In 1920, the US failed to join the League of Nations, starting the path that led to the Second World War.
In 1930, Congress passed the Smoot-Hawley Act on tariffs, which turned a market crash into the Great Depression. We can only hope that two abdications of international responsibility by Donald Trump within a week will not be as cataclysmic.
After failing to defend Nato’s principle of collective defence on May 25, the US president on Thursday announced his government’s withdrawal from the Paris agreement on climate change. The US does not align with Nicaragua and Syria on much, but these are the only three countries to have rejected the Paris accords. And in fairness to Nicaragua, it remained outside because it wanted more stringent goals.
Most world leaders sign such treaties with a certain cynicism. The targets are a long way off, they are not legally binding or enforceable, and compliance is vague. So it is not even necessary for the US to withdraw – it could simply remain within Paris but make no effort to comply. The given rationale for withdrawing, that the US would negotiate a “better deal”, is laughable given that every country under Paris decides its own climate targets.
Almost all countries are failing to meet the necessary climate goals, but most have at least the right intentions and plans to improve. Prone to labelling other countries as “rogue states”, the Trump administration is content for Somali herders, Bangladeshi farmers, Floridian beachfront retirees, the Great Barrier Reef and the polar bear to pay the price for the comfort of Middle America.
It was said of the late Soviet Union that it had built the best 19th-century economy in the world. The Republican vision is of the best 1950s economy – coal, steel and big cars. Even the blue chips of corporate America – GE, ExxonMobil, Apple, Goldman Sachs – and Tesla chief executive Elon Musk declared the country should stay in Paris.
This withdrawal will make little difference to domestic US climate action. Policy-driven change has already been gutted. Meanwhile economics will ensure that cheap, lower-carbon natural gas continues to wipe out Mr Trump’s favoured coal. The US has needlessly made itself the climate villain, taking any political pressure off China, India and the major oil exporters.
It is up to the rest of the world how it responds. The loss of US support may lead to the collapse of multilateral climate efforts, the most damaging outcome. It has already raised hostility, with the US facing opposition over a broad range of other issues. Others – notably the EU, China, Japan and Canada – may decide to forge ahead in their own coalition, and to impose tariffs on high-carbon US goods. That would be an understandable but dangerous path at a time when world trade is already under attack.
Or, most positively, other countries can build alliances with those parts of the US system that have a responsible climate outlook. Former mayor of New York and media tycoon Michael Bloomberg has pledged US$15 million to replace lost US funding of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change. Many states, such as California and New York, and American cities and corporations, have a range of policies to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and encourage renewable energy and electric vehicles.
In recent years there have been major advances in wind and solar power, batteries, carbon capture and other clean energy. Countries with a strong climate strategy but which seek assistance in implementing it, such as the UAE, will find a readier international audience.
To avoid a repeat of previous disastrous breakdowns of global cooperation, we need an international climate community not dependent on the whims of whoever inhabits the White House. The future will not be built by those who ignore the rising tide.
Robin Mills is CEO of Qamar Energy, and author of The Myth of the Oil Crisis.
business@thenational.ae
Follow The National's Business section on Twitter