Does it matter if the US quits Paris climate accord?

Countries around the world should take the lead on the Paris Agreement regardless of what the United States has to say, writes Mari Luomi

French environment minister Segolene Royal speaks during the opening ceremony of the Bonn Climate Change Conference as part of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change. Patrik Stollarz / AFP Photo
Powered by automated translation

A lot of media attention has been dedicated to whether the United States will stay in or leave the Paris Agreement. A recent round of United Nations climate negotiations left many wondering if this attention has been misplaced. Some were even bolder, suggesting that a departure could even have a positive side to it.

This month, 196 countries convened in Bonn, Germany, for the annual midyear round of UN climate change negotiations, tasked with preparing for this year’s Conference of the Parties session in November. Usually a rather technical meeting, this time, many were expecting the talks to also provide some indication of where the United States international climate change policies are heading under the Trump administration, and how other countries might be reacting in response.

After much speculation on which political appointees would tilt the scale in one direction or another and at least two postponements of a US decision, countries arrived in Bonn still without clarity in this regard. Capitals around the world reacted with laudable pragmatism: in the absence of a clear signal of a shift in the US’s international position, the negotiations proceeded in a largely business-as-usual manner, partly reinforced by the presence of familiar faces on the US delegation.

Pessimists could downplay this as a calm-before-the-storm moment, with a possible confrontation between the major players still ahead at the November COP. For many, however, the Bonn meeting was an eye-opener: perhaps US participation simply is no longer so decisive. Some even dared to suggest it might be better if the US decided to leave the Paris Agreement – at least for the time being.

The US naturally plays a central role in driving the international response to climate change, given its historical and present-day emissions. However, there are strong reasons for why the Paris Agreement would probably stand the test of a US withdrawal, and why it could potentially even strengthen the global response to climate change during a possible, yet hopefully short, US absence.

First, the Paris Agreement represents a major “tune-up” of the Kyoto Protocol, which the US left under the Bush administration in 2001. Not only has the number of countries presenting emissions-reduction pledges grown from 37 to 196, but also the number of non-state bodies that see a stake in climate action has grown exponentially. Key technologies, including solar photovoltaics and storage, have seen significant improvement and uptake, and consensus over climate science is greater than ever. Those investing in these technologies now will be better placed in a carbon-scarce future, and will reap benefits from sustainable jobs, cleaner air and better public health.

Second, some have recalled the song Should I Stay or Should I Go by the rock band the Clash, noting that if the US goes “there will be trouble” but, if it stays, there is a chance “it will be double”. Were the US to stay around the table at the UN climate negotiations, it would probably have a less ambitious agenda. Some speculate that this could affect the ambition of both its own reference group in the negotiations (the Umbrella Group, consisting of non-EU developed countries) but also that of the major emerging economies, whose role in curbing global emissions growth over the coming decades will be fundamental.

An option reportedly considered in Washington, DC has been to stay in the Paris Agreement but reduce the current emissions reduction target (26 to 28 per cent below 2005 levels by 2025), which constitutes the US core national contribution to the agreement. Proponents have noted that the legally binding obligations of the agreement are “procedural” only, which means they do not apply to the actual content of the pledge. Opponents argue that the agreement does not allow for backtracking on an existing pledge. Some have further noted that such policies could lead to domestic legal cases raised against the Trump administration. Yet others have reminded that a withdrawal from the agreement would only take effect around three years later.

There is, however, a case for arguing that a country that is not truly committed to an international treaty should not be participating in it. The Trump administration has provided plenty of proof of its intent to cancel much of the previous administration’s climate change policies, including the domestic Clean Power Plan and $2 billion in financing for climate actions in developing countries through the Green Climate Fund.

The question of whether or not the US stays at the negotiating table during Mr Trump’s term may prove less decisive than many have been expecting. While US leadership provided the necessary push to bring the agreement into life, perhaps now is the time for others to lead, for the time being.

At the end of the Bonn conference, the Climate Vulnerable Forum, a group of 50 countries representing one billion people, reconfirmed their commitment to reach 100 per cent renewable energy production as soon as possible. Perhaps even in the US, it is the sum of smaller units, including cities and states, that will tilt the balance towards increased ambition.

Dr Mari Luomi is a Senior Research fellow at Emirates Diplomatic Academy