Tragedy of the Commons: Trump’s Withdrawal from the Paris Climate Agreement
by Victoria Hassan
President Trump’s withdrawal from the Paris Climate Agreement this past June sent a wave of fear throughout the international community in regards to the future of the planet. Though many state and regional governments within America have pledged to continue to follow the guidelines of the Paris Climate Agreement, Trump’s decision to withdraw provides an incentive for other nations to also withdraw from the agreement (Stavins). The United States was a major advocate for the success of the Paris Climate Agreement, especially with the efforts of environmentalist and former U.S. Vice President Al Gore to ensure that as many nations as possible would be a part of this agreement. According to Robert N. Stavins, Trump withdrew from the Paris Climate Agreement in order to follow through with his “America First” campaign and to please his supporters and the U.S. business industry (Stavins). However, climate change is not a crisis that pertains solely to the United States, or any one nation -- it is a planet-wide crisis that should be dealt with by all nations. Therefore, Trump’s decision to withdraw from the Paris Climate Agreement is a perfect example of the tragedy of the commons, in which Trump is attempting to maximize the individual economic gain of the United States by continuing to minimize the health of the planet as a whole.
The tragedy of the commons refers to a metaphor in which herdsmen would share a common field to let their cattle graze. However, there was no limit on how many cattle the herdsmen could raise so, naturally, each herdsmen would seek to maximize the amount of their own cattle on the field. However, this would cause the commons to become too crowded, ultimately leading it to ruin. According to ecologist Garrett Hardin, the tragedy of the commons can pertain to the environment since it is shared by every being on the planet, making it a common pool resource that is susceptible to ruin (Hardin). Based on research conducted in my environmental science course, Principles of Environmental Science, common pool resources are shared by all within a certain region and it is quite difficult to exclude individuals from utilizing this resource. Thus, from an environmental viewpoint, the entire planet can be viewed as a common pool resource due to its utilization by all living creatures who inhabit it. Additionally, common pool resources often have a subtractability quality in which there is a limited amount of a particular resource to be utilized. Thus, leading individuals to take advantage of common pool resources with their own self-interest in mind, often to the detriment of others. In regards to the environment, Trump’s withdrawal from the Paris Climate Agreement can be seen as acting with the sole interest of the U.S. economy in mind. Though this might benefit Americans in the near future, it is ultimately detrimental to the planet as a whole.
The notion of United States freedom from international restraints provides an incentive for other nations to follow in U.S. footprints by limiting their environmental efforts or by withdrawing from the Paris Climate Agreement altogether. The nations who currently remain in the Paris Climate Agreement might argue that if a hegemony such as the United States can opt-out of a major climate agreement, then they can as well. With this, each country would seek to maximize their own economic gain by creating as much business and as many products as possible with little attention to the mass pollution they are generating as a result. Pollution is not something that can be constrained within the borders of one nation. Pollution knows no boundaries and, therefore, affects the entire planet regardless if one nation or several are contributing to pollution.
The notion of United States freedom from international restraints provides an incentive for other nations to follow in U.S. footprints by limiting their environmental efforts or by withdrawing from the Paris Climate Agreement altogether. The nations who currently remain in the Paris Climate Agreement might argue that if a hegemony such as the United States can opt-out of a major climate agreement, then they can as well. With this, each country would seek to maximize their own economic gain by creating as much business and as many products as possible with little attention to the mass pollution they are generating as a result. Pollution is not something that can be constrained within the borders of one nation. Pollution knows no boundaries and, therefore, affects the entire planet regardless if one nation or several are contributing to pollution.
Thus, even with just one herdsman determined to raise as many cattle as possible with little attention to its impact on the commons, the commons are sure to turn to ruin.
Works Cited
Stavins, Robert N. “Why Trump Pulled the U.S. Out of the Paris Accord.” Foreign Affairs, 6
June 2017,
Hardin, Garrett. “The Tragedy of the Commons.” The Environment and Climate Change.
I totally agree with your point that if the US withdraws from the Paris Climate agreement, the other countries will do so. Surprisingly, after Trump withdrew, the United States is now the only country on Earth that's declined to be a part of the Paris climate agreement. But, I firmly believe that if the US is not part of the Paris climate agreement, it might incentivize the other countries to leave the agreement in the future. I think the words “America first” and the word “Paris” confused Trump. When he said “I am elected to represent the citizens of Pittsburgh, not Paris,” it sounds like the Paris climate agreement benefits only for the citizens of Paris. He does not think that the climate change is a planet-wide crisis. Do you think that the US would reconsider to be a part of the Paris climate agreement in the future?
ReplyDeleteThank you for your feedback! Yes, I absolutely agree with your point that Trump seemed to be confused about the fact that everyone in the world will benefit from the goals of the Paris Climate Agreement. Climate change and any actions to prevent climate change affect every being in the world. Yes, I do believe that the United States would consider to be a part of the Paris Climate Agreement again in the future because there is a large majority of Americans who have pledged to continue their support of the Paris Climate Agreement even if they are not officially a part of the agreement.
DeleteI agree with you as well, the United States is a global leader that holds enormous international influence. Our withdrawal from the Paris Climate Agreement certainly does not help the future of the accord. Your point about pollution knowing no boundaries struck me, as it is true that the agreement was created with the goal of helping reduce global climate change, which would ultimately benefit every state. Do you believe that it is fair for the United States to leave an agreement where we would benefit from the outcome without contributing to the efforts? Do you think there are still ways to aid the other states remaining in the Paris Climate Agreement without being directly involved as a signatory?
ReplyDeleteThank you for your feedback! I also agree that Trump’s withdrawal from the Paris Climate Agreement will have negative impacts on the planet in the future. No, I personally do not think that it is fair for the United States to be able to withdraw from the agreement and not contribute to the movement against climate change as much as the countries who are involved in the agreement. I feel as though this is an example of the “collective action problem” of free-riders, in which a group is working toward the same goal (i.e. combating climate change). However, some members (i.e. the United States) are able to benefit from the hard work of others in the group without doing much work to progress towards the common goal. Yes, I do think that it is possible for the United States to aid the efforts of other countries still remaining in the Paris Climate Agreement because it has become clear that many U.S. state and regional/local governments are still very much set on reducing their carbon footprint in order to combat climate change.
DeleteGreat post, Victoria! It was interesting to read and well written. The argument of your post and comparison to the "Tragedy of the Commons" reminds me of a Native American quote I learned in high school. The quote, "When the last tree has been cut down, the last fish caught, the last river poisoned, only then will we realize that one cannot eat money." poetically emphasizes the irreversible despair governmental greed can cause. It is clear to see Trump's intentions regarding the world's wellbeing are selfish and uneducated. Despite this, Trump claims his withdrawal from the Paris Climate Agreement will benefit the U.S. economy. Do you think Trump's refusal of climate change reflects his true beliefs or do you think he knows climate change is real but denies its existence for egocentric reasons?
ReplyDeleteThank you, Liz! I really enjoyed reading your insight and feedback! I definitely see how the Native American quote you shared relates to climate change and the tragedy of the commons. To answer your question, I personally believe that it is very difficult for anyone in this world to deny the reality of climate change -- the effects of it are extreme and are seen all around the world. Therefore, I think that Trump truly does understand the reality and intensity of climate change. I believe he suppresses this knowledge in order to continue his attempt to boost the American economy with his “America First” campaign.
DeleteAwesome post, this current event is a picturesque representation of what a tragedy of the commons is on an international scale. I know that the coal industry in the Midwest and the hard working American coal miner image that Trump portrays is a bit of a dying breed. Also the solar industry is one of the fastest growing industries in the US. Do you think that Trump really has the priority of the working people in mind? or do you think that it might be a sort of political floundering in somewhat of a stagnant administration?
ReplyDeleteThank you so much for the feedback, Zach! I think it’s difficult to tell what Trump’s true motives are in regards to his decisions to withdraw from the Paris Climate Agreement. Trump stated that his decision was based on his intentions of putting “America First” and to benefit the American economy/American workers. However, I believe that he withdrew as an attempt to earn trust in the American people, showing them that he intends to make America a priority. Personally, I do not believe this was a very favorable decision on his part. I think Trump’s decision to withdraw from the Paris Climate Agreement actually turned many Americans against him.
Delete