Save for later Print Download Share LinkedIn Twitter November 2016 Lauren Craft US President-elect Donald Trump has said he will "cancel" or "renegotiate" the country's participation in the Paris climate agreement when he takes office, and his transition team is said to be exploring ways to do just that. But pulling out altogether isn't in the best interest of the country. At the international level, it would exhaust valuable diplomatic currency Trump could use to his advantage, especially with Europe. It would also signal that the US is falling behind in the global clean energy race, a giant business opportunity. Yet Trump's other option -- "renegotiate" -- holds more promise. The Trump administration could revise the US' climate pledge so that it's more pro-growth and less regulation-heavy, for example. Of course, this goes both ways. Climate-conscious leaders -- both at home and abroad -- need to recognize that there are alternative approaches to the problem and work with the incoming Trump administration on climate policy, contributing ideas that complement the president-elect's pro-jobs agenda. Trump's relationship with Europe will be particularly important. If he decides to back away from the Iran deal and Nato, adding the Paris Agreement on top of that may poison relations and thwart cooperation on other issues. Backing out of Paris would also mean that the US would lose its voice at the climate negotiating table, which Trump's administration could use to shape the deal in a way that better serves the US. United Nations climate negotiators have an obligation here, too. They must be open to new ideas under Trump, rather than expecting the new presidency to simply go along with the Obama administration's plans. For example, it would be reasonable for Trump's State Department to swap out President Barack Obama's climate pledge and replace it with plans based around incentives and competition instead of regulations and mandates. It's not realistic, however, to expect Trump to stick with President Barack Obama's $3 billion pledge to the Green Climate Fund for developing countries. Cutting this made the Trump administration's 100-day action plan, and Trump will want to budget for his other expensive priorities, including infrastructure, tax cuts, and trimming the country's $19.8 trillion debt. If the US withdraws from Paris, it could also also create a vacuum in the global clean energy race that other powers -- such as China, which remains committed to Paris -- would be happy to fill. Clean energy is an opportunity for Trump to make good on his goals for job growth since it's a growing source of employment. US solar energy jobs, for example, hit almost 209,000 positions at the end of 2015, surpassing oil and gas extraction (187,000) and coal mining (68,000) for the first time, the International Renewable Energy Agency found in a report this year. Jobs in US solar have grown 123% over 2010-15 and pay higher than the median US wage, according to statistics from the Solar Foundation. Trump is highly qualified to turn those opportunities into real jobs and revenues. The president-elect is a shrewd businessman known for successful enterprises in multiple industries despite his business mistakes, which, as in any profession, are a source of valuable experience. Trump will be one of the toughest US presidents for the low-carbon transition, and certainly the toughest so far. But he's also shown a willingness to compromise. Indeed, in his first post-election interview with CBS' 60 Minutes, the president-elect moderated his stances on health care policy and border infrastructure and security. Yet what if Trump does pull the US out of Paris, as many expect him to do? Green-minded leaders should stay vigilant, seeking climate policy solutions that bridge common ground with US Republicans: • The US should be encouraged to keep its seat at the UN climate negotiating process, even if its role is dubious. The US is a key historical emitter and remains the largest greenhouse gas emitter per capita, so it's in the best interest of the global community to make sure US participation of any sort is welcome. • Be open to letting the market decide the fate of fossil fuels. Trump can encourage clean energy while at the same time fulfilling his campaign pledge to undo restrictions on coal and restore federal drilling access. Such an "all of the above" energy strategy may slow down the clean energy transition, but it's more workable with a Trump administration. EI New Energy's cost report shows that some clean energy sources are already on track to compete on their own (NE Jun.30'16). • Already, one of Trump's top priorities should bode well for clean energy investments -- a lowering of the US corporate tax rate. Currently, the US rate of 35% is the highest among OECD countries and the third highest in the world, and mountains of loopholes make the tax opaque and unevenly applied across industries. There's room for Republican congressional leaders and Trump's team to keep clean energy incentives intact in a tax reform package -- a form of climate policy that's pro-growth rather than regulation-heavy. • Although it's a long shot for now, a carbon tax could be promoted as a way to pay for Trump's expensive tax cuts and infrastructure plans. This is a possible way to court the Senate, where Republicans hold a majority -- but that majority isn't wide enough to prevent Democrats from blocking legislation. Also, carbon policy doesn't need to revolve around cap-and-trade, a model that was tried and failed in Congress multiple times, both under Republican and Democratic leadership. A carbon tax would be more predictable for companies to plan around, and it could also be made "revenue-neutral" if the revenues are returned to consumers or innovative companies. Protecting the planet from climate change is a long-term effort that will require work across multiple generations. Trump's administration should keep its seat at the table, both for the sake of clean energy jobs and protecting US interests. On the flip side, leaders favoring strong climate action -- including UN climate negotiators, green-minded US lawmakers and environmental experts -- should be open to solutions that appeal to US Republicans like Trump. Climate policy needs to adjust under different administrations and cannot simply be driven by the approach of one party. Both sides of the debate should ask themselves: Are we just trying to prove the other side wrong or are we seeking common ground and real solutions? The climate challenge involves too much risk -- and offers too many economic opportunities -- for it to become another casualty of overly polarized politics. Lauren Craft is the editor of EI New Energy and a former Washington policy correspondent with Energy Intelligence.
