Bangladesh Defense
Saif
Senior Member
- Jan 24, 2024
- 12,725
- 7,062
- Origin
- Residence
- Axis Group
- Copy to clipboard
- Thread starter
- #313
US walks away from Paris deal
ON HIS first day back in office, US president Donald Trump reignited a controversial chapter of American climate policy by notifying the United Nations of his administration’s intention to exit the Paris Climate agreement — for a second time. This echoes his first term, when the US formally...
www.newagebd.net
US walks away from Paris deal
Mohammed Norul Alam Raju 31 January, 2025, 00:00
ON HIS first day back in office, US president Donald Trump reignited a controversial chapter of American climate policy by notifying the United Nations of his administration’s intention to exit the Paris Climate agreement — for a second time. This echoes his first term, when the US formally withdrew from the accord in 2020, only for Joe Biden to reverse the decision in 2021. Trump, however, remains steadfast in his belief that the agreement is ‘unfair and one-sided,’ making climate policy a key battleground in his political narrative.
The Trump administration argued that the accord that united nearly 200 nations imposed disproportionate burdens on the US, citing potential economic disadvantages, job losses, and costs to the coal and fossil fuel industries. It also claimed the agreement allowed countries such as China and India to continue polluting while allegedly undermining US competitiveness. This withdrawal, which will take one year to execute, will leave the US among a small group of non-signatories, including Iran, Libya, and Yemen.
The Paris climate agreement, adopted in 2015, aimed to combat climate change by limiting global warming to below 2°C above pre-industrial levels. Nations committed to voluntary targets for reducing emissions, known as nationally determined contributions, and pledged to enhance these targets every five years. For the US, this meant ambitious goals: cutting greenhouse gas emissions by 61–66 per cent by 2035, a pathway to net-zero emissions by 2050.
Trump’s executive order claimed that this Accord, along with other international agreements, fails to align with US values and ‘redirects’ American taxpayer dollars ‘to nations that neither need nor deserve such financial assistance’. Instead of adhering to a collective global framework, Trump argued that the US’s track record of balancing economic growth with environmental goals should serve as a model for other countries.
Declaring an ‘energy emergency,’ he revived his infamous mantra, ‘drill, baby, drill,’ and pledged to roll back what he labelled as Biden’s electric vehicle mandate. He contended that the US should not undermine its industries while nations like China continue to pollute without consequence. ‘China uses a lot of dirty energy but produces a lot of energy,’ he claimed, adding, ‘When that stuff goes up in the air, it doesn’t stay there... It floats into the United States of America after three-and-a-half to five-and-a-half days.’
The political dimension of Trump’s decision cannot be ignored. The 2024 US presidential election witnessed over $4 billion in contributions to candidates’ campaign committees and external groups supporting them. According to Yale Climate Connections, the fossil fuel industry spent $219 million to influence the outcome of the election. Much of the money in politics is directed to political action committees and political party committees rather than specific candidates. Notably, 88 per cent of contributions from the fossil fuel industry went to Republicans. These figures represent only reported contributions, with actual sums potentially much higher. In recent years, the US became the world’s largest gas producer, and 2023 witnessed a record issuance of 758 oil and gas drilling licences.
A critical question is how the US withdrawal will affect the global climate accord.
The US has significantly increased its funding for climate initiatives in recent years. This funding originates from various sources, including the US government, the Environmental Protection Agency, and the department of agriculture. In 2023, the US provided $9.5 billion in international climate finance, marking a six-fold increase from 2021. The US also implemented numerous climate programs, including climate pollution reduction grants, community change grant program and emergency plan for adaptation and resilience. Most of this funding was allocated to adaptation, clean energy, and sustainable landscapes. The US withdrawal from the Paris agreement is expected to impact the implementation of these programs on the ground.
Donald Trump’s initial decision to withdraw the US from the Paris agreement during his first term served as a wake-up call for the European Union and significantly influenced its climate ambitions. The US withdrawal created a leadership void in global climate policy, as the US was one of the largest emitters and a key player in international negotiations. The EU seized this opportunity to assume a more prominent role in driving global climate efforts. China transitioned from co-leadership with the US to sole leadership, while India maintained its commitments. However, Brazil’s climate ambitions were curtailed following the election of Jair Bolsonaro, a climate sceptic.
It is premature to predict how the current withdrawal will shape global climate efforts. A major concern is the extent to which the fossil fuel industry will influence policy decisions, potentially exacerbating climate challenges.
Some may question the implications of US withdrawal for climate finance. With the US stepping back, other nations may face increased pressure to enhance their commitments to meet global targets. Specifically, questions arise regarding who will bear the costs of addressing climate damages and facilitating the energy transition. COP29, dubbed the ‘Finance COP,’ aimed to secure $300 billion annually from developed nations to assist developing countries in addressing climate change. However, this sum constitutes less than 25 per cent of what was initially sought. Will other donor nations compensate for the shortfall created by the US withdrawal, or will it undermine global resolve to supply climate finance to developing countries?
The US is responsible for about 22 per cent of global carbon dioxide emissions since 1950. Although China surpassed the US as the world’s largest annual carbon emitter several years ago, the US remains the second-largest annual emitter, releasing 4.9 billion tonnes of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere in 2023. Trump’s return raises fears that these emissions could rise, reversing progress toward global targets.
The reality of climate change is undeniable. The catastrophic wildfires in Los Angeles serve as a reminder that Americans, like the rest of the world, are increasingly affected by worsening climate change. Laurence Tubiana, a key architect of the Paris accord, expressed disappointment over the US withdrawal but emphasised that global action to combat climate change ‘is stronger than any single country’s politics and policies.’
Despite Trump’s scepticism, the clean energy market is expanding rapidly, projected to surpass $2 trillion by 2035. His dismissal of Biden’s clean energy policies as a ‘green new scam’ contrasts sharply with international resolve to combat climate change. Notably, even during Trump’s first withdrawal, no other nation followed suit. Instead, countries, businesses, and local governments reaffirmed their commitments, showing that the fight against climate change transcends individual leaders.
Public opinion, too, reflects a growing consensus. An Associated Press-NORC poll found that only 2 in 10 US adults supported withdrawal from the Paris agreement, while approximately one-quarter were neutral. Notably, even less than half of Republicans backed the move. These statistics suggest that while Trump’s policies may appeal to a vocal minority, the broader public recognises the need for climate action.
Mohammed Norul Alam Raju is a researcher and development activist.
Mohammed Norul Alam Raju 31 January, 2025, 00:00
ON HIS first day back in office, US president Donald Trump reignited a controversial chapter of American climate policy by notifying the United Nations of his administration’s intention to exit the Paris Climate agreement — for a second time. This echoes his first term, when the US formally withdrew from the accord in 2020, only for Joe Biden to reverse the decision in 2021. Trump, however, remains steadfast in his belief that the agreement is ‘unfair and one-sided,’ making climate policy a key battleground in his political narrative.
The Trump administration argued that the accord that united nearly 200 nations imposed disproportionate burdens on the US, citing potential economic disadvantages, job losses, and costs to the coal and fossil fuel industries. It also claimed the agreement allowed countries such as China and India to continue polluting while allegedly undermining US competitiveness. This withdrawal, which will take one year to execute, will leave the US among a small group of non-signatories, including Iran, Libya, and Yemen.
The Paris climate agreement, adopted in 2015, aimed to combat climate change by limiting global warming to below 2°C above pre-industrial levels. Nations committed to voluntary targets for reducing emissions, known as nationally determined contributions, and pledged to enhance these targets every five years. For the US, this meant ambitious goals: cutting greenhouse gas emissions by 61–66 per cent by 2035, a pathway to net-zero emissions by 2050.
Trump’s executive order claimed that this Accord, along with other international agreements, fails to align with US values and ‘redirects’ American taxpayer dollars ‘to nations that neither need nor deserve such financial assistance’. Instead of adhering to a collective global framework, Trump argued that the US’s track record of balancing economic growth with environmental goals should serve as a model for other countries.
Declaring an ‘energy emergency,’ he revived his infamous mantra, ‘drill, baby, drill,’ and pledged to roll back what he labelled as Biden’s electric vehicle mandate. He contended that the US should not undermine its industries while nations like China continue to pollute without consequence. ‘China uses a lot of dirty energy but produces a lot of energy,’ he claimed, adding, ‘When that stuff goes up in the air, it doesn’t stay there... It floats into the United States of America after three-and-a-half to five-and-a-half days.’
The political dimension of Trump’s decision cannot be ignored. The 2024 US presidential election witnessed over $4 billion in contributions to candidates’ campaign committees and external groups supporting them. According to Yale Climate Connections, the fossil fuel industry spent $219 million to influence the outcome of the election. Much of the money in politics is directed to political action committees and political party committees rather than specific candidates. Notably, 88 per cent of contributions from the fossil fuel industry went to Republicans. These figures represent only reported contributions, with actual sums potentially much higher. In recent years, the US became the world’s largest gas producer, and 2023 witnessed a record issuance of 758 oil and gas drilling licences.
A critical question is how the US withdrawal will affect the global climate accord.
The US has significantly increased its funding for climate initiatives in recent years. This funding originates from various sources, including the US government, the Environmental Protection Agency, and the department of agriculture. In 2023, the US provided $9.5 billion in international climate finance, marking a six-fold increase from 2021. The US also implemented numerous climate programs, including climate pollution reduction grants, community change grant program and emergency plan for adaptation and resilience. Most of this funding was allocated to adaptation, clean energy, and sustainable landscapes. The US withdrawal from the Paris agreement is expected to impact the implementation of these programs on the ground.
Donald Trump’s initial decision to withdraw the US from the Paris agreement during his first term served as a wake-up call for the European Union and significantly influenced its climate ambitions. The US withdrawal created a leadership void in global climate policy, as the US was one of the largest emitters and a key player in international negotiations. The EU seized this opportunity to assume a more prominent role in driving global climate efforts. China transitioned from co-leadership with the US to sole leadership, while India maintained its commitments. However, Brazil’s climate ambitions were curtailed following the election of Jair Bolsonaro, a climate sceptic.
It is premature to predict how the current withdrawal will shape global climate efforts. A major concern is the extent to which the fossil fuel industry will influence policy decisions, potentially exacerbating climate challenges.
Some may question the implications of US withdrawal for climate finance. With the US stepping back, other nations may face increased pressure to enhance their commitments to meet global targets. Specifically, questions arise regarding who will bear the costs of addressing climate damages and facilitating the energy transition. COP29, dubbed the ‘Finance COP,’ aimed to secure $300 billion annually from developed nations to assist developing countries in addressing climate change. However, this sum constitutes less than 25 per cent of what was initially sought. Will other donor nations compensate for the shortfall created by the US withdrawal, or will it undermine global resolve to supply climate finance to developing countries?
The US is responsible for about 22 per cent of global carbon dioxide emissions since 1950. Although China surpassed the US as the world’s largest annual carbon emitter several years ago, the US remains the second-largest annual emitter, releasing 4.9 billion tonnes of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere in 2023. Trump’s return raises fears that these emissions could rise, reversing progress toward global targets.
The reality of climate change is undeniable. The catastrophic wildfires in Los Angeles serve as a reminder that Americans, like the rest of the world, are increasingly affected by worsening climate change. Laurence Tubiana, a key architect of the Paris accord, expressed disappointment over the US withdrawal but emphasised that global action to combat climate change ‘is stronger than any single country’s politics and policies.’
Despite Trump’s scepticism, the clean energy market is expanding rapidly, projected to surpass $2 trillion by 2035. His dismissal of Biden’s clean energy policies as a ‘green new scam’ contrasts sharply with international resolve to combat climate change. Notably, even during Trump’s first withdrawal, no other nation followed suit. Instead, countries, businesses, and local governments reaffirmed their commitments, showing that the fight against climate change transcends individual leaders.
Public opinion, too, reflects a growing consensus. An Associated Press-NORC poll found that only 2 in 10 US adults supported withdrawal from the Paris agreement, while approximately one-quarter were neutral. Notably, even less than half of Republicans backed the move. These statistics suggest that while Trump’s policies may appeal to a vocal minority, the broader public recognises the need for climate action.
Mohammed Norul Alam Raju is a researcher and development activist.
