WASHINGTON — The Paris climate agreement, established in 2015, is often portrayed by critics, including former President Donald Trump, as a detrimental commitment for the United States. However, its role is not merely punitive; it serves as a significant framework aimed at addressing global warming, although it has yet to curtail the rise in global temperatures effectively.
The agreement operates largely on a voluntary basis and was designed to promote reduction in global temperature increases while being resilient to the changing political climate in the U.S. Almost immediately after taking office, Trump initiated a year-long process to withdraw the U.S. from the agreement, a move he had made previously before President Joe Biden reinstated the country’s involvement just days into his presidency.
Following the withdrawal’s expected implementation, the United States will join countries like Iran, Libya, and Yemen as one of the few nations not participating in the accord. This decision was met with significant backlash internationally, primarily due to the United States’ historical contributions to greenhouse gas emissions and its pivotal role in global climate discussions. Since the signing on December 12, 2014, then-President Barack Obama described the agreement as “the best chance to save the one planet we have.”
The overarching aim of the Paris Agreement is to limit long-term global temperature increases to below 2 degrees Celsius (3.6 degrees Fahrenheit) from pre-industrial levels, striving ideally for a 1.5-degree Celsius (2.7 degrees Fahrenheit) cap, by significantly reducing emissions from fossil fuel sources.
According to Mohamed Adow, the founder of PowerShift Africa and an experienced observer of climate negotiations, “The Paris Agreement is more of a framework than a standalone solution.” He noted that combating climate change isn’t simply a matter of success or failure, emphasizing that the agreement was meant to provide a structure for countries to take actionable steps.
Positioned within the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change, which began in 1992, the Paris Agreement isn’t classified as a treaty; thus, its acceptance in the U.S. did not require Senate ratification. The agreement entails a voluntary yet binding system where countries are expected to present their climate emission reduction goals, known as Nationally Determined Contributions (NDCs), every five years. The objectives must show increased ambition each cycle, as stated by Joanna Depledge, a climate negotiations historian from Cambridge University.
The upcoming five-year targets are scheduled for submission next month, with the Biden administration’s proposed target aiming for a reduction of greenhouse gas emissions by two-thirds from 2005 levels by 2035. While countries establish their own emissions goals with no penalties for failing to meet them, they must report their outputs of greenhouse gases every two years.
The agreement specifies that affluent nations, like the U.S., should assist developing countries in transitioning to low-carbon economies, adapting to climate effects, and addressing damages caused by climate impacts. A goal of generating $300 billion annually from wealthy nations to support poorer countries was established last year, although the U.S. contends that this goal isn’t legally binding. Critics have often pointed out America’s historical shortcomings in fulfilling its share of global climate assistance, particularly given its status as a significant climate polluter.
Debbie Hillier, a climate lead at Mercy Corps, suggests that U.S. contributions should ideally hover around $44.6 billion per year, a claim reflecting the nation’s historical emissions and economic capacity. Currently, U.S. climate aid to developing countries is estimated at about $11 billion annually.
The foundation for the Paris Agreement was laid in a pivotal 1998 framework, the Kyoto Protocol, which proposed legally binding emission limits but was ultimately rejected by U.S. lawmakers and later discarded by President George W. Bush. This history showcased a desire for an agreement that would not mandate compliance, leading to the bilateral agreement between the U.S. and China in 2014, which helped construct the Paris framework.
According to Alden Meyer, a climate analyst, the lack of legally binding emissions promises stems from the Obama administration’s concern about the political polarization around climate change, indicating that achieving Senate support for such measures had become increasingly challenging.
Assessing the effectiveness of the Paris Agreement reveals mixed results. Reports indicate that global temperatures briefly surpassed the crucial 1.5-degree threshold last year, leading many scientists to predict that this limit may eventually be irreversibly surpassed. Current long-term temperature averages stand at 1.3 degrees Celsius (2.3 degrees Fahrenheit) above pre-industrial levels.
In 2015, early assessments suggested that the world was on track for a concerning 3.6-degree Celsius increase, a stark contrast to today’s projection of 2.7 degrees Celsius. Experts deem past results a partial achievement, highlighting that the framework was never anticipated to be the sole remedy for climate change.
After the U.S. withdrawal from the Paris Agreement, the country may participate in discussions but will not have a role in decision-making. While direct impacts on U.S. domestic climate policy may be limited, experts caution that this move could diminish the country’s credibility and influence in global climate negotiations. Additionally, there are concerns that the U.S. could lose out on significant investment opportunities in the growing renewable energy sector, allowing countries like China to dominate this emerging market.
With the potential for increased global warming, there is a heightened risk of extreme weather phenomena, including intensified storms, wildfires, and prolonged droughts—a reality that the U.S. will inevitably face as well.
