Updated June 02, 2017 14:09:56

America's most successful free-wheeling corporate cowboys, and girls, don't care much for governments, their laws and their taxes — they invent, invest, manufacture, buy and sell in spite of such meddlesome annoyances.

In hubs along the west coast and in many other places besides, American industry is investing like there is no tomorrow in energy-efficient semi-conductors, cleaner power generation, batteries and electric cars.

By one industry estimate, there are 2.2 million American jobs tied up in energy efficiency — from replacing clunky old heating and air conditioning through to the 6,000 workers engaged in geo-thermal power discoveries.

The same lobby has even broken the jobs down into "red and blue" states to prove the point that clean energy is as big a deal in the combined Trump mid-west heartland — Ohio, Michigan, Tennessee — as it is in California.

An estimated $100 billion is being ploughed into the sector via corporate investments, private equity and venture capital.

Like all investors, those putting up the money were anxious that Mr Trump keep America in the Paris Climate Agreement. But now he has opted out, it doesn't necessarily follow that the brakes are coming off US carbon emissions.

Eleven per cent in eight years … Could US still meet its target?

Barack Obama's national pledge in Paris was to reduce US emissions by 26 to 28 per cent by 2025, using a 2005 measure as the starting point.

The messy withdrawal from the Paris agreement is a reflection of the pressure the President's been under to both stay in, and pull out, of the deal, writes Zoe Daniel.

As America was already striving for a 17 per cent target by 2020, the Paris Agreement meant an extra effort of nine to 11 per cent.

Analysts have been quick to cast doubt on whether the goal can be reached once the White House has ripped up the discipline imposed by an international agreement.

But there is one certainty Mr Trump's Rose Garden pronouncement does not change: his country is on a course towards carbon reduction that might be slowed, but cannot be stopped.

Whether it is Boeing or Chevrolet's pursuit of cleaner, quieter engines, Carrier's invention of more efficient air conditioning or the construction of large lithium-ion battery centres springing up throughout California, there is too much at stake for American industry to turn back on securing some of the roughly $US1.4 trillion global spend on clean energy products.

Besides, state governments remain active in carbon reduction through emissions trading, incentives to modernise or convert coal-fired power plants, vehicle fuel standards, rooftop solar incentives and energy-efficient building standards.

Where do the dollars go?

One of Mr Trump's stated reasons for quitting the Paris Agreement was his objection to the US paying money into the UN's Green Climate Fund (GCF), an investment bank with deposits from wealthier countries to fund climate mitigation works in poorer nations.

The fund's board is currently chaired by Australia, which has contributed $200 million.

"So we're going to be paying billions and billions and billions of dollars and we're already way ahead of anybody else," Mr Trump said.

"Many of the other countries haven't spent anything. And many of them will never pay one dime."

What did countries say they would do under the terms of the Paris climate accord, and how will it be funded?

In his Rose Garden speech, Mr Trump highlighted America's $US20 trillion in debt and referred to UN officials wanting $US100 billion "per year" for the GCF — he also spoke of its executive director aspiring to get funding increases of "$US450 billion per year after 2020".

He may fret about future US financial exposure, but failed to mention there is an effective cap on the initial pledge made by Mr Obama when he sought to build international consensus for the Paris meeting.

Of the $US3 billion Mr Obama originally committed, only $US1 billion has so far been paid and half of that was made in a last-minute $US500 million payment slipped out on his third-last day in the Oval Office in January.

Even without further US contributions, the GCF is meant to have almost $US200 billion in its account by 2020, due to contributions by other governments and private donations.

As yet, there are no indications that any country will be asked to make up what appears to be a $US2 billion hole created by Mr Trump's decision.

Promises, promises…

The President has couched his decision as one that "protects the environment, our companies, our citizens and our country".

It certainly fulfils an election promise, but it is not safe to assume that America's companies or its environment need or want the sort of "protection" the White House is providing.

The withdrawal suggests the White House is rigidly intent on fulfilling chief strategist Steve Bannon's quest to "deconstruct the administrative state" while ignoring the fact the US economy is propelled by an in-built commercial inertia to decarbonise the atmospheric state.

In that conflict, the smart money should be on America's corporate cowboys, its states and its mighty research and development institutions prevailing — that's what they're good at.

Topics: world-politics, government-and-politics, donald-trump, climate-change, environment, community-and-society, united-states

First posted June 02, 2017 13:51:25