Is Killing The Planet Truly Worth It?

Our planet is dying. And America isn’t doing anything to help it. In June 2017, American president, Donald Trump, announced his plans to withdraw from the Paris Agreement. This agreement was one President Barack Obama signed during the latter half of his term. That this is a mistake. I believe that America should not leave the Paris Agreement, now or later. This is because of the health risks, America’s history of emissions, and the insignificance of the ‘apparent’ job risk.

As the Earth is growing hotter and hotter, American citizens are growing ill. The harms of creating ‘dirty energy’ not only affect the Earth’s health, but the health of those around it. Creating fossil fuels have a major effect on those who have been exposed to the industry, as in the local communities and workers themselves. Climate Nexus, an organisation focused on changing the climate conversation, put together an article exploring the localised health risks within the fossil fuel industry. In this article, I found a study recorded at MIT that found that, annually, about 52 000 premature deaths have been linked to power generation. To find this number, a group within the MIT Laboratory for Aviation and Environment had tracked emissions from different places. For example industrial smokestacks, vehicle tailpipes, marine and rail operations and commercial and residential heating. Overall, 200 000 premature deaths leave air pollution at fault. That’s a lot. Of this, that 52 000 is linked directly to the air pollution caused by power generation. 

Back with Climate Nexus, they state that those who work in surface mines, such as strip mines, open-pit mines, and mountain top removals, are constantly exposed to chemical toxins and other dangerous particles. These particles can leave workers at high risk of life complications. For example, they had linked exposure to coal dust and other particles to a higher risk of cancers—like lung cancer—and strokes, heart disease, and respiratory illnesses. When around coal mining regions, respiratory, circulatory, gastrointestinal, musculoskeletal, and central nervous system issues, and birth defects, are all elevated. There are currently little to no federal regulations stopping or at least reducing these emissions. For America to introduce regulations that work alongside the Paris Agreement, they would not only be helping reduce global emissions, they would also keep their workers a lot safer. If those who are working in the fossil fuel industry are at risk of possible respiratory diseases and cancers, are ‘job-killing’ regulations all that big of a deal?

The primary reason Donald Trump planned to withdraw from the agreement was being unfairly forced to set regulations to reduce fossil fuels. This introduces risks to the economic side of their country, and it has previously been stated that the rules suggested are ‘job killers.’ This is a valid point. Taking down the fossil fuel industry would destroy the jobs dependent on it. However, here is a major upside on the opposite end. As jobs are ‘killed’ in fossil fuel-related businesses, as a country becomes more dependent on clean energy, it creates more jobs in said ‘clean energy’ industry. If these end up cancelling themselves out, the regulations end up neither a job killer nor creator.

Richard D. Morgenstern 1, William A. Pizer, and Jhih-Shyang Shih did their own investigation on the matter. They found out that across pulp and paper mills, plastic manufacturers, petroleum refiners, and iron and steel mills—some of the highest pollution producing industries—when environmental policies were implemented, the average net gain is around 1.5 jobs per million, with a standard error of 2.2. I’m not sure about you, but statistics aren’t my strong suit. For me, that was hard to understand at first. In reality, it’s simple. Their article later explains that the effect is both statistically and economically insignificant. The most apparent downside to the agreement is barely a problem at all. So, is an inconsequential effect worth killing the earth for?

While the risk to their economy is practically non-existent, their contributions to global emissions are quite existent. The USA, on their own, produces a large sum of the total global emissions. About the second-most in the world, right after China. According to Our World In Data, in 2017, America produced 5.27 billion tons of carbon dioxide. As previously mentioned, that was the same year Donald Trump announced his plan to withdraw from the Paris Agreement. In comparison, in the same year, the entirety of Europe produced 5.63 billion tons, Asia produced 7.17 billion tons without India and China, and the rest of North America produced a mere 1.24 billion. India, which has around 4 times the population of America, produced 2.46 billion tons in 2017. That’s around half the amount America produced that year. If they’re the ones producing so much of our problem, why do they plan to stop doing anything about it? It’s insane. Withdrawal from the agreement may mean that America will not hold themselves responsible for their current carbon dioxide emissions. At least not for the next four years.

The Paris (Climate) Agreement states that the countries who sign will combat climate change the best that they can. It requires those involved to use their strongest efforts to limit the rise in global temperature to 1.5 degrees Celsius a year. Withdrawing from this agreement will only show how little America’s government cares about their environment. Having no drastic economic effect, staying within the Paris Agreement will not only help the environment but the health of those who inhabit it. One step in the right direction may not be all that it takes, but nobody ever got anywhere by standing still.