US President Donald Trump has pulled out the US from Paris agreement on global warming for the second time. Will the international climate diplomacy and global momentum to cut emissions get stalled once again, as has happened in the past? Will other countries fill up the void or will we witness reduced contributions?

With 200 countries committing towards reducing greenhouse gas emissions (GHG) and keeping the global temperature rise below 1.5 degrees Celsius, the signing of Paris agreement in 2015 showcased the collective accountability and shared responsibility of nations in addressing climate issues.

Former President Biden often supported developing countries for transitioning to renewable energy, building resilient infrastructure and adapting to climate change is essential to mitigate the adverse consequences of phenomenon and pace up the global progress on emission reduction.

Trump has referred it as an unfair and one-sided agreement which on the one side permits South to free ride at the economic burden of North and on the other enable countries like Russia and Iran to generate higher profits by producing and selling more. He has often raised concerns of how this leads to lower profits for the domestic producers and high prices for the US consumers. The US may soon find itself with the other three countries — Iran, Libya and Yemen — of not being a party to the Paris agreement.

Though the principle of “Common but Differentiated Responsibility” has been undermined at all successive CoPs, does it imply that the developed countries can default on their financial commitments and jeopardise the global climate commitment?

With the announcement of US retrenchment from the agreement in 2017 and the beginning of the formal withdrawal process, IEA reported that the global energy related CO2 emissions increased by 1.7 per cent in 2018, after a steady decline over last three years.

In recent times, NDCs of individual countries have not kept pace with the Paris pact goal, which underscores the need for political certainty for long term climate commitments.

Countries like China will take advantage of this situation by leveraging themselves as reliable and committed partners in global climate leadership. It may also halt the mitigation and adaptation efforts of developing countries due to the disrupted support from developed countries.

The halt in US contribution to Green Climate Fund will hinder the availability of critical resources for developing countries. This tops up the already low pledges announced in COP29 at Baku this year compared to the demand by developing countries. Few others, particularly the countries with strong fossil fuel industries may support US actions for delaying their own emission targets. All of this can disrupt critical alliances, deviate nations to scale down their climate commitments and impact world’s ability to fight climate change.

Besides the environmental consequences, Trump’s rollback of climate policies can have economic fallouts too. In the foreseeable future, “drill, baby, drill” may boost domestic energy production through fossil fuels, leading to lower energy prices at home, reducing the foreign dependence for energy sources and grabbing a larger pie of global market. This may however also put American industries in the growing clean energy market at risk and prevent the state from taking a critical role in the emerging sunrise renewable energy sector. Over the years, the largest emitter — China has been picking up in solar panels, electric vehicles and other green technologies. The withdrawal of US from this space will accelerate China’s competitive advantage in renewable energy sector. Let us hope that the world minus the US continue its global fight against climate change.

Jain is a Professor and Chair of Economics, Jaipuria Institute of Management; Gopalakrishnan is Founder, Infinite Sum Modelling LLC, Seattle; Tewary is Associate Professor, Fore School of Management, Delhi. Views are personal

Published on April 1, 2025