The Long- and Short-Term Impacts of Pulling Out of Paris

Trump’s withdrawal from the climate-change pact could spark economic retaliation.

President Trump announces the U.S.'s withdrawal from the Paris climate-change accord in the Rose Garden on Thursday.
AP Photo/Andrew Harnik
Jason Plautz
Add to Briefcase
Jason Plautz
June 1, 2017, 5:45 p.m.

Pres­id­ent Trump’s de­cision to exit the Par­is cli­mate-change agree­ment sets in mo­tion a years-long pro­cess that won’t be fi­nal un­til 2020. But the dip­lo­mat­ic im­pacts could be felt much earli­er.

Ar­guing that the deal is “very un­fair at the highest level to the United States,” Trump said he would exit or try to rene­go­ti­ate an agree­ment. The White House said it would fol­low Art­icle 28 of the agree­ment, which says a coun­try can only ap­ply to exit three years after the deal takes force and must give parties one year of no­tice.

That would put the date of the U.S. exit on Nov. 4, 2020, four years after the agree­ment went in­to force.

The White House could have ex­ited the United Na­tions Frame­work Con­ven­tion on Cli­mate Change, the Sen­ate-rat­i­fied treaty that un­der­lies the Par­is agree­ment, a more ex­treme step that would have taken only a year. In­stead, Trump picked a path that makes it pos­sible for a fu­ture pres­id­ent to reenter the Par­is deal, and the tim­ing of the exit also places it squarely in the spot­light of the 2020 pres­id­en­tial elec­tion.

Echo­ing his rhet­or­ic on trade deals, Trump said that the U.S. would seek to “rene­go­ti­ate” the agree­ment “un­der a frame­work that is fair and where bur­dens and re­spons­ib­il­it­ies are equally shared.” The prom­ise was un­der­cut slightly with the ad­di­tion, “if we can’t, that’s fine.”

The ori­gin­al agree­ment was vol­un­tary—the deal it­self does not com­pel any coun­try to take ac­tion, nor does it con­tain any pun­ish­ment for coun­tries that don’t meet their prom­ised emis­sion cuts (al­though ne­go­ti­at­ors are work­ing to add teeth to the agree­ment over the next few years).

It’s un­clear what a rene­go­ti­ation could mean, or how the 194 oth­er na­tions would par­ti­cip­ate in such a dis­cus­sion. With­in hours of Trump’s an­nounce­ment, France, Ger­many, and Italy is­sued a joint state­ment say­ing the agree­ment could not be rene­go­ti­ated and that it is “a vi­tal in­stru­ment for our plan­et, so­ci­et­ies and eco­nom­ies.”

A seni­or White House of­fi­cial did not of­fer any de­tails on what a bet­ter deal might look like, say­ing “that’s up to the pres­id­ent.” As to wheth­er al­lies would want to par­ti­cip­ate, the of­fi­cial said, “There’s no ques­tion that oth­er coun­tries … are go­ing to want to sit down with us and talk about the po­ten­tial way for­ward.”

Either way, the White House is step­ping away from the policies that formed the back­bone of the U.S. com­mit­ment to cut emis­sions by 25 to 27 per­cent be­low 2005 levels by 2025 through a series of do­mest­ic policies like emis­sions cuts to power plants and in­creased fuel-eco­nomy stand­ards for vehicles. Trump’s ad­min­is­tra­tion has put the brakes on those policies, al­though the mar­ket has already been mov­ing away from coal in fa­vor of clean­er-burn­ing nat­ur­al gas and re­new­able en­ergy.

Trump said the de­cision was made in or­der to pro­tect Amer­ic­an in­dus­tries, cit­ing a NERA Con­sult­ing re­port that the ac­cord would cost the U.S. eco­nomy $3 tril­lion, with spe­cif­ic im­pacts on coal and man­u­fac­tur­ing sec­tors. That study found far more drastic im­pacts than oth­er aca­dem­ic re­search on ad­dress­ing glob­al warm­ing, and it’s un­clear what the Par­is agree­ment on its own would do to the coal in­dustry.

Even some coal com­pan­ies had urged Trump to stay in the agree­ment, say­ing it would be­ne­fit re­search for so-called clean-coal tech­no­logy.

While the pro­cess will take years, ex­perts say the in­ter­na­tion­al im­pact of the de­cision could be felt much earli­er. Coun­tries have in­creas­ingly made cli­mate change a high-level is­sue, and the Par­is agree­ment—which sought to lim­it tem­per­at­ure in­creases to 1.5 de­grees C above pre-in­dus­tri­al levels—was the center­piece of that dis­cus­sion.

Former Sec­ret­ary of State John Kerry said in a state­ment that the exit could be “the most self-de­feat­ing ac­tion in Amer­ic­an his­tory,” warn­ing that it would be a “glob­al stain on our cred­ib­il­ity.”

Stay­ing out would make the U.S. one of only three na­tions—along with Syr­ia and Nicaragua —not in the agree­ment, al­though Rus­sia has also not rat­i­fied it (Nicaragua did not join be­cause it felt the deal was not strong enough). That puts the U.S. out of step with ma­jor al­lies, a stance that could have ripple ef­fects on oth­er for­eign policy is­sues.

After the George W. Bush ad­min­is­tra­tion re­jec­ted the Kyoto pro­tocol on glob­al warm­ing, ad­min­is­tra­tion of­fi­cials said they were sur­prised at the dip­lo­mat­ic re­sponse. In a 2002 in­ter­view, then-Sec­ret­ary of State Colin Pow­ell told The New York Times that the blow­back “was a sober­ing ex­per­i­ence that everything the Amer­ic­an pres­id­ent does has in­ter­na­tion­al re­per­cus­sions.”

The Kyoto ac­tion also threw a wrench in in­ter­na­tion­al cli­mate talks by tak­ing the world’s largest emit­ter away from the table. A more act­ive U.S. un­der Pres­id­ent Obama was cru­cial to re­shap­ing the co­oper­a­tion that led to Par­is, but it ap­pears that the U.S. with­draw­al won’t col­lapse the agree­ment. China, In­dia, and the European Uni­on—three of the world’s four largest emit­ters be­sides the U.S.—have all com­mit­ted to mak­ing the agree­ment work.

China and the European Uni­on will also meet Fri­day to dis­cuss cli­mate change, among oth­er top­ics, and will is­sue a res­ol­u­tion sup­port­ing the Par­is agree­ment, ac­cord­ing to re­ports.

More dir­ectly, some coun­tries could even re­spond with eco­nom­ic meas­ures; former French Pres­id­ent Nic­olas Sarkozy said he’d de­mand that Europe put a car­bon tax on all products com­ing from the United States.

An­drew Steer, the pres­id­ent of the World Re­sources In­sti­tute, told re­port­ers that while coun­tries don’t have the right to im­pose in­di­vidu­al tar­iffs, they might at least ex­plore some kind of eco­nom­ic re­sponse. That in­cludes the pos­sib­il­ity that Amer­ic­an cor­por­a­tions could be blocked from pro­jects fun­ded un­der a United Na­tions cli­mate fund to which Trump has said the U.S. will not con­trib­ute.

“If you are 194 coun­tries, and you be­lieve that this is one of the greatest chal­lenges fa­cing civil­iz­a­tion in the last sev­er­al hun­dred years, and there are three coun­tries that say you couldn’t care less about this … I wouldn’t be at all sur­prised if we start see­ing some pretty mus­cu­lar activ­ity,” Steer said.

What We're Following See More »
16th Charity Cancels Function at Mar-a-Lago
7 hours ago
Senate Plans Two Hearings on Health Insurance
8 hours ago

"The Senate health committee will hold two hearings early next month on how the nation’s individual health insurance marketplaces can be stabilized, as party leaders grasp for a fresh path following the collapse of the Republican effort to repeal and replace much of former President Barack Obama’s health care law. GOP and Democratic leaders are exploring whether they can craft a bipartisan but limited bill aimed at curbing rising premiums for people who buy their own insurance. In many markets, consumers are seeing steeply rising premiums and fewer insurers willing to sell policies."

U.S. Imposes Sanctions on 16 Companies
8 hours ago
North Korean Chemical Weapons Shipments to Syria Intercepted
1 days ago

"Two North Korean shipments to a Syrian government agency responsible for the country's chemical weapons program were intercepted in the past six months, according to a confidential United Nations report on North Korea sanctions violations."

Ryan: “There Are No Sides” on Charlottesville
1 days ago

After taking fire for not forcefully condemning President Trump's statements on Charlottesville, Speaker Paul Ryan today issued a statement that takes issue with any "moral relativism" when it comes to Neo-Nazis. "There are no sides," he wrote. "There is no other argument. We will not tolerate this hateful ideology in our society." Ryan participates in a CNN town hall tonight from Racine, Wis.


Welcome to National Journal!

You are currently accessing National Journal from IP access. Please login to access this feature. If you have any questions, please contact your Dedicated Advisor.