“In order to fulfill my solemn duty to protect America and its citizens, the United States will withdraw from the Paris climate accord but begin negotiations to reenter either the Paris accords or really an entire new transaction on terms that are fair to the United State”
President Trump
1st June 2017
And with these words on June 1st 2017, President Trump signalled that the United States would be exiting from the Paris Agreement. A landmark agreement signed by all 197 Parties to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change and UN member states, and thought of as an impossible task during the two weeks in Paris in December 2015.
One year ago this week, the Trump Administration submitted an official notice to the United Nations, notifying them of their intention to withdraw from the Paris Agreement at the earliest possible time. Due to the technicalities of the withdrawal mechanisms in the agreement, a country can not formally exit until four years after the agreement comes into effect in the country—for the US this is November 2020. If President Trump’s opponent wins the presidential election of 2020, we could very well see the US re-enter the Paris Agreement.
Even that isn’t entirely for certain though, President Trump may get re-elected for a second term. Until then, the 194 countries that remain signatories to the agreement must act on the reality that is before us.
The US remains a superpower in the global economy and a heavyweight in international diplomacy, but questions remain on who replaces the US as the leader on climate change? More importantly though, who fills the carbon emission targets the US is abandoning?
An ideal leader on climate change is a country capable of persuading other states to commit to a common agreement and pushing them to establish ambitious emission targets, and then pushing them to achieve them. Additionally, a leader must also fulfil their own targets and be capable of enforcing said agreement.
China and the European Union are often the names put forward to contend for the title of climate leader—but both provide different types of leadership for the international community.
China, as a rising economic powerhouse, is looked upon as a potential candidate due to the significant strides they have made domestically in renewable energy uptake and their ambitious target to peak their carbon emissions by 2030. Additionally, their sheer economic power internationally and their ability to invest in infrastructure and projects across the world, of particular importance Africa, is seen as a quality fit for a global climate leader.
The European Union, as a powerful regional organisation, is seen as a leader due in part to their diplomatic prowess and the moral leadership they are able to provide to other states. The EU has been at the forefront of negotiating coalitions in UNFCCC, allying themselves with small, developing states who can often be left out of the conversation on the global stage and pushing for more ambitious and binding targets during the Durban conference.
The High Ambition Coalition was formalised in Paris, the brainchild of small island states and the EU, it managed to push for the inclusion of a 1.5°C target in the final agreement. The EU and its members have made significant progress on their own emission targets and, as a collective, the EU member states remain the largest donor into the Green Climate Fund for developing countries—with an aggregate commitment to contributing USD $4.7 billion (source: Green Climate Fund).
It will take some more cycles of climate conferences for one power to cement their position, but look out for China and the EU get their name out and establish themselves.
The beauty of the federation model used by the US came forth as we saw the constituent entities of the country react to the federal executive’s decision to withdraw from the Paris Accord.
The day after President Trump’s June announcement, the Governors of California, New York and Washington announced the formation of the United States Climate Alliance. To date, a total of 16 states have joined the Alliance—representing 134 million Americans, having a collective GDP of nearly USD$8.6 trillion, and a combined share of 25.5% of US carbon emissions (Source: Energy Information Administration. Retrieved 2017).
Through these numbers, we can truly see the power of such a grouping of states that remain committed to the Paris Accord, without the framework of the federal government the individual states are still striving to meet their own emission reduction targets.
Also an important note to make is that the Alliance has bipartisan membership with both Democratic and Republican Governors having signed up to it. This sends a powerful message of cooperation and solidarity to Washington from around the union.
This is in addition to the Mayors National Climate Action Agenda which was formed in 2014, and their commitment to the Paris Accord was reaffirmed in 2017 after the announcement of the withdrawal. The association of mayors represents 379 US cities, representing nearly 20% of the American population. This collection of cities aims to integrate best energy efficiency practices into their cities and push towards achieving sustainability within their jurisdictions.
These states and cities represent a significant majority of industry and business within the United States, and states have moved forward in investing in the renewables industry as they slowly work towards an energy transition. It’s clear to then see that even without the federal government as a signatory to the Paris Accord, the constituent components of the US can still bring the country closer to achieving the emissions reduction target it set itself in 2015.
As the global community moves forward we are beginning to see the shaping of how a world would look like post-US withdrawal from Paris. With different countries providing economic and diplomatic leadership, while emissions reduction responsibility falls upon the states in the US and municipalities that are committed to upholding the Paris Accord, with or without the signature of the United States on the agreement.
While in the short term it may seem like American participation in international climate diplomacy is a lost cause, it pays to be optimistic and to look outside the norms of international relations.
