Trump withdraws from Paris accord saying it is a threat to the American economy

On June 1, President Trump announced that the US will withdraw for the Paris climate accord, weakening efforts to combat global warming, and embracing a view that the agreement is a threat to the American economy.

In a speech from the Rose Garden, Trump said the landmark pact imposed wildly unfair environmental standards on American business owners and workers.

In Trump’s view, the Paris accord represents an attack on the sovereignty of the United States and a threat to the ability of his administration to reshape the nation’s environmental laws in ways which benefit everyday Americans.

In his remarks, Trump listed sectors of the US economy that would lose revenue and jobs if the country remained part of the agreement, citing a study which asserted that it would cost 2.7 million jobs by 2025. According to The New York Times, this study has been disputed by environmental groups.

But does environmental regulation cost jobs?

Oliver Deschenes in his article Environmental regulations and labor markets writes, “Air quality standards generally have negative effects on industry employment, productivity, and worker earnings. But these private costs are small relative to the social benefits of better health outcomes for the population. New or stricter environmental regulations that affect labor markets should include job training, income support, and labor market reintegration programs for workers displaced by regulations.”

However in a new article called Air pollution and worker productivity, due to be published on IZA World of Labor, June 6, Matthew Neidell writes, “Evidence suggests that pollution can reduce the productivity of individual workers. At the same time, environmental regulations are often considered to be a drag on the economy, as they can slow down production and lead to business closures and losses, with resulting higher costs for consumers. Yet effective environmental regulations improve the air one breathes and the water one drinks, so those who keep their jobs are more likely to be healthier and more productive as a result. The extent to which these gains in worker productivity offset or even overcome the perceived negative effects of regulation is therefore an essential consideration for designing optimal environmental policy.”

Read more articles on environmental regulation and the labor market.

Register with IZA World of Labor to receive alerts when we publish an article in your chosen field.