
CHENNAI: America will be a manufacturing nation once again, and we have something that no other manufacturing nation will ever have: the largest amount of oil and gas of any country on Earth, and we are going to use it.
We’re going to use it,” declared President Donald Trump as he signed an executive order to withdraw the United States from the Paris Agreement on his first day back in office for his second term. This decision, made public earlier this week, marks a significant shift in US climate policy, echoing his administration’s earlier withdrawal in 2017.
Trump’s move to exit the Paris Agreement, aimed at combating climate change, was coupled with the immediate revocation of all climate finance commitments previously made by the US. This not only reaffirms his commitment to fossil fuel extraction but also signals a stark pivot away from international climate cooperation. During his inauguration speech, Trump made it clear that he intended to reverse the climate-friendly energy policies introduced in recent years, emphasizing instead the need to extract more oil and gas to fulfill America’s energy requirements.
This withdrawal comes after a brief period where his predecessor, Joe Biden, had re-engaged the US with the Paris Agreement in 2021. The US now stands as the only nation out of 194 parties to have withdrawn from the agreement, a position it held briefly before Biden’s term. Furthermore, the US’s history of reluctance towards such agreements is notable; it did not ratify the 1997 Kyoto Protocol either, which was the predecessor to the Paris Agreement.
The implications of this withdrawal are profound, especially considering the US is the world’s second-largest emitter of greenhouse gases. Without its full participation, achieving the Paris Agreement’s objective seems increasingly challenging.
Dr Jonathan Pershing, a diplomat with extensive experience in climate negotiations, warns, “Failure to act will lead to more wildfires, droughts, and harm to communities and businesses both in the United States and around the world.”
Unlike the first withdrawal, this exit process is expected to be quicker, with effects to follow next year. Trump has been clear about his intentions, having already ordered the rollback of several energy-related policies and demanding a review of all regulations that could hinder domestic energy resource development, particularly oil, natural gas, and coal. The US has seen an increase in crude oil and natural gas production over the last 15 years, including during Trump’s first term, although coal extraction has notably declined.
Trump’s current policy seems to aim for a significant increase in fossil fuel production, potentially adding 4 billion tonnes of emissions over the next four years, according to some estimates.
He justifies these measures by arguing they protect American interests, especially by reducing reliance on renewable energy supply chains dominated by China. He has proposed boosting domestic production of renewable energy equipment through tariffs on Chinese imports, aiming also to create jobs.
“We will bring prices down, fill our strategic reserves up again, right to the top, and export American energy all over the world. We will be a rich nation again, and it is that liquid gold under our feet that will help to do it,” Trump reiterated.
However, this approach does not sit well with everyone. The Paris Agreement’s requirement for emission reductions is seen by Trump as an irritant, leading him to opt out rather than comply. He has long argued that such international regulations unfairly burden the US compared to countries like China, classified as developing nations despite their significant emissions and economic power.
Internationally, there’s concern over the potential slowdown in global climate action. Linda Kalcher from Strategic Perspectives said, “The incoming Trump administration could bring turbulent political times, not just for Europe.” She said there is a need for European leaders to hold firm on their climate commitments.
Domestically, there is pushback. The US Climate Alliance has vowed to continue climate action, with co-chairs Kathy Hochul and Michelle Lujan Grisham stating, “Our states and territories continue to have broad authority under the US Constitution to protect our progress and advance the climate solutions we need.” Former EPA Administrator Gina McCarthy added, “By leaving the Paris Agreement, this Administration is abdicating its responsibility to protect the American people and our national security. But rest assured, our states, cities, businesses, and local institutions stand ready to pick up the baton of US climate leadership.”
For developing countries, including India, the implications are dire as the US revokes its climate finance commitments, potentially drying up a crucial funding source for climate adaptation and mitigation. Aarti Khosla, Director of Climate Trends, expressed her concerns, “The policy reversals in the US highlight the risks of inconsistent climate commitments in this critical decade. While these actions undermine global progress, they place greater responsibility on countries like India to step up and lead by example by not limiting the aspirations of clean energy goals which we have rightly embarked on.”
Arunabha Ghosh from the Council on Energy, Environment and Water in India said, “President Donald Trump’s decision to withdraw the United States from the Paris Agreement once again was not entirely unexpected. It, however, creates two kinds of uncertainty: Will state-level and corporate action in the US double down on investments and innovation in clean tech? And how will other large historical emitters step up to fill the emissions reduction gap? Meanwhile, India must remain steadfast in its commitment to climate action — to capitalize on the strategic opportunities in technology, investment, industrial development, green livelihoods, and greater resilience for the economy.”
Labanya Jena, a Sustainable Finance Specialist, said concerns about the US influence on global financial bodies like the World Bank, potentially diverting funds away from climate initiatives, and impacting countries like India are not totally unfounded. “Multilateral Development Banks are unlikely to continue focusing on climate finance, which is essential for developing countries. Given the veto of the US on the World Bank, they may force the World Bank to move away from climate financing.”