As climate disasters grow in frequency and intensity, from devastating wildfires to relentless hurricanes to record-breaking heat waves, the Trump administration has once again taken a step that threatens to deepen the climate crisis: formally announcing the United States’ withdrawal from the Paris Agreement. In the midst of an escalating climate crisis that’s upending livelihoods and lives, this decision raises urgent questions about the future of national and global progress. Namely, what does it mean for the international climate effort to combat climate change when the world’s largest historical emitter steps away from the table? And what are the implications for Americans already grappling with the mounting costs of a warming planet?
Since its adoption in 2015, the Paris Agreement has represented a historic act of global solidarity and a framework for collective accountability in addressing the climate crisis. Nearly 200 nations committed to curbing greenhouse gas emissions, bending the global emissions curve, and striving to limit warming to 1.5 degrees Celsius. While progress has been uneven and insufficient, the agreement underscores the power of collective action. At the same time, it fosters transparency and accountability, enabling nations to measure their ambition and progress against one another. This dynamic has not only spurred innovation but also inspired nations to vie for leadership in the global clean energy economy, proving that addressing climate change is both a shared responsibility and a pathway to prosperity.
President Donald Trump’s decision to again withdraw does not reflect a failure of the Paris Agreement but rather signals a profound abdication of leadership. The United States now joins Iran, Libya, and Yemen as the only countries in the entire world not party to the agreement. Other countries have already reaffirmed their commitments to the agreement by announcing their updated nationally determined contributions (NDCs) in an effort to uphold the agreement’s goal despite America’s retreat. Yet the withdrawal sends a troubling message: The United States is an unreliable partner. This is not just about one nation stepping back; it is a deliberate weakening of the multilateral system at a time when global unity has never been more critical to combat the climate crisis. In addition, it will serve to amplify the voice of China, the world’s largest greenhouse gas emitter still at the table.
The question now is whether global momentum can overcome the absence of U.S. federal leadership—and what role sub-national actors, international partners, and everyday citizens can play in ensuring climate progress continues, even as the clock ticks ever louder.
A withdrawal that’s happened before and its ripple effects
With President Trump’s announcement to once again withdraw the United States from the Paris Agreement, the echoes of his first withdrawal are impossible to ignore—and so are the consequences.
During his first term, Trump fulfilled a campaign promise to withdraw the United States from the landmark climate accord, making it the only country in the world to ever step away from the agreement. Under the accord’s Article 28 rules, any nation seeking to withdraw from the agreement has to wait three years after its ratification to file a formal notice and then serve an additional one-year waiting period before the withdrawal can officially take effect. However, Trump seized the earliest opportunity to halt U.S. leadership, announcing in 2017 his intent to withdraw, formally filing in 2019, and finalizing the exit on November 4, 2020, just one day after the U.S. presidential election that resulted in his ouster. That ultimately brief absence from the Paris Agreement—less than four months, as President Joe Biden promptly rejoined the accord when he took office in early 2021—was enough to disrupt global climate diplomacy and tarnish U.S. credibility on the world stage.
The costs of the first withdrawal left scars that still haven’t fully healed. Trump’s administration halted contributions to international climate finance, including the Green Climate Fund. By zeroing out payments to the Green Climate Fund, the Trump administration deprived developing nations of critical resources to mitigate and adapt to climate change, which not only hampered progress in vulnerable countries but also diminished global trust in the United States as a reliable partner. With the United States having abandoned its seat at the table, China hammered home the point that America was an unreliable partner that could not to be depended on. Despite President Biden’s immediate reinstatement of the Paris Agreement, China continued to use Trump’s capriciousness against the Biden administration for the next four years. Now, Trump’s second abandonment of the Paris Agreement has left the United States in a much weaker position in the field of climate competition. This time, it will be years before the United States can again rejoin the agreement.
Trump’s announcement to again withdraw from the Paris Agreement marks a stark return to isolationism at a moment when global cooperation is most needed. Unlike his first withdrawal, which unfolded over several years, this decision comes with chilling speed: a mere 12-month waiting period for the withdrawal to become official.
In addition, Trump’s team has signaled this withdrawal could go even further, with discussions about abandoning the U.N. Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) entirely. The UNFCCC is the underlying international framework that serves as the basis for global climate cooperation, and its ultimate goal is to “stabilize greenhouse gas concentrations ‘at a level that would prevent dangerous anthropogenic (human induced) interference with the climate system.’” Such a drastic step would freeze the United States out of future global climate negotiations, strip it of any influence in shaping international climate policy, and hinder efforts to hold major emitters such as China accountable. It would also set a dangerous precedent for other nations to shirk their climate responsibilities, potentially creating a ripple effect that could derail the collective progress that has been made.
The potential fallout is already visible. Argentina, under President Javier Milei, has begun reconsidering its own commitment to the Paris Agreement, withdrawing its delegation from the COP29 climate talks in Baku, Azerbaijan, and signaling doubts about the deal. The Milei administration’s reevaluation of Argentina’s position in the Paris Agreement, coupled with Milei’s meeting with Trump at Mar-a-Lago during the November climate negotiations, highlights how the United States’ withdrawal could embolden other nations to follow suit. This could trigger a domino effect among nations questioning their climate obligations, further destabilizing the global consensus the Paris Agreement represents.
What’s at stake
With the next decade being the most critical window to curb global warming, the consequences of federal inaction will be felt in every corner of the country. Climate change is already intensifying hurricanes, causing destructive floods, and fueling wildfires, as evidenced by the recent devastation in Los Angeles. These extreme weather events cost the United States more than $100 billion annually, displacing thousands of families and ultimately costing people their lives and livelihoods. The United States, for all its wealth and power, is already suffering under the early effects of climate change. In tearing up the Paris Agreement, the Trump administration is stripping the United States of its ability to shape other countries’ pollution choices, putting Americans at even greater risk in the next round of terrible disasters.
The federal withdrawal also risks undermining U.S. economic competitiveness on the world stage and the historic momentum set by the Inflation Reduction Act, which has already begun driving unprecedented investments in clean energy and creating hundreds of thousands of new jobs across the country. As the world transitions, the United States risks forfeiting its leadership role and stands to miss out on the job creation, technological innovation, and long-term cost savings that come with building a low-carbon economy if federal policies actively undermine or fail to support this transition.
While sub-national actors and market forces are driving progress that cannot be easily reversed, the absence of U.S. federal leadership will slow the pace of advancements, discourage private investments, and leave the United States trailing behind global competitors, such as China, who are seizing the opportunities of a clean energy future. The clean energy sector has already proven its potential, growing faster than fossil fuels in global electricity generation in recent years. States such as Texas and Iowa are leading the way in wind power, while California leads the country in solar energy generation. Turning away from this progress jeopardizes not just the planet but also the economic livelihoods of millions of Americans.
Under the Trump administration, U.S. greenhouse gas emissions levels are estimated to rise up to 36 percent higher than current policy by 2035 and domestic impacts could also include higher household energy costs and greater dependence on imported oil and gas. During his first administration, Trump rolled back more than 100 environmental rules—a series of reversals estimated to dramatically increase greenhouse gas emissions over the following 15 years and lead to thousands of deaths from poor air quality. By stepping back at this critical time when climate action must accelerate, the United States risks more than its reputation; it risks its economy, its communities, and its future.
Why there’s still hope
Yet even in the absence of federal leadership, hope remains. Across the nation, sub-national actors—states, cities, businesses, and communities alike—are stepping up to fill the void. The America Is All In coalition, which emerged after the first U.S. withdrawal from the Paris Agreement, continues to galvanize climate action across more than 5,000 stakeholders. These efforts have grown in strength, with bipartisan leadership from the U.S. Climate Alliance—a coalition of 24 states and territories that represents more than half of the U.S. economy—committing to achieving the goals of the Paris Agreement.
California, for instance, has taken proactive steps, including the approval of Proposition 4, a $10 billion bond measure to prepare for climate impacts. And Maryland is advancing ambitious climate plans under Gov. Wes Moore (D), who mandated state-wide climate action through an executive order to meet the state’s goal of net-zero emissions by 2045. Cities, too, remain critical players. The Climate Mayors network includes nearly 350 bipartisan members who are driving local climate action across 46 states. C40 Cities, a global network of cities united in cross-border climate action, includes U.S. mayors engaged in the fight for a more resilient and equitable future. These cities are investing in solutions and mitigating climate impacts from the ground up.
Most importantly, these sub-national efforts are fostering resilience and innovation. Grassroots organizations are mobilizing communities to advocate for climate solutions, and Indigenous leaders are at the front lines, spearheading restoration projects to protect ecosystems and fighting against environmental injustices. The collective actions of sub-national leaders, businesses, and grassroots movements demonstrate that while federal leadership is vital, it is not the sole determinant of progress.
Conclusion: A crossroads for U.S. climate leadership
President Trump’s decision to withdraw the United States from the Paris Agreement again is nothing short of a dereliction of leadership at a moment when the stakes for humanity could not be higher. It disregards science, undermines years of painstaking global cooperation, harms the American economy and people, and sends a dangerous signal that the nation most responsible for the climate crisis is abandoning its moral and practical obligations. This retreat not only threatens to unravel hard-fought progress but also exposes Americans to greater risks: worsening climate disasters, missed economic opportunities, and diminished global influence.
Yet, as devastating as this decision is and as grave as the threats may be, they are not insurmountable. The spirit of resilience that emerged during Trump’s first withdrawal remains alive, stronger and more organized than ever. States, cities, businesses, and citizens have proven they can—and will—step up when federal leadership fails. This moment calls for a dual recognition of the real and immediate dangers posed by federal inaction and deliberate destructive actions, as well as the extraordinary potential that still exists to drive progress from the ground up. While a federal withdrawal creates headwinds, the momentum of sub-national action and the “unstoppable” clean energy transition provides a foundation for hope.
But hope alone is not enough; it must be matched by relentless action, unwavering accountability, and a shared commitment to meeting our responsibilities—not just to ourselves but to the world and future generations.
The author would like to thank Courtney Federico, Frances Colón, Trevor Higgins, and Robert Benson of the Center for American Progress for their feedback on this article.
This article was published by the Center for American Progress.
No comments:
Post a Comment