As the climate crisis escalates, the US exit threatens to disrupt climate diplomacy, financial commitments and emission reduction efforts worldwide

The newly elected president, Donald J. Trump has ordered the withdrawal of the United States from Paris Agreement on global warming for the second time, the first official exit being on November 4, 2020. The question is- Will the 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?

Though the withdrawal announcement of the world’s biggest economy aligns with America first in international environmental agreements, can it disrupt the international climate diplomacy, at a critical moment of the climate crisis? With 200 countries committing towards reducing greenhouse gas emissions (GHG) and keeping the global temperature rise below 1.5 degrees Celsius, the signing of the Paris Agreement in 2015 showcased the collective accountability and shared responsibility of nations in addressing climate issues.

In his tenure, the former president, Joseph R Biden Jr has often communicated the vital role of the US in leading the world in curbing fossil fuel pollution. The support to developing countries for transitioning to renewable energy, building resilient infrastructure and adapting to climate change is essential to mitigate the adverse consequences of the phenomenon and pace up the global progress on emission reduction.

This is in sharp contrast to the recent, yet not surprising announcement. Mr. Trump has often referred to it as an unfair and one-sided agreement that permits the South, particularly China and India to free-ride the economic burden of the North. With less than a year for it to be effective, the U.S. will soon find itself with the other three countries- Iran, Libya and Yemen- of not being a party to the Paris agreement. This further raises the question of whether must all the countries contribute equally in terms of efforts and resources.

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, the International Energy Agency reported that global energy-related CO2 emissions increased by 1.7 per cent in 2018, after a steady decline over the last three years. In recent times, as is already known that the NDCs of individual countries are not in pace with the Paris pact goal. With the withdrawal of the US, will it imply that countries will have to make greater reductions in emissions?

Will it be possible? However, the key lessons learned from this episode underscore the importance of political stability for long-term climate commitments. As an outcome, countries like China will take advantage of this situation by leveraging themselves as reliable and committed partners in global climate leadership. It will also halt the mitigation and adaptation efforts of developing countries due to the disrupted support from developed countries. Ceased contribution of the U.S. to the 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.

All of this can disrupt critical alliances, deviate nations to scale down their climate commitments and impact the world’s ability to fight climate change.

The U.S. withdrawal from the Paris Agreement raises urgent concerns about global climate action. As nations strive to meet climate goals, America’s absence could weaken commitments, disrupt funding, and shift leadership dynamics. The world must now adapt, ensuring collective progress continues despite political instability and shifting priorities in international climate diplomacy.

(The writer is Assistant Professor, FORE School of Management, New Delhi; views are personal)