This column is based mainly on an online article I co-authored with colleague Hannah Tablan. We wrote that article to encourage everyone to watch Al Gore’s “An Inconvenient Sequel: Truth to Power.” The documentary film, which was released globally on Aug. 4 and commercially in the Philippines last week, weaves together both good and bad developments on climate change over the past decade, as footage of collapsing polar ice caps and flattened towns in Tacloban, eventually gives way to cutting-edge Texas solar farms, impassioned crowds at the Global Climate March, and a jubilant Paris in December 2015. If the Houston floods happened earlier, for sure, we would see images of that ongoing disaster in the film. But disaster and defeat is not, never Al Gore’s last word. Hope is, and we see that in this film again.
The film’s tone is largely hopeful, and plainly at odds with political reality. As the filmmakers took pains to emphasize, not everyone has responded affirmatively to Gore’s urgent call to arms. The question of the moment persists: what does Trump’s decision to withdraw from the Paris climate accord mean for the rest of the world? What does it mean for the Philippines?
The immediate concern is that Trump had set a precedent for others to wane in their support of the Paris process. Developing nations in particular, some speculated, might be discouraged by the reduced funding that would result from the US’ withdrawal. Article 9 of the Paris Agreement, which was reiterated in the communique, obligated developed countries to provide aid to their developing counterparts for use in emission reduction efforts. The absence of the US’ contribution could mean a cut of as much as $3 billion.
The hope is that the United States’ absence is temporary, which is not far-fetched. For one, Trump’s economic reasons are no longer compelling, if they ever were. In his speech delivered on June 1, he claimed that staying in the Paris accord could pose “serious obstacles” to maximizing America’s natural energy reserves and thereby hinder its economy. Alden Meyer of the US Union of Concerned Scientists dispels this, asserting that there is an “accelerating shift away from polluting fossil fuels towards a global economy powered by clean, renewable energy.” Unlike the fossil fuel industry, clean energy is estimated at over $20 trillion and is “providing good jobs that can put people to work and revitalize American manufacturing, in ‘blue’ and ‘red’ states,” writes Robert Redford, a director and trustee of the Natural Resources Defense Council.
The United States cannot withdraw immediately from the Paris Agreement. In a press release issued last Friday, the US State Department announced that it had formally notified the UN of its decision, but recognized that it is presently not “eligible” to act on it. Under Article 28, withdrawal from the Paris Agreement is not permitted for the first three years after the accord comes into effect, and thereafter, is subject to a one-year notice period. This brings the earliest possible date of withdrawal to November 2020. Alternatively, Trump could withdraw the US from the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change effective immediately, but with monumentally graver implications.
In the interim, the US’ political obligation remains, and Trump may yet be convinced to stay. After the Houston disaster, there might be some opening within his administration to rethink its strategy on climate change.
In the meantime, the United States’ break from the climate change scene may be exactly what the rest of the world needs. The issues most important to climate justice would benefit from a temporary US withdrawal, as issues like adaptation, climate finance, technology transfer, and loss and damage could be more easily resolved without the United States at the negotiating table. In the race against environmental degradation, the absence of Trump’s contrarianism would allow vital ground to be more quickly gained. However, this must be balanced with the need to continue to involve American career diplomats and officials in the process in order to pave the way for the US’ eventual re-entry. Judging from the press release, the United States is only more than willing to do so, and intends to “continue to participate in international climate change negotiations and meetings … to protect US interests and ensure all future policy options remain open to the administration.”
Climate change has long been treated as a tug-of-war between developed nations, dictated by first-world politics and ivory-tower planning. The stark reality is that it is everyone’s battle, most especially that of developing nations.
In recent years, the Philippines has been among those who have taken this to heart and stepped up their efforts. Following the Yolanda tragedy, it successfully pushed for the establishment of the Warsaw International Mechanism on Loss and Damage at the UNFCCC Conference of Parties 2013, and last year, oversaw the Climate Vulnerable Forum’s adoption of the Manila-Paris Declaration as forum chair.
When President Rodrigo Duterte signed the Paris Agreement, Senator Loren Legarda christened it one of the Philippine government’s “shining achievements” as it “allows our country access to international climate finance mechanisms and to acquire support from developed countries for adaptation, mitigation, technology development and transfer, and capacity building.” The immediate challenge for developing nations is to take robust action to maximize these resources. As Duterte told the crowd at his recent State of the Nation Address, now more than ever, “The protection of the environment … is non-negotiable.”
When a lone mutineer threatened to sabotage the climate change battle effort, the global community—in the form of an irrevocable communique—proved that would not be tolerated. To make good on its word, it must continue to build momentum towards a holistic and effective approach to climate change. These efforts will hopefully see the United States’ return, but regardless. Climate change is too big an issue for us to allow one country to hold the global community hostage and paralyzed in inaction.
An Inconvenient Sequel: Truth to Power is a good film. Watch it, be disturbed by it, and speak truth to power—to our government, to our coal and fossil fuel-dependent industries, and to our fellow citizens. Let’s fight as if our islands depend on it. United, we will win this continuing fight against climate change.
Facebook: https://web.facebook.com/deantonylavs/ Twitter: tonylavs