On the very first day of assuming office on Jan 21, US President Donald Trump signed an executive order to immediately withdraw from the Paris Agreement. He argues that the treaty unfairly impacts the United States economy and unfairly advantages other major countries, such as China.
Following the conditions set out in Article 28.1 of the Paris Agreement, this second withdrawal will come into effect after one year, on Jan 27, 2026. The last time Trump took this drastic step, it took four years to come to pass — only for previous president Joe Biden to flip course a few months after taking office in 2021.
This very disturbing decision comes when Earth is already suffering the extent of climate change. Officially recorded as the hottest year in human history, 2024 saw a rise of 1.5 Celsius above preindustrial levels — precisely the threshold the Paris Agreement aimed to prevent.
Wildfires have ravaged California, hurricanes have increased all over the Southeastern US, and historic flooding has inundated entire regions of Spain and Bangladesh. This emergency calls for immediate response, but once more, the US, the largest historical emitter, has opted to shirk its responsibility.
Beyond its symbolic leadership failure, the US withdrawal from the Paris Agreement directly and seriously hampers global efforts to put the brakes on climate change. The 2024 UNEP Emissions Gap Report warned that the world is on a trajectory toward 3.1 C of warming by the end of the century unless immediate action is taken.
Biden had established ambitious targets before leaving office: By 2035, reduce US greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions by 60 percent from peak levels, a goal requiring a quick change away from fossil fuels. In addition to undermining this goal, Trump's withdrawal indicates that the US is abandoning its commitments to a sustainable future.
Being the second largest emitter of greenhouse gases, the US accounts for almost 13 percent of worldwide emissions. But historically, it is the single largest polluter, producing almost 25 percent of all emissions since the Industrial Revolution. The argument that the US is being unfairly burdened by the Paris Agreement is not just misleading but demonstrably false.
While Washington has an undeniable obligation to enhance climate mitigation efforts, Trump's withdrawal conveys precisely the opposite message: the US is unwilling to fulfill its fair share and willing to burn more fossil fuel.
Just as he did in his first term, Trump's choice is projected to entail a broad reversal of policies on climate change from the Biden era. However, his ability to completely reverse US progress on clean energy is unlikely. Already, the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law and the Inflation Reduction Act have catalyzed substantial investment in renewable energy, and the private sector drive will probably carry on.
Regardless of federal policy, Tesla and other big US companies are advancing electric vehicle manufacture and alternative energy solutions. At the same time, a bipartisan coalition of 24 states — covering more than half of the US economy and population — has promised to meet net-zero goals by 2050. Yet, even with these efforts, the absence of federal leadership will slow progress and increase costs for US taxpayers.
The Los Angeles wildfires of 2024, which killed 27 people and destroyed over 12,000 structures, offer a grim reminder of what is at stake. Preliminary estimates suggest the disaster could cost the economy as much as $150 billion, and that figure does not account for the long-term health and warm-climate effects of degraded air quality. Studies indicate that every $1 invested in disaster preparedness and climate adaptation saves $12 in future recovery costs.
The US administration is basically compelling its citizens to shoulder an increasingly heavy financial cost by refusing to give first priority to climate change activity. Equally serious are the global consequences of the US withdrawal.
One of the first casualties is climate finance — that funding supporting resilience building, adaptation, and mitigation in underdeveloped countries. Although the US has traditionally been the biggest funder of climate change, Trump is projected to end all of these engagements. Particularly, low-income nations and small island states, already grappling with increasing sea levels and extreme weather events, will be most severely impacted by this.
With the US abdicating its role, the burden of leadership will inevitably shift to other major powers — China and the EU. Already limited by decreasing assistance budgets, European nations will find it difficult to cover for the deficit.
On the other hand, since 2016, Beijing has strategically increased its climate diplomacy, having offered over $24.5 billion in climate-related support to developing countries.
Recently, at COP29, Chinese Vice-President Ding Xuexiang reiterated that the country will enable renewable energy, adjustments, and technology transfers via its South-South Climate Cooperation Fund.
Yet Western countries have already begun imposing tariffs on Chinese-made electric vehicles and restricting the use of Chinese-processed metals in manufacturing. With the US effectively sidelined at the upcoming COP30 negotiations, expect heightened noise in the Western media over China’s role in global climate governance.
The worldwide climate crisis is currently happening, not a distant menace. Though the Paris Accord was never an ideal answer, it still stands as the most effective tool at hand for organizing global initiatives. Trump's second withdrawal undermines those attempts at a crucial moment. The costs of inaction can only grow. Ever more powerful storms, more harmful wildfires, and more frequent droughts will exact a continuously increasing price — not just on developing countries but also on the US itself.
The longer the US postpones effective action, the harder and more costly it will be to solve the environmental catastrophe in the years ahead. Though Trump might think he is rescuing the US economy by withdrawing from the Paris Agreement, future generations will view this choice rightly as truly a hasty abandonment of duty with terrible effects for years to come. History will surely judge it so.
The author is an international affairs commentator and freelancer based in Karachi, Pakistan. The views do not necessarily reflect those of China Daily.
