On the other hand...Paris Accords

Going back to my youth, I have been concerned that the main sides in the political debate do not talk to each other.  They produce articles and books arguing in favour of their own position, and sometimes arguing against their opponents, but almost never approaching their opponents' arguments with the seriousness that they would want for their own.  It is generally enough to find one person making a bad version of an argument, and refute that; no one feels obligated to refute the best arguments that their opponents have to offer.  The result of this is obvious for all to see, but I find it was nicely anticipated some 600 years ago by Christine de Pisane, who wrote,

Those who plead their cause in the absence of an opponent can invent to their heart's content, can pontificate without taking into account the opposite point of view and keep the best arguments for themselves, for aggressors are always quick to attack those who have no means of defence. (from The Letter of the God of Love, quotation from Goodreads)

There are, of course, some face-to-face "debates" or discussions on various news programs, but they are hardly an improvement since each person has far too short a time to elaborate an argument and the winner is usually decided by the one who talks the loudest.

I am as guilty of this willingness to seek for a weakness in my opponent's argument as anyone, but I am inspired to try to do better.  I have always been particularly struck by a passage from Lord Acton, a man whom I admire the more I learn about him.  He urges the scholar (and, implicitly, everyone interested in the truth) "not to rest until...we have made out for our opponents a stronger and more impressive case than they present themselves."  I am not completely alone in my efforts, for I found that at least one NPR host has tried to structure his show to avoid this problem.

I thought I could add my humble contribution by tallying up the arguments on both sides of a prominent issue and laying them out, as neutrally as possible, for anyone to read who wants to be informed on the subject rather than just those who want to be on the right side without thoroughly considering it themselves.  For my first issue, I chose Trump's withdrawal from the Paris Accords.  This is a bad choice in one sense, because the biggest debate over the issue occurred some weeks ago and it has therefore lost its immediacy.  This makes it a good choice, however, because people have brought forth their strongest case and I have been able to gather many different arguments for both sides.  It is an issue that will not entirely go away in any case, as the Paris Accords will continue among other countries after Trump's presidency and could well become a topic of debate in 2020 or even 2024.  The main reason I chose it was simply that I didn't understand the issue and wanted to be informed on my own account.

Principles of the Paris Accords

This agreement among all but 3 nations (the U.S., Syria, and Nicaragua) aims to cut carbon emissions 26-28% below their 2005 levels by 2025 and provide up to $3 billion in aid by 2020 for poor countries to achieve carbon goals and to deal with the consequences of climate change.  The idea is to hold temperatures down so that they rise no more than 2 degrees Celsius over pre-industrial levels (we are already up 1 degree Celsius) or, according to an alternate goal, 1.5 degrees Celsius.  Countries voluntarily submit goals for cutting emissions and for providing money to the "Green Climate Fund."  Although goals are voluntary, countries are to meet in 2019 to explain their progress, and again in 2020 to submit new goals for ratcheting up their emissions reductions by 2025, and thus into the future every 5 years.  Formal withdrawal is a four-year process.

Arguments

I have broken down the principle arguments into general categories, listing for and against for each.  Obviously, there is significant overlap among categories and this is only intended as a basic tool, not a full ontology.
Pro = in favour of STAYING IN the accords
Con = in favour of WITHDRAWING from the accords

Science and environment

Pro

• Obviously, the biggest argument in favour is that you believe that man-caused climate change is an immediate and pressing issue and you think that the accords will be a positive step towards remedying it
• If the U.S. withdraws, it would seem to give a green light to other countries not to meet their commitments

Con

• Arguably, there are other environmental problems worse than carbon emissions which will be sidelined by focussing so much on this goal.  (These issues include the national flood insurance program and excessive road building.)
• Depending on how you interpret the data, the Paris accords may have a minimal effect on temperature change even if fully implemented
• We may not be able to meet our energy needs within the proposed goals.

Economics

Pro

• Most economic growth potential is in foreign markets.  By withdrawing from the accords, the United States is inviting other countries to restrict our access to those markets.
• Even industries that are most targeted by climate change proposals, such as coal, have an interest in participating in the discussions so that they can help write reasonable regulations and retain access to subsidies that would allow them to produce cleaner energy using their power source.

Con

• There is an obvious cost to restricting carbon emissions, which will reduce economic growth.
• There is an economic cost to the Green Climate Fund.  Although this cost is relatively minor at the moment, there are indications that it would ramp up in the future.
• A large percentage of the cost of the Fund as well as the actual reduction in carbon emissions would be borne by the United States.

 Internationalism/Sovereignty

Pro

•  Every other country in the world, save two small ones, is party to the treaty.  By withdrawing, the U.S. risks isolating itself diplomatically.
• If the emissions goals were too high, we could have adjusted our voluntary goals while remaining a party to the treaty.

Con

• The treaty was not approved by the Senate.  It should either be approved or we should withdraw.
• The U.S. is still a member of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCC), signed in 1992, under which the Paris Accords were negotiated; therefore, it still has a voice in future climate negotiations.
• Since there is no enforcement mechanism, the United States would be at a relative disadvantage compared to less honest countries.  Also, the targets for the United States come early, while those for other countries, such as China, do not come until later.

Thoughts

These arguments are no so much about whether we should or should not be a member of the Paris Accords, since most people will decide that based on their view of climate change, its causes, and its consequences.  It is more a matter of the significance of withdrawing from what is often labelled a "symbolic" agreement (insofar as goals are voluntary and enforcement mechanisms mostly superficial). I do not even want to begin to get into the environmental debate, which would require much more explanation in itself.  However, I find this an interesting case study in international law.

It is interesting to note that not everyone who supports the Paris Accords thinks that America's withdrawal is a bad thing.  The world is moving toward clean energy anyway, and the absence of the U.S. will not stop the rest of the world.  In addition, a number of U.S. cities and localities have already announced that they will attempt to limit emissions in accordance with the Paris agreement, so the lack of an agreement by the national government may not be that important.  Moreover, some feel that it is better than the U.S. withdraw from the agreement completely than that it change its emissions targets, since changing standards might encourage other nations to do the same.  (Obviously, this would have to be balanced against the chance that the United States's withdrawal would incite other nations to withdraw as well, something which has not been evidenced so far.)

I have refrained from inserting my opinion as much as possible.  I do want to add two points here.  One:  Some authors have argued that clean energy will create more economic growth, but I do not take this seriously.  If it is really more economic to produce cleaner energy, companies will do it of their own accord without the need for any regulations.  More likely, this involves retrofitting existing plants and building new plants with new and more expensive technologies.  Two: Trump spoke of blackouts or brownouts as a possible consequence of the accords.  At least one author argued that natural disasters are the usual cause of blackouts, but I think Trump's argument was that insufficient power production might lead to shortages at peak periods, which could produce blackouts or brownouts.

I will only add a word on my biggest concern about the agreement, which does not concern climate change or economics:  sovereignty.  There is a case that the Paris Accords did not need to be ratified by the Senate in order for the U.S. to join, but that does not make me any more comfortable with it. As James Burnham wrote in The Managerial Revolution (1939), and as Mark Steyn has written eloquently about in recent years, we already concede a vast amount of authority over our lives to bureaucrats who make rules rather than legislators who make laws. Laws are passed, very lengthy and verbose laws, but the specifics of implementation are left to officials and often never revisited by Congress. This is bad enough when it relates to domestic laws, but even more dangerous in the area of international treaties, which take precedence over our own laws, including the Constitution itself. There is no recourse if we find it violates a fundamental principle. Admittedly, in the case of treaties, we can normally just refuse to abide by them if we later decide we don't like them. For now. The tendency, however, has been toward ever more carefully regulated treaties, and, in cases like the EU, the developement of an international bureaucracy with enforcement powers over national governments. Breaking "illegally" out of an existing treaty is still possible, but surely it would do more damage to America's international standing than withdrawing from a voluntary agreement.

Sources

(Important details noted in parentheses)

New York Times One & Two
NPR One & Two (Coal companies also wanted to participate in negotiations; U.S. could have stayed in but not enforced regulations.)
CNN (oil companies lobbied in favour of Paris Accords)
The Hoover Institute (solar and wind account for only a small portion of energy output and require many more workers per kilowatt)
National Review (Cites Brian Zycher of the American Enterprise Institute that the effect of full implementation would be only 0.17 degrees C)
CNBC One (Notes environmentally harmful building in coastal areas and in the form of new roads) & Two
The Daily Dot
Conservation.org (America's non-participation will not deter other countries. Also believes that there is no economic cost to following Paris agreement.)
Reuters (Also on coal industry wanting to participate, especially larger corporations.)
San Diego Tribune
Business Insider (Judge economic cost to be .10-.35% rather than .55% that a study reported; brownouts not an issue; America's contribution to the Green Climate Fund was the highest, but not per capita.)
Washington Post (Other nations had already conceded main U.S. concerns, including making it nonbinding.)
Utility Dive (U.S. and E.U. argued for a monitoring and review process.)
WhiteHouse.gov (Likelihood of increased costs and restrictions over time.)
New Republic (21% of total emissions reductions scheduled to come from U.S.; arguably better to withdraw than reduce targets.)