select search filters
briefings
roundups & rapid reactions
Fiona fox's blog
Scientists comment on the Unites States withdrawing from the Paris Agreement.
Professor Chris Hilson, Director of the Reading Centre for Climate and Justice, University of Reading, said:
“The Trump presidency may turn out to be mostly bark and little bite on climate change. On inauguration, he has already announced US withdrawal (for a second time) from the Paris Agreement, but that’s not likely to have the sort of impact it did before in terms of international diplomacy. It’s already more or less priced in. Other countries will carry on without the US.
“Of course, US climate emissions still count for a big slice of the global whole, so what he does domestically on climate also matters. The Biden administration was itself no angel on climate – US fracking continued apace, and exports of LNG reached record highs. Biden did act to reduce methane emissions though, which is critical for remaining below 2 degrees of warming because it’s a very powerful short term greenhouse gas. Trump could be tempted to cut back on those methane rules. But he wants the EU to buy more US oil and gas. And the EU’s new methane law will not allow imports from countries which have weak methane controls. Trade is one of Trump’s favourite policy tools, but it can also be used against him if he tries to engage in a climate race to the bottom.
“Likewise, politicians like Trump are elected for a relatively short term, but the markets invest for periods beyond this. So, US industry will be positioning itself for a decarbonised economy. It won’t be investing in coal. And demand for oil and gas will fall as electrification proceeds.
“The question is whether that decarbonisation and electrification will take place despite Trump of because of him. With Elon Musk’s influence, we might have expected a push to position the US as a new energy powerhouse, with a great lithium industry, a resurgent nuclear industry, and an internationally competitive EV auto and battery industry. Trump is a businessman. And he likes to win. Sticking to a fossil fuel economy is not likely to position the US economy for the win. That’s not a matter of climate, it’s business.
“However, his inauguration speech contained some rollback on policy promoting EVs. Whether that was window-dressing for his base or a sign of something more fundamental remains to be seen. If it is the latter, then the US auto industry risks becoming even more left-behind in the race against China. The US could even start to look like Russia and Cuba once did, with a nation of old tech cars not found anywhere else in the world. That would be an odd legacy.”
Bob Ward, policy and communications director at the Grantham Research Institute on Climate Change and the Environment at the London School of Economics and Political Science, said:
“President Trump’s decision to withdraw once again the United States from the Paris Agreement is extremely disappointing, if not unexpected. It means that the world’s second largest emitter of greenhouse gases will be turning its back on the landmark agreement in a year when all countries are due to come forward with more ambitious pledges for action ahead of the next United Nations climate change summit in Brazil in November. However, President Trump stopped short of withdrawing the United States from the original 1992 treaty on climate change. In practice, President Trump is giving up an opportunity to safeguard Americans who are suffering growing damage from climate change, including wildfires that spread more quickly and hurricanes that intensify more quickly and produce heavier rain. These impacts are primarily due to greenhouse gas emissions from other countries, and President Trump is surrendering his best chance to persuade them not to create this harm to the United States.”
Comment from 6th November 2024 after the election results which still stands:
Prof Mark Maslin, Professor of Climatology at UCL, said:
“Donald Trump has won a historic second term as US President and this will have a profound impact on the domestic and international climate change agenda. Trump declared during his election campaign that he does not believe in climate change. During his first term in office, he withdrew the US from the Paris Agreement and many of us predict he will do this again. Pulling out one of the world superpowers from COP negotiations to reduce global greenhouse gas emissions is a big deal – as it allows other countries to slow their own decarbonisation and blame the US instead of their own lack of ambition.
“Domestically Trump is a vocal supporter of coal, but coal use decline during his first Presidency due to the switch to gas and renewable energy. This has continued under President Biden and will continue into the future due to simple economics. This reflects global trends moving away from coal to natural gas and renewable energy. But the transition from fossil fuels is to slow and the UN have suggested that with current trends we are looking at 3.1˚C warming by the end of the century.
“The other major trend that Trump has little influence on is the growth in the global green economy which is worth over $10 trillion annually which is 10% of the world’s GDP. In the US there are at least 10 million jobs in the green economy compared with 300,000 in the fossil fuel industry. Hence, if you want to grow your economy and make jobs, then investment in the green economy will be essential.
“In summary Trump may slow down the transition away from fossil fuels and allow other countries to delay action – but the writing is on the wall both politically and economically for fossil fuels. It is when – not if – fossil fuels cease to be used as an energy source.”
Comments from our friends at SMC Spain:
Alicia Pérez-Porro, Marine biologist, responsible for policy interaction and institutional relations at the Centre for Ecological Research and Forestry Applications (CREAF), said:
“The Paris Agreement already proved to be much more resilient than we thought in Trump’s first term in office. When he said at the time that he was pulling the US out of the Agreement, everyone trembled, but in the end the US stepped back and the EU stepped forward. The world has changed a lot geopolitically since Trump’s first term in office. We now know that the step that the EU took will not happen because climate action has taken a back seat in Europe, but we do have other actors, such as China, who may or may not step up their climate action.I remain optimistic, because of the resilience of the agreement and because, if we focus on the energy transition, it has an undeniable economic component. The markets and the economy are decarbonising and this is an inertia that, regardless of who is in the White House, cannot be stopped. We will continue to invest in renewables and move towards the decarbonisation of the economy. It is very likely that Trump will slow down the process, but I doubt he will be able to reverse it.Trump’s decision must be seen as a political statement to his voters. Before he took office, a number of US businessmen signed a letter asking him not to leave the Agreement because only from the inside could he torpedo it. I believe that, if Trump wanted to derail global climate action, he would have stayed in.Finally, climate action in the US is going to focus on states and cities. The value of subnational governments is relevant and they must equip themselves with the economic and political tools to deal with situations like this, having Trump as president. State governors and city mayors are already organising to keep their climate goals on the international agenda”.
Julio Díaz and Cristina Linares, Co-directors of the Reference Unit on Climate Change, Health and Urban Environment of the Instituto de Salud Carlos III and scientific coordinators of the Observatory on Health and Climate Change, said:
“The United States is currently the second largest emitter of greenhouse gases (11%), after China (30%), but has contributed the most to global warming. Its exit from the Paris Agreement will have an impact on the US’s emissions reduction targets, but the advance of renewable energies is unstoppable, although this will be a major setback. It may also serve as a negative example for other countries (China) to be more lax in limiting their emissions.
On the other hand, the Paris Agreement also talks about financing for the countries most affected by the climate crisis, so the exit may also affect the agreements reached at COP29.
In addition, Trump has also signed the withdrawal from the WHO, so it is assumed that the impact of climate change on health is something that does not interest this new administration in the slightest. A decision that comes in the wake of 2024 being the warmest year globally, the recent fires in California, the floods in Valencia and a particularly harsh winter in the USA. All of this with clear implications for morbidity and mortality in both the short and long term, with a significant impact on less analysed factors such as mental health.
A decision that is incomprehensible from a scientific point of view and discouraging for all of us who work in this field”.
Anna Cabré, Climate physicist, oceanographer and research consultant at the University of Pennsylvania, said:
“This is bad news because without cooperation and funding from all countries it is difficult to make progress. In this case we are talking about one of the countries that emits the most per capita and has emitted the most throughout history, i.e. the one that should take more responsibility, not less. Moreover, it is a country that is already suffering the effects of climate change, as evidenced by the recent fires in Los Angeles. Even economic experts say that the transition to a low-carbon world is a profitable business opportunity.
“For all these reasons, the decision taken is irresponsible. It seems to be acting on the belief that it is not their turn to pay for anything and every man for himself. The only positive thing that could come out of this is that alliances are formed between other, stronger countries without US involvement, and that states, cities and businesses continue to move forward, keeping the process moving forward regardless”.
Fernando Valladares, PhD in Biology, CSIC researcher and associate professor at the Universidad Rey Juan Carlos de Madrid, said:
“The new US exit from the Paris Agreement is bad news. It may not have all the terrible consequences that we might think, but in principle it is very discouraging that it happens in the midst of the exponential evolution of extreme weather events that the US itself is suffering both on the west coast with the California fires, and recently the hurricane season, with hurricanes Helen and Milton. This is ample evidence that climate change is a reality that is impacting the US itself. It is a very bad sign that your country is pulling out of an agreement that attempts to mitigate climate change.
It remains to be seen what it will be able to do and what consequences it will have for other countries and for international agreements, such as protocols and climate summits, but it is a blow to the table. It also creates a vicious circle that can be lethal. The vicious circle can be illustrated, for example, with the melting of the Arctic. The Arctic melts, runs out of ice and this allows more oil tankers, more oil tankers favor the short term economy, this short term economy puts more oil tankers in an Arctic that melts for more warming, more oil, less ice, more economy, less planetary health, warming …. A vicious circle in which the last chances of humanity to stay in a climatically safe zone are literally being burned”.
Declared interests
The nature of this story means everyone quoted above could be perceived to have a stake in it. As such, our policy is not to ask for interests to be declared – instead, they are implicit in each person’s affiliation.