Sign In or Create an Account.

By continuing, you agree to the Terms of Service and acknowledge our Privacy Policy

Politics

Trump Bids Adieu to the Paris Agreement. Again.

This time, it’ll happen more quickly, though still not right away.

The Eiffel Tower and a smokestack.
Heatmap Illustration/Getty Images

In a completely unsurprising redux of President Donald Trump’s first term, the new/old U.S. president has officially notified the United Nations of America’s intent to withdraw from the Paris Agreement. According to the terms of the agreement, which went into effect in 2016, it takes a full year for withdrawal to become official. But Trump will almost certainly henceforth act as if the U.S. is no longer bound by the treaty, which has been adopted by nearly every other nation on Earth, in an effort to keep global warming “well below” 2 degrees Celsius.

“I’m immediately withdrawing from the unfair, one-sided Paris Climate Accord rip-off,” Trump told the crowd at the Capital One Arena in Washington, D.C., before signing a list of executive orders. “The United States will not sabotage our own industries while China pollutes with impunity,” he said. Trump has previously stated that he thinks it is unfair that less developed nations such as China are not required to peak their emissions for a number of years, while the U.S. is expected to continue decreasing its own.

This year, parties to the agreement are required to submit national climate action plans — or “nationally determined contributions” in the parlance of the treaty — to the United Nations, detailing how they’ll further reduce emissions and adapt to global warming. These updated plans are mandated every five years, though Trump failed to submit one in 2020. The Biden administration submitted a plan last month, in advance of Trump’s inauguration, which includes a goal of cutting emissions by 61% to 66% below 2005 levels by 2035. It’s safe to assume Trump will not abide by this. Once it leaves the Paris Agreement, the U.S. will also no longer have to submit yearly emissions reports or provide as much money to developing countries for climate change mitigation and adaptation.

So what will the fallout be? After all, America is the world’s second largest emitter of greenhouse gases, behind China. But logistically and legally, leaving the Paris Agreement is more symbolic than anything. Beyond the more nebulous — but very real — loss of international leadership on climate issues, there’s no tangible repercussions for exiting the agreement. Nor, as many party nations consistently demonstrate, any legal recourse for staying in while failing to meet targets or set sufficient goals.

As I reported in November, so long as the U.S. retains its membership in the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change, the U.S. can still attend the annual UN climate conference, a.k.a. COP, where all negotiations and decisions related to the Paris Agreement happen. But for all Paris-related meetings (which comprise much of the conference), the U.S. would have to attend as an “observer” with no decision-making power, the same category as lobbyists.

That’s actually never happened before. During Trump’s first term, the U.S. technically could (and definitely did) continue to play a role in negotiations. The Paris Agreement stipulated that no nation could officially announce its exit for three years after implementation, and, because it still took a year for withdrawal to become official, for every COP during Trump 1.0, the U.S. remained a party to Paris. While Trump’s COP delegations were smaller and less politically prominent than either Obama’s or Biden’s, U.S. representatives continued to show up and advocate for domestic interests. Since COP30 will happen in mid-November of this year, COP31 in 2026 will be the first climate conference where the U.S. will truly learn what it’s like to sit on the sidelines.

Making a more drastic break with the United Nation’s overall climate efforts by leaving the UNFCCC, which convenes the annual climate conference, is theoretically also an option. But leaving the framework convention would likely be a much more complex and arduous process than leaving Paris. While Trump has yet to make a statement indicating his intentions in this regard, the Heritage Foundation’s Project 2025 recommends it.

“We’re going to save over a trillion dollars by withdrawing from that treaty,” Trump told the crowd regarding the Paris Agreement, before returning to the Oval Office to sign a number of additional executive orders. As my colleague Jeva Lange explained, the math behind that figure comes from a study conducted by NERA Economic Consulting, which later released a statement saying that the administration “selectively used results” from its study, and that “NERA’s study was not a cost-benefit analysis of the Paris Agreement, nor does it purport to be one.”

Editor’s note: This story has been updated to reflect the signing of the executive order, “Putting America First in International Environmental Agreements."

Blue

You’re out of free articles.

Subscribe today to experience Heatmap’s expert analysis 
of climate change, clean energy, and sustainability.
To continue reading
Create a free account or sign in to unlock more free articles.
or
Please enter an email address
By continuing, you agree to the Terms of Service and acknowledge our Privacy Policy
Climate

What We Know About Trump’s Endangerment Finding Repeal

The administration has yet to publish formal documentation of its decision, leaving several big questions unanswered.

Donald Trump and Lee Zeldin.
Heatmap Illustration/Getty Images

President Trump announced on Thursday that he was repealing the Environmental Protection Agency’s scientific determination that greenhouse gases are dangerous to human health and the natural world.

The signal move would hobble the EPA’s ability to limit heat-trapping pollution from cars, trucks, power plants, and other industrial facilities. It is the most aggressive attack on environmental regulation that the president and his officials have yet attempted.

Keep reading...Show less
Climate Tech

There’s More Than One Way to Build a Wind Turbine

Startups Airloom Energy and Radia looked at the same set of problems and came up with very different solutions.

Possible future wind energy.
Heatmap Illustration/Radia, Airloom, IceWind, Getty Images

You’d be forgiven for assuming that wind energy is a technologically stagnant field. After all, the sleek, three-blade turbine has defined the industry for nearly half a century. But even with over 1,000 gigawatts of wind generating capacity installed worldwide, there’s a group of innovators who still see substantial room for improvement.

The problems are myriad. There are places in the world where the conditions are too windy and too volatile for conventional turbines to handle. Wind farms must be sited near existing transportation networks, accessible to the trucks delivering the massive components, leaving vast areas with fantastic wind resources underdeveloped. Today’s turbines have around 1,500 unique parts, and the infrastructure needed to assemble and stand up a turbine’s multi-hundred-foot tower and blades is expensive— giant cranes don’t come cheap.

Keep reading...Show less
Green
AM Briefing

Georgia on My Mind

On electrolyzers’ decline, Anthropic’s pledge, and Syria’s oil and gas

The Alabama statehouse.
Heatmap Illustration/Getty Images

Current conditions: Warmer air from down south is pushing the cold front in Northeast back up to Canada • Tropical Cyclone Gezani has killed at least 31 in Madagascar • The U.S. Virgin Islands are poised for two days of intense thunderstorms that threaten its grid after a major outage just days ago.

THE TOP FIVE

1. Alabama weighs scrapping utility commission elections after Democratic win in Georgia

Back in November, Democrats swept to victory in Georgia’s Public Service Commission races, ousting two Republican regulators in what one expert called a sign of a “seismic shift” in the body. Now Alabama is considering legislation that would end all future elections for that state’s utility regulator. A GOP-backed bill introduced in the Alabama House Transportation, Utilities, and Infrastructure Committee would end popular voting for the commissioners and instead authorize the governor, the Alabama House speaker, and the Alabama Senate president pro tempore to appoint members of the panel. The bill, according to AL.com, states that the current regulatory approach “was established over 100 years ago and is not the best model for ensuring that Alabamians are best-served and well-positioned for future challenges,” noting that “there are dozens of regulatory bodies and agencies in Alabama and none of them are elected.”

Keep reading...Show less
Red