Politics

We’ve been here before.

President Trump announced the U.S. withdrawal from the Paris Agreement on June 1, 2017, citing mostly economic worries. The formal withdrawal process began in November 2019 and was completed in November 2020.

He argued that the agreement was disadvantageous to the United States and that it would harm American workers, businesses, and taxpayers.

He claimed the agreement imposed unfair economic burdens on the U.S. while allowing countries like China and India to continue increasing their emissions.

He argued that because of stringent emission reduction commitments, the U.S. would lose millions of jobs in manufacturing, coal, and natural gas.

He stated that the agreement gave other countries a competitive edge by placing stricter requirements on the U.S. while it was less demanding on developing countries, allowing them to grow their economies at a faster rate.

He cited estimates that the Paris Agreement would cost the U.S. $3 trillion in GDP and lead to the loss of 6.5 million industrial jobs by 2040.

He argued that adhering to the agreement would lead to higher energy costs for Americans.

He said that the agreement undermined U.S. sovereignty by allowing foreign entities to influence domestic energy policies.

He said it was not in America’s interests to allow international bodies judging the U.S. on whether it was meeting its commitments.

He argued that even if all countries met their targets, the agreement would have a minimal impact on reducing global temperatures and that the costs of compliance outweighed the potential benefits.

In 2021, after the 2020 election, President Biden signed the U.S. up to the Paris Agreement again and now in 2025 by executive order, President Trump has again withdrawn the U.S. from the Paris Agreement.

A pertinent question is to ask what has changed in India and China’s emissions policy and in their actual emissions between 2017 and today?

Both China and India have made changes in their emissions policies and actual greenhouse gas emissions since 2017..

In 2020, President Xi Jinping announced China’s aim to peak carbon dioxide emissions before 2030 and achieve carbon neutrality before 2060.

Despite policy commitments, China’s GHG emissions have continued to rise. In 2023, emissions increased by an estimated 3% to 14.9 gigatonnes of CO₂ equivalent (excluding land use, land-use change, and forestry), driven by increased coal and oil consumption following economic recovery from COVID19 policies and reduced hydropower production due to scarce rainfall that is very probably the result of the climate change.

India pledged to reduce the emissions intensity of its Gross Domestic Product (GDP) by 45% by 2030. India’s greenhouse gas emissions, however, have increased and in 2023, emissions increased by 6.1% compared to 2022, the largest relative increase among major emitters. The Climate Action Tracker estimates that India’s emissions will reach approximately 4 to 4.3 gigatonnes of CO₂ equivalent by 2030 under current policies.

So since 2017, both China and India increased emissions significantly. And if the argument was about economic advantage and disadvantage, the President Trump would be right. When the result of the inaction or counter-productive action by the U.S. is to hasten the destruction of the planet, then talk of which country is on top becomes laughably irrelevant.

The only justification for continuing on the present trajectory is to argue that science has the best chance of finding a way to combat climate change, and that means not strangling the very science that can result out of a healthy economy.

It’s worth repeating that President Biden argued that the U.S. had to continue with fossil fuels while working to wean the country of them, because otherwise the country would fail on its way to success. And no one in the mainstream gasped in horror at what he said.

The difference with President Trump’s executive order is that everyone believes that it tacitly includes a denial or at best a weak acknowledgment of the danger of climate change. And the knock-on effect of that will ripple around the world.

Al Jazeera was established as an Arabic channel by the Government of Qatar in 1996 and started an English language channel in 2006. It headquarters are in Doha, Qatar.

The impetus for founding it was the closure of the BBC Arabic TV service because of its editorial conflict with its then Saudi partner.

As a side note, BBC Arabic TV is currently operational. The BBC ended its Arabic radio broadcasts in January 2023 to cut costs, but the television service continues to broadcast.

Al Jazeera became important because it could interview factions that others could not, such as the Taliban and Al-Qaida. That brought it into conflict with the US who saw it as having an anti-US bias. And the channel became internationally important with its broadcasts during the Arab Spring, covering protests and uprisings across the Middle East and North Africa.

The Gulf States, Saudi Arabia, UAE, Bahrain, and Egypt have all accused Qatar of sponsoring terrorism, and by extension the accusations cover Al Jazeera.

The Palestinian Authority closed Al Jazeera’s offices in the West Bank temporarily in 2009 after the network alleged that PA President Mahmoud Abbas and others planned to assassinate former Palestinian leader Yasser Arafat.

In the following years the PA has often accused Al Jazeera of being sympathetic to Hamas, the PA’s main political rival.

Then in December 2024, the PA began operations against Hamas and Palestinian Islamic Jihad militants in the Jenin refugee camp, trying to get back control in the West Bank. Al Jazeera reported on this and the PA accused it of disseminating misinformation. As a result, on January 1, 2025, the PA suspended of Al Jazeera’s operations in the West Bank.

For those who believe in people power, as in a lot of small people rather than a few big people, then the arc of this American election may turn out to be the perfect story.

The perfect adventure story is when the young huntsman sets off to find the prize, and is faced with a villain who at first appears to have been defeated and then comes back stronger. And then in the end is defeated. And that’s how the story will be seen to have gone if Kamala Harris wins.

If that happens, then everybody who votes for her and a lot of those who didn’t vote for her will breathe a sigh of relief. The story will have been the very best story it could have been.

This is a stronger story than if Harris had come on the scene and Trump had simply faded.

This way everybody has a satisfying feeling in the pit of their stomach, in their hearts and their minds and in their vision of the future. Back from the brink.

And of course the baddie in the story is Trump. But the even more evil baddie is the man, Musk, who represents what happens when someone who is good at business thinks they’re also good at politics.

In the end instead of Musk motivating a lot of individuals he was simply seen as a very rich man who pushed or tried to push the election one way.

I think we’ll look back and we’ll see that Jeff Bezos who’s been accused of failing to endorse either candidate will seem to have been the wiser person. Unlike Musk, he doesn’t have a political agenda. And when called, because he is big and important, he said no.

In time, and unlike Musk he will be seen as a person who saw that he is a businessman. He runs businesses. The day he starts getting into politics is the day he’ll lose his way.

I may have written this before, but in the 1930s the Communists in Germany thought they were going to win big in the elections. Inflation was through the roof and Germany’s social fabric was pulled to breaking point with riots. Trotsky told the Communists in Germany they were fooling themselves. When danger lurks, he said, the population runs to mummy’s apron strings.

It’s not a parallel because America is not on the ropes economically, but the world is uncertain and dangerous. So the question is – which is mummy? I think it is the good old, same old system that Harris represents. Trump is too wild, to uncertain in uncertain times.

If people need to translate that into something they can say they voted for, then two issues stand out. Reproductive rights and immigration. Well the next couple of weeks will see how well I predict this presidential race, which is a clear win for Harris.

Let’s tie up Macron, Israel, the Far Right, Muslims, and Reform UK.

After Israeli troops were alleged to have fired on UN peacekeepers in Lebanon, Macron was quoted as saying that Israel “must not forget” it owed its existence to a United Nations resolution.

In reply, prime minister Netanyahu said Israel was founded by the 1948 Arab-Israeli war, not a UN ruling. And that among those who fought for Israel in 1948 were French Jews who had been sent to death camps after being rounded up by the collaborationist Vichy regime.

Ouch, and touché.

Now we have a question. What prompted Macron to make the comments about Israel in a cabinet meeting? Is he genuinely outraged over Israel’s actions? He cannot be blind to the lopsided proclamations of the UN.

Overall, Macron has supported Israel while also advocating for Palestinian rights and a negotiated peace process.

Then what? Is he perhaps only too aware of the powder keg on which he sits?

Around 8–10% of the French population is Muslim. That’s roughly 5 to 7 million people from the former French colonies in Algeria, Morocco, and Tunisia.

If Macron came down heavily on the side of Israel and Muslims in France took to the streets, what would happen? Would The Gilets Jaunes also be swept up in a rising tide of discontent?

France is on in its Fifth Republic, established in 1958 under Charles de Gaulle in response to political instability during the Algerian War of Independence and the collapse of the Fourth Republic.

Does Macron fear that if he were to side strongly with Israel, we might see a sixth Republic?

Far Right groups in Britain say that Islam is incompatible with British life. They accuse the police force and politicians in Britain of backing off criticising Muslim grooming gangs for fear of upsetting the four million people of Muslim descent in the country.

Whatever the truth of the allegations, Britain is in a similar position to France, sitting on a powder keg.

One can see the rise of the right wing Reform Party because it is only too pleased to confront the issue and place responsibility on those immigrants would do not wish to be absorbed culturally.

Where will it lead, in Britain, in France, and beyond?