Au Revoir Paris Agreement 

US withdrawal from the global climate
accord and its implications

On November 04, the very next day after the US presidential election 2020, the United States became the first nation in the world to formally withdraw from the Paris climate agreement. Since the agreement was signed in December 2015, it came into force on 4 November 2016, 30 days after at least 55 countries representing 55% of global emissions had ratified it. No country could give notice to leave the agreement until three years had passed from the date of ratification. Even then, a member state still had to serve a 12-month notice of its intention to withdraw. So, despite President Trump’s White House announcement in June 2017, the US was only able to formally give notice to the UN in November last year. The time has elapsed and the US is now out. The US could re-join it in future, should a president choose to do so.

Under the United Nations rules, the United States — the world’s second largest emitter of greenhouse gases — officially pulled out of the Paris climate accord on November 04. With the completion of the formal withdrawal process, which Trump began in June 2017, the USA became the only country in the world not to participate in the global effort to fight the climate crisis.

What is Paris Climate Accord?

Drafted in 2015, the Paris Climate Accord aims to strengthen the global response to the threat of climate change. It aims to keep the global temperature rise this century well below 2°C above pre-industrial levels and to pursue efforts to limit the temperature increase even further to 1.5°C. This accord among almost 200 countries brought together the developed and developing worlds to pledge limits on the fossil-fuel pollution that causes climate change. However, those pledges were voluntary and non-binding. Most experts say the Paris Agreement will not be enough to prevent the global average temperature from rising 1.5°C. If that happens, the world will suffer devastating consequences, such as heat waves and floods.

Why did the US withdraw?

Trump, who has dismissed climate change as a hoax and rolled back dozens of environmental regulations designed to protect the environment and stave off climate change, decided to exit the international agreement early in his term. Trump’s main gripe with the agreement, in the words of President Trump, was that it was “a total disaster for our country” that would hurt American competitiveness by enabling “a giant transfer of American wealth to foreign nations that are responsible for most of the word’s pollution.” He said rules and directives put in place by his predecessor, Barack Obama, to meet the US targets for emissions hurt the US economy by killing jobs related to fossil fuels, especially coal mining. And he’s dismantled Obama-era regulations meant to stifle greenhouse gas emissions from power plants, automobiles and oil wells. His decision to pull out of the landmark accord was the first major step in his campaign to systematically roll back US federal climate policies set up during the administration of Barack Obama. Trump has since then reversed dozens of climate-related regulations, including rules on air pollution, emissions, drilling and oil and gas extraction. During his first term as president, and in his re-election campaign, he made no secret of his preference for fossil fuels and the industry which provides them. A report by the US energy department, released in October 2020, lauds oil and gas as “providing energy security and supporting our quality of life,” without mentioning climate risks related to persistent use of carbon-rich fuels.

Why is US’ exit so important?

Two countries in the world, namely China and the United States, are responsible for 40% of the greenhouse gas emissions that cause global warming, according to studies by the European Commission Joint Research Center and the Netherlands Environmental Assessment Agency conducted in 2017. With a population of over 328 million, the US holds just 4.25% of the world population; however, it is the biggest historical contributor to climate change and the second-biggest emitter of carbon emissions.

The US’ stepping back from its climate commitments as part of the Paris deal means that 3 billion more tons of carbon dioxide will be released into the atmosphere every year, which will cause a global temperature increase of approximately 0.1 to 0.3 Celsius degrees. And according to the Climate Action Tracker (CAT), the US’ withdrawal means the carbon emissions emitted by the country will be at least 3% higher than they are now by 2030, which endangers the 1.5-degree goal set by scientists.

One of the biggest concerns about the US’ move is the snowball effect that it has in regard to international agreements. If one country decided to renege on its commitment, and tries to renegotiate its way back in with fewer obligations, other countries might also follow suit, damaging efforts to reach global targets in the fight against climate change.

How other big carbon-emitters have responded?

China and the European Union have picked up the pieces. In September, China, the world’s top emitter of greenhouse gases, announced a bold plan to make its economy carbon neutral by 2060, using a combination of renewable energy, nuclear power and carbon capture. Likewise, the EU’s Green Deal, first announced in December 2019, sets out a road map for making the bloc carbon neutral by 2050. Compared with 1990 levels, the EU has already reduced its greenhouse-gas emissions by 24%. Legislation intended to achieve full carbon neutrality by the middle of the century is under discussion.

Other major economies, such as Japan and South Korea, have recently pledged to become carbon neutral by 2050, but haven’t spelt out in detail how they will achieve it. In all, more than 60 countries worldwide — including all EU member states except Poland — have committed to\ achieving net-zero emissions by mid-century.

But without the United States, the balance among parties signed up to the Paris accord shifts in China’s favour on key issues that are yet to be settled. In particular, China could resist calls for detailed tracking and reporting of how countries are implementing policies and achieving their goals.

So, what the withdrawal means in practice?

While the US now represents around 15% of global greenhouse gas emissions, it remains the world’s biggest and most powerful economy. So, when it becomes the only country to withdraw from a global solution to a global problem, it raises questions of trust. For the past three years, US negotiators have attended UN climate talks while the administration has tried to use these events to promote fossil fuels. It will hurt US reputation as this is the second time the United States has withdrawn from the agreements it has been the primary force behind — with the Kyoto Protocol US never ratified it, in the case of the Paris Agreement, it pulled itself out.

Can the world cope with the US withdrawal?

This may be a hard nut to crack because although high-emitting countries are increasingly keen to curb global warming, current climate and energy policies are not enough to keep the world below 2°C of warming. There has been a marked drop in greenhouse gas emissions in 2020 — because of reduced travel and economic activity during the covid-19 pandemic — but that will do little to get the world nearer to its climate goal. Most experts say that countries’ pledges are not ambitious enough and will not be enacted quickly enough to limit global temperature rise to 1.5°C or even 2°C. Current policies would result in a nearly 3°C rise by 2100, according to a tracker by Germany-based nonprofits Climate Analytics and NewClimate Institute. If governments follow through on pledges they have made so far under the Paris Agreement, it will still result in a 2.7°C rise.

Rising green-energy ambitions are some cause for hope. Globally, more energy is being produced from renewable sources each year. But analysts say that many countries, including the United States, are still pursuing energy strategies that prioritize and subsidize fossil fuels. And the amount of energy being made from fossil fuels is increasing, the International Energy Agency said in its latest World Energy Outlook, published in October 2020.

What’s next?

Parties to the Paris accord have agreed to update their targets for 2030 in line with the latest evidence on the world’s remaining carbon budget. A special report from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) on keeping warming to 1.5°C, completed in 2018, made clear that the climate targets that countries think they can meet are not sufficient to halt global warming.

All remaining parties to the agreement must submit their new 2030 targets before the next major United Nations climate meeting, set to take place in Glasgow, UK, in November 2021. So far, only 14 have proposed or submitted revised targets.

Could the US re-join the agreement?

Yes, it could. In fact, while on the campaign trail, now-President-elect Joe Biden has said that if he is voted president, he will rejoin the Paris accord early in his presidency. The United States could once more become a party to the Paris agreement 30 days after officially informing the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) that it wants to rejoin. The country would then need to submit a new emissions-reduction pledge for 2030. However, even if the US chose to re-enter the agreement, there would be consequences for being out – even for a few months.

Other countries would most likely give a Biden administration some time to get on its feet but would also want to see strong early signs that the United States has substantial plans to cut domestic emissions from cars, power plants and other sources.

By the time the United States joins other countries at the next United Nations climate conference, scheduled for Glasgow in November next year, it would be expected to have an emissions-cutting target even more ambitious than the Obama-era one.

If the United States stayed out of the agreement, it could still have a voice in United Nations climate negotiations. That’s because it would still be a member of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change, the body that created the Paris Agreement. America would, however, be reduced to observer status, which means its negotiators would be allowed to attend meetings and work with other countries to shape outcomes but will not be allowed to vote on decisions.

The writer is a member of staff.

 

Alternatives to the Paris Agreement

If countries strengthen their commitments, and the United States rejoins the treaty, some experts are hopeful that the Paris Agreement could reduce emissions quickly enough. They say it is promising that dozens of countries have pledged to pursue net-zero emissions within the next few decades and increase their use of renewable energy. The European Union, Japan and South Korea, for example, aim to be climate neutral by 2050, while China has pledged to reach that goal by 2060.

But others foresee the most meaningful climate action happening outside of the Paris Agreement. Some experts call for the creation of a climate club—an idea championed by Yale University economist William Nordhaus—that would penalize countries that do not meet their obligations or do not join. Others propose new treaties that apply to specific emissions or sectors to complement the Paris Agreement.

Progress is going to happen not globally with all countries joined together, but in smaller groups and by sector. This could happen within industries, such as the aviation or steel industries; bilaterally, such as between the United States and China; or through intergovernmental organizations, such as the Group of Twenty (G20).

Many cities, companies and organizations are making plans to lower emissions, heeding the UNFCCC’s call to become climate neutral by the second half of the century. In the United States, more than six hundred local governments have detailed climate action plans that include emissions-reduction targets, despite the federal government’s withdrawal from the Agreement. Meanwhile, investors are putting more money into climate-friendly funds. In early 2020, BlackRock, the world’s largest asset manager, announced it would avoid investing in companies that pose serious climate risks. Large companies including Amazon and Starbucks have also made carbon-neutrality commitments. Some have gone further to say they will be carbon negative, removing more carbon from the atmosphere than they release. However, critics have accused some of these companies of greenwashing: marketing themselves as eco-conscious while continuing harmful practices.