Signed by 196 parties at the UN Climate Change Conference (COP21) in December 2015, the Paris Agreement is a legally-binding international treaty, the main aim of which is to combat climate change. From its implementation, the Paris Agreement has sought to limit the increase of the global average temperature to 1.5C above the levels of the pre-industrial period, before humanity had begun to rely upon machines and technology, resulting in the lowest emission levels of the modern world. The establishment of the Paris Agreement was described by the Obama Foundation as one of President Barack Obama’s proudest achievements as, by the end of his presidency, carbon levels in the US were the lowest they had been for two decades - and the agreement can be described as one of the most substantial efforts in the global fight against climate change.
In practice, the Paris Agreement requires states to enforce social and economic reforms based on scientific research regarding global warming. With this, states must put forward their nationally determined contributions (NDCs) every five years, reflecting their highest possible environmental ambition. Each consecutive NDC must align with the goals of the Paris Agreement surrounding the lowering of global temperatures. This often takes the form of plans to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and build capabilities to work against climate change.
In 1830, Prussian diplomat Klemens Wenzel Fürst von Metternich remarked that ‘when America sneezes, the world catches a cold.’ This referred to the prominence of the US in the global arena and became particularly popular following the Great Depression which saw Europe’s financial dependency on the US skyrocket. Yet, in reference to international environmental treaties, most notably the Paris Agreement, the International Institute for Sustainable Development regards that ‘the US may be sneezing at the Paris Agreement, but the world is moving on.’ This iterates how the cooperative framework of the Paris Agreement will remain intact and the passion for climate action will not dissolve, regardless of the position of the US.
The US withdrew from the Paris Agreement in 2017 during Trump’s first term but Biden quickly annulled this when he assumed Office in 2021. According to the US Department of State, Trump first attempted to withdraw from the Agreement as it supposedly placed unnecessary and unjust economic pressure on American citizens and businesses; withdrawal from the agreement would result in a reduction of oil and gas costs.
A 2019 report by Accelerating America’s Pledge found that bottom-up leadership from businesses, cities and states would see US emissions reduced by up to 37% by 2030, even if the government were to implement minimal environmental protections. This has been shown as in 2024 alone, eight major protests took place across the US regarding the climate emergency. The most notable were those conducted by the Fridays for Future campaign which took place between 2022-2024 and involved an estimated 10,000 protesters. This became internationally successful after forming a global network for those passionate about the climate crisis and sparking other protests worldwide.
Following his inauguration in January 2025, Trump went as far as to call the Paris Agreement a ‘ripoff’ during a speech made in Washington D.C. After this, the White House declared a national energy emergency, which has seen the Trump administration reverse the climate policies of the Biden administration, in exchange for accelerating and advancing gas and oil production. The Trump administration has provided very little credit to the Paris Agreement and its efforts to combat ever-rising global temperatures. Alternatively, the White House has attributed accelerated energy production,lower water and air pollution levels and reduced greenhouse gas emissions to private-sector agents and national policies rather than international treaties such as the Paris Agreement.
Furthermore, CEO and President of the World Resources Institute, Ani Dasgupta, issued a statement on January 20th, 2025, in which he stated that ‘today’s abdication of responsibility by President Trump will not derail the world from this [environmental] fight’ and also made a point of referring to this decision as nonsensical when considering the current climate struggles faced by the US including ongoing wildfires, hurricanes and floods. Following Trump’s decision to withdraw from the Paris Agreement, world leaders have affirmed their dedication to the fight against climate change and their commitment to the agreement. Notably, the UK’s Energy Security and Net Zero Secretary, Ed Miliband, has made efforts to convince Trump that combating the climate crisis is in the American national interest, that clean energy is the future and Trump should get on board. This may be related to the fact that the US is the world’s second-largest emitter of planet-warming gases annually.
In addition, Chair of the Energy Transitions Commission think tank, Adair Turner, asserted that Trump’s attitude and decisions regarding environmental issues will see global temperatures rise by roughly 0.3C and there are concerns that other states will follow suit. However, domestically, anti-fossil fuel initiatives have been somewhat revitalised in the US. This could potentially push the US towards reviving its efforts to extend renewable energy efforts nationwide.
In November 2024, the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace predicted that if the US were to withdraw from the Paris Agreement under a Trump administration, the US would also remove itself from the UN Climate Change Framework at the head of the agreement. Consequently, the US would be surrendering its leadership role in climate affairs. Carnegie also predicts that in the US, the responsibility for combating climate change will be placed upon civil society rather than the government, decreasing pressures placed upon the White House.
As the US reverts back to its pre-Cold War isolationist position, climate policy in the US must prioritise commercial diplomacy. However, following its departure from the Paris Agreement, the US has failed to put forward alternative climate initiatives, but rather Trump’s Project 2025 proposes budget cuts for climate-oriented agencies such as the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the Department of Interior (DOI), hindering environmental protections and clean energy efforts.
Furthermore, the Trump Administration’s plan to reinstate the Farm Bill will lessen the climate-smart requirements needed for the implementation of the Inflation Reduction Act’s $13 billion originally in place for conservation funding. Through the easing of such restrictions, the administration’s approach could see a deprioritisation of environmental initiatives - turning to more traditional agricultural financing, potentially risking the climate protection measures in the land management sector. This has sparked much concern amongst climate advocates and officials. The senior manager of government affairs for the Food and Environment Program at the Union of Concerned Scientists has asserted that such changes will pose a threat to economic resilience and food security in agriculture. Without institutionalised and strong environmental protections, extreme weather conditions such as hurricanes and droughts will devastate farms, making it paramount for Congress to reconsider their approach towards the Inflation Reduction Act’s climate-oriented funding.
The withdrawal of the US from the Paris Agreement is only one factor contributing to a seismic shift in the country’s ability to fight climate change. Tariffs imposed on Chinese imports invoke further complications to the expansion of clean energy by seeing supply chain costs for crucial energy investment technologies such as battery materials, wind turbines and solar cells skyrocket. With fossil fuels regaining their dominance in the US energy sector, the future of US climate policy is ambiguous, seeing the climate emergency become even more pressing. The long-term implications of the Trump Administration’s decision to turn back to fossil fuels will not merely shape US energy matters but will also alter international efforts to combat the increasing climate emergency.
Image by Gage Skidmore via Wikimedia Commons