– Without the US contributing its fair share, climate finances for vulnerable nations to build resilience and tackle impacts of global warming will fall drastically short and deepen ‘global climate injustices,’ says climate activist Harjeet Singh
– ‘It amounts to the US, the country with the biggest historical responsibility for climate change, throwing up its hands and telling the rest of the world ‘you deal with it,’’ says Chris Aylett of the Chatham House
GENEVA
With Donald Trump back in the Oval Office, the US has once again moved to exit the Paris Agreement, a landmark treaty aimed at curbing global warming.
Trump, who was sworn in Monday for a second term, announced the rollback of US commitment to the 2015 climate accord. The treaty, signed by nearly 200 nations, requires countries to implement measures to limit global temperature rise to 1.5 C above pre-industrial levels.
The move has raised alarm among environmental experts, warning it could undermine global efforts to prevent climate catastrophe even as the US reels from record-breaking wildfires in California — the deadliest and most costly in history — and the devastating impact of hurricanes earlier this year.
Worldwide, 2024 marked the warmest year on record, with ocean temperatures reaching unprecedented levels. The year also saw the global temperatures surpass 1.5 C above pre-industrial levels for the first time.
Experts caution that while the withdrawal will take effect in a year, it risks derailing international climate financing and policy initiatives. They also warn it could hinder local efforts to address the escalating climate crisis.
Disrupting climate action globally
For climate activist Harjeet Singh, Trump’s decision to withdraw from the Paris Agreement was a “significant setback for the global fight against climate change.”
“The US, as the world’s second-largest and the biggest historical emitter of greenhouse gases, bears a unique responsibility in achieving the agreement’s goals. Its withdrawal signals disengagement from multilateral climate efforts and undermines global solidarity at a critical juncture,” Singh says.
He warns that the absence of US leadership risks stalling the momentum of global climate action. “It may embolden other nations to delay their transitions away from fossil fuels or scale back their climate commitments, eroding trust and cooperation in international diplomacy.”
Chris Aylett, a research associate at the Environment and Society Centre at Chatham House, echoes these concerns at a time when progress is crucial for global climate efforts:
“It amounts to the US, the country with the biggest historical responsibility for climate change, throwing up its hands and telling the rest of the world, ‘You deal with it.'”
“The US retrenchment makes it easier for countries to justify watering down their own climate commitments — a big problem in a year when they’re required to submit updated climate plans — and puts even more pressure on a multilateral process which is already buckling.”
Richard Klein of the Stockholm Environment Institute criticizes Trump’s decision as not only damaging to international efforts but also contrary to the interests of the American people.
“He continues to call climate change a hoax, despite all the evidence that the world is getting warmer and was indeed the warmest since measurements began last year,” Klein says.
Pointing to the stark reality of climate science, he says: “We’re on a path beyond 1.5 degrees, and the Paris Agreement aims at stabilizing the climate at 2 degrees, if possible — as close as possible to 1.5 degrees above industrial warming.”
He also emphasizes that Trump’s actions signal a disregard for international cooperation. “He has made a very clear statement that he simply does not care about international solidarity, which is an underpinning of the Paris Agreement. It’s a treaty that applies to all, where all countries take responsibility to reduce their emissions.”
Financial fallout from US withdrawal
Experts have expressed alarm over the potential ripple effects of the US decision on global climate financing, a critical element in the fight against climate change.
Singh, who is the founding director of the Satat Sampada Climate Foundation, warns that the withdrawal exacerbates an already widening gap in climate finance.
“The US has both a historical and moral obligation to support developing nations in their efforts to adopt renewable energy, adapt to climate impacts, and address the escalating losses and damages caused by climate change.”
He emphasizes that without a fair share of contributions from the US, the financial resources required to help vulnerable nations build resilience and tackle climate impacts will fall drastically short.
This, he says, will deepen “global climate injustices,” the populations most vulnerable to the effects of global warming are also those that have contributed the least to climate change but will suffer the most severe and catastrophic impacts.
“Countries already grappling with the devastating effects of climate change — such as small island states, least developed countries (LDCs), low-lying coastal nations, and climate-vulnerable countries like Cambodia, Pakistan, and Nigeria — will face even greater challenges due to the US withdrawal.”
These countries rely heavily on international climate finance and technology to implement mitigation measures, adapt to climate impacts, and cope with the mounting costs of extreme weather events.
“The US’ absence leaves a gaping hole in funding, one that now falls on other developed nations to fill. However, many of these countries have yet to fully meet their past financial commitments, let alone scale up funding to meet the growing needs of vulnerable nations,” Singh explains.
Without adequate resources, he warns, these countries will struggle to recover from climate-related disasters, safeguard their citizens, and build the climate-resilient infrastructure needed to survive in a warming world.
“This diminishes hope of achieving the Paris Agreement’s goal of limiting global warming to safer levels, increasing the likelihood of more frequent and severe climate disasters that disproportionately harm the most vulnerable populations.”
Klein of the Stockholm Environment Institute highlights how Trump’s decision could also erode the availability of sustainable finances for climate action in the private sector.
He noted how some lenders, like New York-based BlackRock, are following the president’s lead, walking away from net zero alliances and sustainable banking.
Klein criticizes this trend as being driven by short-term profits. He said the private sector’s move away from sustainable finance is taking place “whether or not that is in the interests of their own shareholders in the medium-to-long term … it all seems to be focused very much on short-term benefits and short-term profitability.”
Trump to prioritize fossil fuels
Experts have also voiced concerns about the potential surge in fossil fuel extraction under Trump’s administration, as he seeks to bolster US oil and gas exports and assert “energy dominance” globally.
“Trump has already announced plans to open federal lands and offshore areas to expanded oil and gas drilling, loosen restrictions on coal mining, and extend subsidies and support to fossil fuel industries,” says Singh. “These policies are part of his broader strategy of ‘energy dominance,’ which emphasizes increased production and export of coal, oil, and natural gas.”
Singh explains that this focus on fossil fuels not only undermines the Paris Agreement’s objectives but also delays the global shift to clean energy.
Worse, he warns, it locks in infrastructure that will emit greenhouse gases for decades, exacerbating climate impacts at a time when the world has already breached critical thresholds like the 1.5 C global warming limit.
Could other countries follow suit?
While Singh acknowledges the US withdrawal as a significant setback, he believes it is unlikely to trigger a widespread exodus from the Paris Agreement.
“Most countries understand the existential threat of climate change and the necessity of collective action to address it. However, the decision could embolden some developed nations and fossil fuel-producing countries to reduce their climate ambitions or delay their implementation, citing the US’ absence as justification,” he explains.
He adds that the withdrawal risks fostering a perception that climate action is optional, undermining the accountability and ambition mechanisms within the agreement. Nations heavily dependent on fossil fuels or grappling with economic challenges may feel less compelled to fulfill their commitments without US leadership.
Chatham House’s Aylett shares a similar concern but believes that the structure of the Paris Agreement itself offers some resilience.
He said that some leaders who share Trump’s ideological leanings, like Argentina’s Javier Milei, could consider following the US example and quitting the Paris Agreement.
“However, the Paris Agreement is a ‘bottom-up’ instrument, where countries lay out their own targets and plans, so quitting doesn’t really bring any practical benefits,” he explained.
“It’s more about signaling. Because of this, a large-scale exodus from Paris seems relatively unlikely.”
