So, let's talk green: Tricked, tripped and Trumped

We heard a high decibel gasp of shock from climate leaders, activists and advocates around the world when the US President Donald Trump announced that he was withdrawing from the Climate Accord that most of the world, except Nicaragua and Syria, had signed into. So here is my take, which I hope will be calming balm to smoothen out the frowns of our collective brows.

The US move is pure politics. Trump had to be seen as delivering something to his electorate who are the small city/rural folks, not very well educated, white, male, conservative. He made a lot of promises like building a wall that Mexico will pay for, and now he knows he cannot fulfil his promises. But he better do something that will appease his voters. Pulling out of the Paris accord was low hanging fruit which will make a lot of noise - exactly what Trump wanted to show case 'America First' rant. His electorate are dumb enough to swallow this and be happy that their leader is 'delivering' on his promise.

Most of the claims that Trump made were based on a March 2017 study, prepared by NERA Economic Consulting, that estimates the potential impact of hypothetical regulatory actions necessary to meet the goals of the Paris Agreement. The study makes assumptions that several economists pointed out were dubious. Yale professor Kenneth Gillingham said the NERA model tends to result in higher costs than other economic models, and it ignores the benefits of reducing greenhouse gas emissions, like avoiding the negative effects of climate change. It also assumes that other countries don't make emission reductions in line with the Paris Agreement, therefore leading American companies to relocate, and that there would be no increase in clean electricity generation compared to the baseline scenario, etc. In other words, the NERA model makes assumptions that generate an extreme result.

Trump is also on the wrong side of the debate, as he says he wants to get coal miners jobs back by changing environmental regulations. But here is the reality - coal employment has been in decline for decades, falling from a peak of more than 800,000 in the 1920s to 130,000 in 2011 to just over 70,000 today. By the end of 2015, U.S. coal production was down more than 20% from its 2011 level, and the combined value of the top four U.S. coal firms fell from $33 billion to $150 million. Ten years ago the coal companies had a booming business as they were fuelling the booming Chinese market. But China has slowed down in the last 5 years, and they want clean energy, not coal. But his dumb electorate will not know this reality!

So what of the promises that the US made in Paris. US did not commit to unrealistically ambitious emissions goals - just a 27% reduction from 2005 levels by 2025, not that drastic considering that the U.S. led the world in emissions before. Their electricity sector has already achieved that 27% goal, thanks to the continuing decline of coal power.

The real triumph of Paris wasn't America's promises - it was the serious commitments from China, India and other developing nations that had previously insisted on their right to burn unlimited carbon until their economies caught up to the developed world. India committed to achieving 40 percent of its electricity capacity from non-fossil fuel sources by 2030. This has been strengthened in recent years by growing evidence that a greener path makes political and economic sense as well, says Harsh Pant, a fellow at the Observer Research Foundation, a New Delhi-based research organization. "Modi's constituency is the middle class, and the middle class in Indian cities is choking on pollution," Mr. Pant said. "Modi knows climate change is good politics. Climate change makes sense to Modi because he believes it as it is good economics and politics."

Are you listening Mr. Trump? Dear American friends - hope you realised that you got tricked, tripped and Trumped! You have 4 years by which time you better elect another President who will back the Paris accord!