also led the industry’s gradual shift toward clean energy, albeit with its bottom line in mind, a practice common in the industry. ceo ben van beurden predicts that u.s. policy in line with paris will be enacted, and that it “has to be delivered through business,” he said. “and i intend to fully benefit from that.”

the energy giant has already moved much of its business into natural gas, the cleanest fossil fuel, and plans to make coal and oil a smaller part of its budget, according to an investor earnings call at the end of january.

van beurden also said shell has set short-term targets to help the company fulfill its long-term goals of limiting the increase of global temperatures and aims to invest $1 billion to $2 billion in clean energy this year.

there are still many in the energy industry opposing the realities of climate change.

the american coal council does not support any regulation to force companies to reduce carbon emissions nor is it interested in joining in voluntary efforts like those of bp and shell.

“we want to utilize the rich energy reserves that we have in coal,” american coal council chief executive officer betsy monseu said. “we think that there is a better path to doing that through the use of advanced coal technology rather than not using coal or using less of it.”

in a section of the coal council’s website that characterizes the reporting of climate change as part of “the era of misinformation,” the company touts the increase of carbon dioxide as a positive because plants need it to survive.

although some notable republicans have acknowledged that climate change is happening, especially after the trump administration released the national climate assessment, many argue that the market should solve the issue.

for anne simpson, chair of the climate action 100+ steering committee, there is no time to wait for government action.

“keeping global warming to well below two degrees demands bold and urgent action from the world’s largest greenhouse gas emitters,” she said. “our collaborative engagements with the largest emitters will spur actions across all sectors as companies work to avoid being vulnerable to climate risk and left behind.”

on sept. 8, the peoples climate movement hosted 800 events in 90 countries, bringing together people fighting for climate, jobs, and justice around the world. the organization’s goal is to demand our political leaders at every level fight for a clean energy future that “helps to stop climate change,” according to the group. this effort resonates with even more importance after the recent ipcc report. the movement’s rallying cry, which could not be more relevant at this moment, is: “to change everything, we need everyone.”

i attended the chicago event in september — and it struck a chord with people of all backgrounds. please check out the day’s events below:

world leaders and stakeholders gathered at the ridderzaal in the hague, netherlands, for the commission’s opening ceremony. speakers cited last week’s ipcc report, which warned of catastrophic climate change as soon as 2030, as a call to action. their talks emphasized what’s at stake with warming temperatures: climate change could force 100 million people into “extreme poverty” by 2030, georgieva said.

even if countries meet the paris accord goal and maintain a global temperature rise below 2 degrees celsius, ban said, climate change will continue to escalate. 

“we must learn from one another,” ban said. “adapting to climate will require a complete transformation of policies, programs and projects across government, the private sector, and civil society to ensure the well-being of humanity.” 

here are five takeaways from the historic event:

1. climate adaptation is worth the investment

commissioners and national leaders stressed the role of finance as climate change threatens the world’s natural resources.

adaptive development is a “good economic action,” said kristalina georgieva, providing a financial return four to seven times higher than business as usual with the prevented damages. the commission will work to transform “food security and rural livelihoods, global supply chains, cities, infrastructure, finance, social protection and nature-based solutions,” according to a press release.

a nation battling intense cyclones, bangladesh was the first country to institute a climate change trust fund. the fund has collected more than $400 million since its founding in 2010, prime minister sheikh hasina said.

the global cost of adapting to climate change could reach $500 billion per year by 2050, ban said. water scarcity in africa and the middle east will cause a nearly 6% decline in an affected country’s gdp, he added.

“we must realize that the investments needed are small compared with the cost of business as usual,” ban said. “the benefits are many times larger.”

2. current global leadership isn’t enough

netherlands prime minister mark rutte said the scope of the global commission on adaptation is “unprecedented.” still, leaders urged the rest of the world to take responsibility.

former chilean president michelle bachelet hopes the commission will invite new actors to be part of the wide-ranging solution.

“every country should engage now to reduce emissions of and stabilize the levels of heat-trapping greenhouse gases in the atmosphere,” bachelet said.

the united states is noticeably absent from the list of convening countries, which include its economic partners and bordering nations. in 2017, the trump administration announced the country’s impending departure from the paris agreement. the president recently modified his views on climate change, stating the damages will eventually reverse themselves.

3. sustainability starts small

speakers also reiterated the need for localized solutions in the fight against climate change. 

small caribbean islands set an important precedent, said grenada cabinet minister simon stiell, particularly when threatened by natural disasters. grenada announced its plans to establish the world’s first “climate-smart” city in 2017. the capital of st. george’s will work to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, protect against flooding, and grow the local economy. also as of 2017, the greater caribbean aims to become an entire “climate-smart zone.” 

“the caribbean, and all small island developing states, are at the frontline of the war against climate change,” stiell said. “if we have the right level of support, we believe the caribbean could be the global exemplar of what needs to be done.”

4. vulnerable populations experience the worst of climate change

“adaptation efforts fall short of those who need them most, the world’s poorest and most vulnerable people,” according to a commission press release.

philippines senator loren legarda spoke on the disparate power dynamic created by climate change. globally, the philippines is the third-most susceptible to climate change, she said, yet the country contributes only one-third of one percent of harmful emissions.

“i represent a vulnerable nation,” legarda said. “yes, we are not responsible for what’s happening.”

bill gates spoke via video message on the agricultural shortages faced by developing countries as temperatures rise. he said innovative technologies, such as enhanced seeds, are the key to adaptation. gates also mentioned his fund breakthrough energy ventures, which works to make clean energy globally accessible.

“climate change is affecting the entire world,” gates said. “but the people already experiencing its devastating impacts, and are most susceptible to its worst consequences, are the millions of farming families in developing countries who are struggling with extreme poverty and hunger due to low crop yields.”

5. what’s next

the commission will prepare a report for the u.n. secretary-general’s 2019 climate summit, said netherlands minister of infrastructure and water management cora van nieuwenhuizen. the netherlands will host the commission’s first climate adaptation action summit in 2020. 

georgieva pointed to water management in the netherlands as a past example of human adaptation. now, she said, climate change demands a greater scope, scale, and speed of action.

“we are the last generation that can alter its course and we are the first generation that has to live with its consequences,” she said.

when asked in a press conference about the consequences of inaction, ban said the world has witnessed “a decrease in political will” since the paris accord. he asserted that the commission will work with leaders across the public and private sector, as well as civil society, to combat climate change.

“the next two years will be critical for humanity,” ban said. “but i believe greater climate resilience is achievable if we work together.”
 

what will it take to reach this goal? the intergovernmental panel on climate change, a coalition of climate scientists from around the globe, have laid out the maximum amount of co2 that can be emitted into the atmosphere while still maintaining the 2°c increase in temperature. this threshold is called the carbon budget.

what is the carbon budget?

to understand the carbon budget that the ipcc has created, we must understand the timeline of carbon pollution.

according to the union of concerned scientists, the estimated total carbon released in the atmosphere between 1751 and 2014 was 1,480 gigatons. of this, 743 gigatons (or 50.2%) of all emissions came after 1988.

the mercator institute of research on global commons and climate change has estimated that we have about 760 gigatons left in our carbon budget as of 2017. they also estimate at present, the world is still emitting 40 gigatons a year. if nations around the world do not commit to the objectives in the paris climate agreement, we are looking at an exhaustion of our carbon budget in just 19 years.

the ipcc has estimated that we’ve currently spent over half of our carbon budget which stands at 2,240 gigatons of carbon, putting us on track to see over 2°c of warming within the next three decades if we stay on our current course.

using the ipcc model for the carbon budget, carbon brief has concluded that as of 2017, we only have 4 years left until we inevitably surpass 1.5°c of global warming. however, their analysis also showed that as of 2016, emission rates have been slowing down, suggesting signs of peaking.

why all the fuss about 2°c?

there is a common consensus within the scientific community that we must limit the remainder of our carbon budget to stay within 2°c in warming. when climate scientists were first figuring out the effects of co2 on the atmosphere back in the 1970’s – “early calculations suggested that if we doubled the amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere over pre-industrial levels, the earth would warm somewhere between 1.5°c and 4.5°c,” according to vox.

the next question was: how much of this warming can humans tolerate with minimal danger to human life? temperature graphing has shown throughout human history, humans have lived within a temperature range that fluctuates between -1/1° celsius. it becomes increasingly worrisome to think of a world where temperatures are more than double the upper limit that humans have ever experienced.

the scientific community has a wide range of assessments calculating the risks global warming could pose to human life.

we’ve already seen the increased risks that our current carbon output has produced:

wildfires tend to be associated with hotter, drier weather, meaning that an increased climate is prone to producing more wildfires.

the oceans, at the current level they are rising, will put millions of lives at risk. as ocean surges continue to wreak havoc on our coastal cities, mass migrations are sure to ensue, causing political and economic turmoil for the more than 1 billion people living in low-lying areas.

increasing ocean temperatures have been linked to higher frequencies of more intense hurricanes. severe rainfall occurrences will increase along the eastern coast of the u.s  as a warmer atmosphere can hold more moisture: “we think that harvey type of rainfalls will become noticeably more frequent as the century goes on,” said kerry emanuel, an atmospheric scientist at mit.

extreme droughts in areas like california and the midwest, are expected to increase as temperatures rise, resulting in severe agricultural damage and water shortages around the world.

these extreme weather related events already are becoming more frequent, and the earth hasn’t even reached the 1.5° c mark yet. if we can’t keep temperatures from surpassing 2°c, the risks to human life are only going to get worse.

we’ve got to make the budget but how?

“it is still not too late to limit the warming. staying below 2°c requires social, financial, and technical actions by 2020 on a global scale,” said veerabhadran ramanathan, chair of the committee and distinguished professor at the scripps institution of oceanography in san diego.

elsewhere in the united states, social action is being taken by governors, mayors, public officials, and educational and business leaders who have signed on to the we are still in pact. this agreement represents one third of the u.s. population and their mission is to meet the goals set out in the paris climate agreement, even if the federal government does not intend to.

and according to the new york times, the united states already has delivered $1 billion of the $3 billion in financial aid it has agreed to pay under the paris climate agreement, to assist poor nations in the fight against climate change.

technological action also is on the rise as negative emissions technologies, such as biomass energy with carbon capture and storage (beccs for short), are receiving increased attention in the climate science community.

ultimately though, we need global cooperation to combat climate change, and the paris climate agreement was a great first step. we have the means to reach the carbon budget, we just need the political will and global pressure to keep the earth on track to staying under 2°c.

while burns helped host a workshop for ngos on carbon dioxide removal/negative emissions at the george washington university, planet forward sat down with him to discuss the paris climate agreement and other climate change policies. read on to see an edited version of our conversation:

planet forward: how did you become involved in climate policy research?

wil burns: i started off working on the impacts of climate change on small island states, specifically how small island states might either adapt to climate change or how they might use legal mechanisms to try to “press” the biggest emitters of greenhouse gases to reduce their emissions. then, about 12 years ago, i became interested in climate geoengineering. i had just happened to read an article, [while] on a plane, from usa today and i thought it was an interesting topic for teaching because it’s a topic that’s an interface of law and science and ethics and technology and politics.

while teaching about this i got excited about doing more research and ultimately, at john hopkins, simon nicholson from american university and i decided that there should be a think tank that would try to ensure that if we do decide to look at climate geoengineering as a society, that we include all of the stakeholders … that was one of the fears we had, so the purpose of these kind of forums are to ensure that other stakeholders like ngos and the general public — who would be affected by these technologies — are a part of the conversation.

pf: while human ingenuity seems almost endless, do you think it’s harmful to rely solely on technology to confront the challenges that global warming poses?

burns: well, i certainly think it’s harmful to rely on technologies that seek to mask the warming that’s associated with emissions. for example, [there is] one kind of geoengineering, which is carbon-dioxide removal. there’s another kind called solar radiation management. the effort there [with the solar radiation management] is to just reduce the amount of incoming sunlight. so if there’s less solar radiation to be trapped by the greenhouse gases, it reduces the warming. but that’s a short term sort of palliative [technique]. and the long term, if emissions continue to rise, it will at some point overwhelm those options. plus, those options are extremely risky for a number of other reasons. so, i think that type of technological hubris is wrong. i think the kind of technologies we’re looking at have potentially a supplementary role, but in many ways it’s because they have risks [so] they’re not necessarily permanent either. the best thing we need to do is reduce our emissions. but in a lot of cases when you think about reducing emissions through things like renewable energy or energy efficiency methods, there’s certainly a role for technology in that context also. solar, geothermal, wind power are based on technology also, so there is a role for technology.

pf: how hopeful are you then that geoengineering technology can reduce the worst case scenarios that climate change could produce?

burns: i think the jury is definitely out. i think that, ultimately, carbon dioxide removal strategies, things like bioenergy and carbon capture (beccs) or direct air capture will have a modest role to play. but even a modest role is good. the difference between, for example, a temperature increase of 3.0 and 2.5 degrees or 2.5 to 2.0 can be substantial in terms of the impacts on ecosystems or human institutions. even if the role is relatively modest, which i think it will [be], it could be important. carbon capture involves trapping the carbon dioxide at its emission source, transporting it to a storage location — usually deep underground — and isolating it. this means we could potentially grab excess co2 right from the power plant, creating greener energy. 

pf: you’ve done a lot of research on the paris climate agreement. what are some steps that countries are currently taking? and do you think the paris climate agreement is effective?

burns: well, again, the jury is going to be out on the paris until we start seeing whether the pledges that are made are implemented, first of all. then when the parties reassess their claims they have a process called “stock-taking” where they’re supposed to say: are we on path to meet this goal to holding temperatures well below 2.0° celsius and if we’re not are we willing to escalate what we’re willing to do? the good news about paris is that we’re clearly bending the temperature increase trajectory. we used to talk about maybe 4.0° or 5.0° celsius of increased temperatures by the end of the century. we’re increasingly talking about somewhere between 2.7° to 3.5°/3.7°, so that’s the good news. the bad news is that’s still way beyond where we want to be and way beyond paris says we’re going to be. if the current pledges of paris are all totally implemented faithfully, we go from 47 gigatons of carbon-dioxide annually to 58. so we slow down the rate of increase but we keep increasing. we can’t do that because if you think of it as water in a bathtub, the water is going up more slowly but eventually the bathtub will overfill. so the real test for paris is going to be: when we start these assessments and we realize we’re not where we need to be, are parties willing to escalate? one of the hopes you have with an agreement like paris is, [it’s] an international agreement in which countries come together, start to learn from each other, start to collaborate more because treaties can foster cooperation. and you hope by doing that parties start to learn that reducing emissions can be done more cheaply than they thought, they realize other countries are actually complying with what they said, and that impels them to do more also, and ultimately reduces emissions more than they have.

pf: the trump administration has decided they will be pulling the u.s. out of paris. how complicated is it to pull out of the paris climate agreement? and if we successfully do pull out, how complicated will it be for a following administration to put the united states back into the agreement?

burns: in terms of the first question, it’s complicated to get out. one of the reasons that we do that is we don’t want other countries that have relied on an agreement and then other parties that have joined just suddenly pulling out because they then have to respond themselves and decide if they’re going to withdraw or if it’s going to change the nature of their commitments. so we make it a slow process. the way paris works is, you can’t give notice of your intention to withdraw, until three years after you ratified paris. so we couldn’t give notice that we actually intended to withdraw from paris until three years from november, 2016. then it takes another year before it takes effect and goes into force. since the trump administration has announced its intention to withdraw, it can’t legally actually announce that intention until three years from november of last year, and can’t withdraw until a year after that. our effective date of withdrawing from paris is pretty much after the next election.

pf: so we could possibly have a new administration in office by that time?

burns: we could. if we announce in three years [after ratification] that we’re withdrawing, it will probably happen and it’d be very difficult to reverse it at that point. now getting back in, is potentially a relatively simple process in the sense that, what we did with the paris agreement is we entered by something called an “executive agreement,” instead of going to the senate. the reason we were able to get the treaty bypassed from ratification by two thirds of the senate, is because we said we could do this under executive agreement. and we could do this because the commitments we made under paris were no more than what we were already doing in terms of national legislation or regulations or current treaty obligations. so the argument we made was, since paris is voluntary, we had already agreed under the framework convention on climate change (which we’re a party to), that we would reduce our emissions to a level that wouldn’t cause dangerous anthropogenic impacts. we said that paris just defines what “dangerous” is. we aren’t required to do more than what we were before and we had domestic regulations called the clean power plan to reduce our emissions, and those commitments would be tracked by what we were committing to under paris. so if we did that again, and we came back in under an executive agreement, it could be done relatively quickly.

pf: if the united states were to implement policies such as a cap-and-trade system, how would that significantly reduce our risks to climate change?

burns: well, it depends. if you were to implement either a cap-and-trade system, or a carbon tax or a command-and-control system (reducing emissions by a fixed amount), the key is how much you decide to reduce your emissions. that’s the first question. one of the things we’ve seen under a lot of cap-and-trade programs in the world is that the cap hasn’t been set low enough to reduce emissions that much or put a price on carbon that drives the trading. so that’s a political commitment. the second problem is that even though the united states is a major emitter of greenhouse gas emissions, the bottom line is that we are only one emitter. we’re about 16% of the world’s emissions. so even if we were to massively reduce our emissions, it wouldn’t bring down our temperature trajectory that much. one thing that would be very important is, it would have some impact because we’re a major emitter, but perhaps more importantly it would signal to other countries that the largest economy in the world had the resolve to do it. a lot of other countries in the world compete with the united states… so other countries would be willing to do more because they [wouldn’t want to] be put at a competitive disadvantage in terms [of their] industry.

pf: what are some policies we could implement on a global scale that could greatly reduce the risks of climate change?

burns: i think one thing we could do that could make a very large difference is to eliminate subsidies to fossil fuels development. we spend hundreds of billions of dollars “incentivizing” fossil fuel production and there’s no reason to provide incentives most of the time. there’s enough profit being made that countries would do it anyway. what it does is it eliminates the level playing field for fossil fuels and alternatives. we subsidize in a lot of countries’ renewables also, but at a much lower level. we’re privileging fossil fuels at a time when we keep saying: renewable energy should compete in the open marketplace. but we don’t have a free and open marketplace. so eliminating those hundreds of billions of dollars in subsidies and creating more of a level playing field would really help. we also need to substantially increase our research and development for potential technological breakthroughs in terms of energy. one of the things we know is that the stone age didn’t end because we ran out of stone. it [ended] because there were massive improvements based on technological breakthroughs. the same thing could be said here. if we put more funding into renewables for example, their cost could probably come down so much that we wouldn’t have the political battles that we have now because it’d become simply a question of economic imperative to shift away from fossil fuels. we’ve seen the cost curves for renewables drop dramatically to the point they’re at parity, or lower than fossil fuels. if we were to spend more on research and development, there [are] probably a lot more breakthroughs that would help make that transition more quickly.

however, it seems that many state and local politicians in the united states still intend on confronting climate change, even if the federal government is falling short. governors from washington, california, and new york have pulled together to form the u.s climate alliance. the alliance now has 13 u.s. states plus puerto rico, who are committed to upholding the stipulations agreed upon in the paris climate agreement.

for environmentalists, this is inspiring news. according to the official u.s climate alliance website, the alliance represents 1/3 of the u.s. population, contributes $7.6 trillion to u.s. gdp, and represents 1.3 million clean energy jobs. the alliance has stated that it is “committed to supporting the international agreement, and are pursuing aggressive climate action to make progress toward its goals.”

what does this mean in regards to climate change?

as laid out in the paris climate agreement, the central goal demands: “holding the increase in global average temperature to well below 2 degrees c above pre-industrial levels…” the agreement stipulates that each country come up with its own plan to combat climate change, with the united nations periodically meeting to keep countries on track with the global goal.

under the obama administration, the united states had specified that it planned on cutting domestic greenhouse gas emissions between 26-28% of 2005 levels by the year 2025. the united states also agreed to deliver $3 billion in aid to less-developed countries to assist them in reaching their climate goals. according to the new york times, the united states has already paid $1 billion of the pledged aid.

however if the trump administration does carry-through with its withdrawal, rhodium group has estimated that under trump, the united states is still expected to see a 17-19% decrease in emissions from 2005 levels.

local governments taking action

the actions by the trump administration aren’t stopping state officials from taking global action. jerry brown, governor of california went to china in early june to discuss climate change with president xi jinping.

during the six day trip, governor brown visited the provinces of jiangsu and sichuan before making his way to beijing for the clean energy ministerial conference. the conference unites both private and public delegations to focus on solutions towards three key goals: improve energy efficiency, enhance clean energy supply, and expand clean energy access.

the meeting between governor brown and president jinping demonstrates that china is now regarding climate change as a serious threat and is determined to work with the global community, even if the trump administration is not.

governor cuomo of new york is partnering with the worker institute at cornell university, to work towards the creation of 40,000 clean energy jobs by 2020. this is in an effort to achieve the statewide goal of reaching 50% of electricity from renewables by 2030. you can check out new york’s full initiative program here.

corporations taking the lead

support for action on climate change doesn’t stop at the state level. shortly after the trump administration’s announcement, a group called we are still in was formed. this group consists of 2,200 leaders around the country from city halls, state houses, boardrooms, and college campuses. we are still in represents leaders who are committed to upholding the agreements set forth in the paris climate accord.

here’s what hannah jones, the vice president of nike had to say: “we are deeply disappointed by the recent shift in climate policy…we will continue to honor our commitments on climate, including reaching 100% renewable energy in all nike owned or operated facilities around the world by 2025.”

we reached out to new york’s erie county executive, mark poloncarz a signatory of we are still in. we asked what efforts erie county is making to reach the 26-28% decrease in carbon output: “currently 70% of electricity that is generated in erie county comes from hydroelectric sources, so our goal has always been to have more renewable energy sources not just for county government but for our residents.”

the county executive said that the county is aiming towards making its facilities more environmentally friendly. some of the efforts include making county buildings more energy efficient and installing solar panels. poloncarz also indicated that they now purchase more energy efficient vehicles. 

it is enlightening news to hear that state and local governments are stepping up to combat climate change. we often forget the impact our state and local actions can have on the world. as more people begin to understand the threats of climate change, it seems inevitable that local and state governments are going to act in the effort to create a sustainable world.  mark poloncarz ended with hopeful statement: “if the federal government is not going to act, local governments can, and they do have the power to make a difference so that’s what we’re doing.”

as a climate scientist, we asked buizer how he felt the withdrawal from the paris agreement would affect science studies and communication going forward. below is an edited version of his conversation with planet forward.

planet forward: your work at the university is directly related to climate and climate change. how do you think leaving the paris accord will affect your work?

buizer: it’s not going to affect it. other than having to answer questions about what i think. i actually found myself in a different spot than a lot of my colleagues — lonely in rooms … people were freaking out and i was actually glad. and, in fact, i found myself being hopeful that he would pull. and that was a weird place to be. it probably is counterintuitive to you.

and here’s why (i was in this mindset): the paris agreement is an accord — it’s voluntary — it has been voluntary since the beginning and whether or not the country was going to meet its commitment — by the way were not on track, even with the obama efforts, to meet them. the voluntary commitment and being a signatory gave us a seat at the table and gave us a chance to develop leadership. it didn’t mean that we were going to do anything about reducing greenhouse gases. the only thing that was required was a recording about 10 levels of carbon that each nation put forward.

trump had already — over the last few months — begun gutting the laws and regulations that epa had, that obama had put in. so it wasn’t going to make really any difference whether or not we were in the accord or not in the accord, whether we were going to reduce greenhouse gases — that was already happening.

secondly, in a corollary, that’s the bad news. nationally we were going to do whatever we were going to do no matter what. any chance that we have to reduce greenhouse gases doesn’t happen really on a national level; it happens because of companies like exxon or bp, or states like california, or individuals like you and i are doing things. because we’re in — we believe we’re in. we’re in this big challenge and we’re going to do what we can do. so it doesn’t happen at a national level.

the other thing is, i was aware it’s going to take something like 4-5 years to actually be out (of the paris agreement). it’ll be really interesting to see what happens in, say, november or october 2020, the debate is going to be “which side of this are you on?” we’ll still be in the accord, having made moves to be out of it, but four years from now is 2021. so, the reason why, i thought, well, mother nature/father atmosphere — it’s really going to make no difference whether we are in or out. what is going to matter is whether or not we have a seat at the table, and whether or not we can demonstrate leadership as a nation. so, as an american, that’s sad. …

for my work specifically — the impact is actually not about the accord — my work is being affected by his budget, with him gutting all climate budgets, because that stops the work. … it’s about the work that gets done, helping people understand the impacts and vulnerability and what we can do about climate variability and change… that work can’t continue. and we support a lot of students. i have four students — graduate research assistants — who are getting their ph.d.s with this funding. that’s where it’s going to affect the work. i’ll have a tougher time getting the necessary funding, certainly from the federal government, so i’m seeking other sources.

q: what challenges do you think the academic and scientific community faces in the coming years as a result of the withdrawal?

a: … we (used to be) listened to. we were invited to the table. we were doing the inviting — we had a seat at the head of the table. i’m imagining a future where that is no longer true. because why should they? we’re seated leadership — we’re “just another country” now. in fact, we’re the largest undeveloping country there is.

look around infrastructure, positions on nationalism, and weirdness in government — it looks an awful lot like (undeveloped) countries and the way those countries govern themselves. … it will be a while, but that’s the direction we’re heading. social justice issues, and governance and all the broader issues — the corruption. there’s a list out there done by the un body that ranks the countries and corruption and we keep going down and down and down on that list. … in literacy and education — literacy, corruption, life span. everything that’s considered to be a developed country — we are going down.

i certainly can’t walk into a room and can’t be sitting at the head of the table seat. the europeans will be sitting in that seat or the chinese will be sitting in that seat.

q: how can academia bridge the divide on climate in america?

a: sure. but not in the same way we thought it was going to be in the past. we had the finest (universities) … if you look at the shanghai rankings, u.s. universities are something like 16 out of the top 20; we have the best higher ed. universities and colleges are really strong in the u.s. and revered and respected. in coming to the debate, we have legitimacy as a place. but where i say, “maybe not so much, or we have to change our way” … in the past our legitimacy was based on the rigor of our science.

as an aside, for something for ncse (the national council for science and the environment), i was adding the nobel prizes … and since world war ii we, the u.s., in the sciences — not peace or music or art — we have as many nobel prizes as the next seven countries that follow. so there is some credibility about what we do in science and engineering.

so i don’t think that is necessarily what needs to happen for the political divide — it has to be storytelling; it has to be communication; it has to be understanding that we as scientists might be good at piling up knowledge and proving fact. but we’re not really as good at communicating.

it struck me that some people park climate change — something that’s fact — in the same place that we have to park our faith.

q: how does leaving the paris accord change the way we tell the climate story?

a: i think we shouldn’t let paris distract us from what we’re saying and how we’re doing it. more than ever we have to come at it with sort of clarity of message and steptoitness – and all the stuff i said at the beginning, about how it doesn’t really matter. it doesn’t really matter, but only if we keep trump’s feet to the fire. we’ve gotta keep the conversation going … and we need to make sure the rest of the world knows that our president doesn’t speak for us.

and that’s why i love the, yes, “we are still in” — i’ve been seeing that all over the place. and california doing what they’re going to do, saying, we’re going to go talk to the chinese, since we can’t talk to our own white house. so i think that kind of activity, as far as messaging — most of what we need to do is actually use our own tactics. so if they say it’s all about the jobs, then it’s absolutely all about the jobs. they said we added something like 55,000 jobs in coal in this last year. well, then i’d like to know what was added in renewables, etc.

and here’s another one — you want to save money on healthcare? … how strong is a healthy country — is it because of healthcare or the quality of air? imagine if we’re not burning any fossil fuels in this country; that’s one way to save it.

here we are exploring the libertarian party and the green party, since these are the largest and most recognized third parties in the united states. members from both parties were interviewed on their party’s environmental ideals and how their party handles concepts such as green energy and climate change.

for the libertarian party, we spoke with chairman nicholas sarwark. founded in 1971, the libertarian party is the third largest national party in america, and it is growing. the slogan of the party is “minimum government, maximum freedom,” creating a focus of the party on individual freedoms. the party prefers a laissez-faire, free market economy with the least amount of government interference as possible.

the green party, founded in 1991, is the fourth largest national party in the united states and is a group of “grassroots activists, environmentalists, and advocates for social justice…” according to the green party website. the main focus of the party is on the environment, and is the basis for many of the ideals of the party. although the party does not have the greatest market share, the party has done important work, such as filing for recount of votes in the 2016 presidential election. giving us a rundown on the green party’s environmental policies is media director scott mclarty.

the first aspect of environmental ideals that was discussed was the paris climate accord and how both parties view the removal of the united states from this international treaty.

when asked about the removal, libertarian chairman sarwark did not focus on the substance on the accord but the amount of power that the president has to make these decisions.

“our biggest issue is we would oppose having a president that has that kind of executive power where they are able to set policy for millions of americans without any checks whatsoever,” sarwark said. for a libertarian, it is not truly the substance of an executive order, but that a president can set policy arbitrarily with no legislative or judicial check, no matter how “good” the policy.

on the other hand, neal gale, a green party candidate in pennsylvania, stated in a press release after president trump’s decision to leave the accord, “this is not president trump’s decision to make. the stakes are too high, the consequences too grave.” this statement demonstrates the real platform of the party, which puts the environment as the most important entity — more vital than any other aspect of life. 

the event of the withdrawal of the paris climate accord leads to the concept of how much the federal government should do to combat climate change.

the role of the government, according to sarwark, is to remove the government completely from the equation.

“the first step is removing some of the government interference in the market. starting with things like subsides for oil and gas explorations and the tax credits and expiration subsides that make oil and gas look cheaper than other, potentially renewable, alternatives. (and) not subsidizing things like solar because … solar is automatically better than wind and nuclear.

“the market alone is the best in determining … what is the best technology, what is the technology that is the most cost-effective, and still provide our energy needs” and not the “too smart people in washington,” sarwark said.

the green party, on the other hand, wants an aggressive federal government in tackling the issue of climate change. mclarty discussed the existential threat and what the federal government needs to do.

“we needed federal government to play a leading role in order to defeat the axis powers in world war ii. climate change represents a comparable global threat,” mclarty said.

the green party wants to take control of climate change in not just the federal government, but state and local governments also because they see it as a shared problem between everyone.

finally, the focus was on the role of the individual on the problem of climate change.   

for sarwark, the main problem is market distortions that are causing individuals to not make the best decisions that they can.

“when you take away some of these subsidies you are able to have a clearer picture of what the true cost is, of coal, or of natural gas, or oil, or solar, or nuclear, or wind,” sarwark said.

by having a clearer picture, then an individual is most informed on all forms of energy and can make the most rational decision possible. in essence, an individual will make the best decision when there is not any government inference, according to libertarians.

the green party sees the role of the individual and government as an inverse of the libertarian party. “individual actions to prevent the advance of climate change are generally too small to have much effect. we need to reorganize the economy… to fight global warming,” mclarty said.

the party’s position is that to shift the economy from carbon producing forms of energy to renewable sources, and the federal, state, and local governments have to take control to help enact these changes. through government intervention, the consumer would be able to make the decisions to take more environmentally friendly actions.

so what’s your take: will you remain a steadfast member of the two-party system, or are you ready to break out and join the independents?

***

correction: a previous version of this story misspelled the name of the libertarian party chairman. it has been corrected to nicholas sarwark.

president trump withdrew from the paris climate agreement because he did not believe it was fair that it put most of the blame on the united states for global climate change. despite the fact that the united states is the second biggest contributor to global climate change, president trump explained that he cannot support a deal that punished the u.s. but does not pose any punishments for the world’s greatest polluters.

let us all remember that whether china is the first or the last on the list of polluters, the u.s. has the means and resources to make a huge impact and an enormous influence, if not more. instead, president trump cries victim and masks his reality of wanting to live in the now, “put americans first” and allocate fiscal resources to other programs and treaties that put the united states on the top and… the military.

the best part about the accord was that it forced countries like the united states and other wealthy nations to help “developing countries,” but really the global south, to build renewable energy sources for their countries that suffer the biggest burden in the first place.

certainly climate change is not a priority for the current administration but that does not mean it isn’t a priority for humanity. the hottest year ever recorded was 2015. then 2016 stole that record. so. are we going to continue to abide by the status quo, or are we going to strive to make systemic change and also become conscious citizens.

originally the u.s. agreed to contribute $3 billion to the green climate fund, and under the obama administration, $1 billion had been transferred. the white house could easily have stayed in the paris accord, even as it opted not to pay into the climate fund or impose emission cuts. why did he do it then? to make a point? to urge and force people to act on their own part for the next four years? to make local and individual impacts instead of always relying on someone else to do it? that’s the positive way to look at it at least, and the wise way to examine it.

i do hope his decision galvanizes people and pushes them to engage in their own sustainable acts so the planet doesn’t melt over but also to finally acknowledge and take responsibility — the same way it is inspiring me to continue my efforts to save the planet and its people.

now, more than ever, it is imperative that we immerse ourselves into the experiences that are being felt all over the planet. we need to listen to the stories of the refugees of climate change, the global citizens whose environments are shifting in sudden and dangerous ways.

although it seems as if president trump is shying away from american leadership, on second thought, his shortsighted decision is inspiring citizens to act. perhaps surprisingly, leaving the paris accord isn’t stalling breakthrough innovations to reach sustainability but, instead, advancing efforts.

all around the country, companies, mayors, governors and even college presidents are declaring to solemnly act on the climate pledge to continue to support climate action. ideally we want to go beyond the paris agreement’s plea, but it does represent a major step in the right direction. india and china are ahead of schedule in meeting the paris commitments. can the united states, along with other wealthy nations also serve as pacesetters — or at least followers — in the most crucial battle of our age?