Blog Post

Adieu Paris: what’s next for climate policy if Trump ditches the Paris Agreement?

US President Trump has made it clear that he is not happy with the Paris Agreement. This week he will announce whether the US will withdraw from the Agreement altogether. What might that mean for the global fight against climate change? US decarbonisation is already well underway but the EU would need to step up and defend global climate governance.

By: and Date: May 30, 2017 Topic: Energy & Climate

Tweeting from Taormina after the G7 summit, President Trump announced his intention to make a final decision on the Paris Agreement this week. The fact that he did not join the other six leaders when they reaffirmed their commitment to the Paris Agreement might indicate a plan to pull the US out of the Agreement.

This decision would be a huge but expected U-turn in US climate policy, in line with Trump’s electoral campaign promises. Under President Obama, the US took on a leading role in the global fight against climate change. Indeed, the Paris Agreement would probably not have materialised without the action of the former President. He played a central role in committing the US to cut greenhouse gas emissions, and also in engaging emerging countries – and particularly China – in the process. The road to Paris started to look really possible only when, in November 2014, the US engaged in a landmark deal with China that put the world’s two largest greenhouse gas emitters in lockstep to cut emissions.

If President Trump’s does decide to withdraw, this choice would clearly be driven by domestic political reasons. It would completely dismiss three fundamental facts of the USA’s energy and climate reality:

  1. The US is already decarbonising, as a result of energy market trends rather than of climate policy. Due to sluggish economic growth, the switch from coal to natural gas that has followed to the ‘shale gas revolution’, and the emergence of more efficient technologies, the US has reduced its greenhouse gas emissions by more than 10 percent between 2005 and 2015. Sticking to the Paris Agreement would, therefore, not have been too difficult for the US.
  2. Trump’s wished-for renaissance of coal is unlikely to materialise, either with or without strong climate policy. As most recently illustrated by a study from the Columbia University Center on Global Energy, the decline in domestic US coal has been predominantly due to increased competition from cheap natural gas rather than by environmental regulations or climate policy. Should natural gas prices remain at current levels, US coal demand will continue its decline, even without the Paris Agreement.
  3. As a result of technological advancements, renewable energies such as solar and wind will inexorably expand their role in the US energy system, regardless of climate policy. This is clearly illustrated by the fact that the average cost of wind energy has declined by 66% between 2009 and 2016, while the average cost of solar photovoltaic has fallen by 85%.

These facts are clear also to oil companies. It is not by coincidence that even the CEO of Exxon Mobil (the world’s largest listed oil company, and also the one considered by climate change activists as the most conservative), recently wrote a personal letter to President Trump, urging him to keep the US a party to the Paris Agreement.

On the basis of these three facts US decarbonisation is likely to continue, even if the Trump administration withdraws from the Paris Agreement. Therefore the most worrisome implication of Trump’s eventual decision would not concern the US contribution to global warming, but rather the solidity of the overall structure of the Paris Agreement.

The Agreement is fundamentally based on international cooperation and mutual trust. With the historically-largest greenhouse gas emitter pulling out of the Agreement, it would be difficult to convince other countries to stick to their commitments.

In particular, countries with carbon-based economies such as the Gulf countries, Russia or even Australia and South Africa might have primarily joined the Paris Agreement in order to avoid being side-lined in international policy debates. If the US is leaving, this argument is somewhat meaningless.

More worryingly, emerging countries whose emissions are likely to substantially increase, such as India, closely monitor US climate policies. Their governments, and those of all other parties, would most likely find it more difficult to persuade their domestic audiences of the need and feasibility of strong climate policies.

In this context, the roles of the second-largest historical emitter, the EU, and of the currently-largest emitter, China, will be key to ensure the stability of the Paris Agreement architecture in the event of a unilaterial US withdrawal.

If Trump pulls the US out of the Agreement, the EU and China should promptly react, by taking the lead in a new initiative to revive the ‘spirit of Paris’.

First of all, the two partners should immediately deliver a joint declaration aimed at reaffirming their commitments towards the Paris Agreement, and at inviting all other parties to do the same. The 19th EU-China Summit taking place in Brussels on 1-2 June might represent a timely occasion to do this.

Secondly, the two partners should propose to the German Presidency of the G20 to organise a special session (open to the G20 countries minus the US) devoted to the Paris Agreement at the forthcoming Hamburg summit of 7–8 July 2017. This session should aim to build up the political momentum for advancing the implementation of the Paris Agreement. In particular, it should encourage the advancement of ongoing discussions on issues such as monitoring regimes and climate finance. In particular, the clarity on the US stance should make it easier for the other countries to make progress on the complex negotiations about how to transpose the articles of the Paris Agreement into workable rules. This should make concrete steps forward possible in the forthcoming COP23 in Bonn (6 – 17 November 2017).

The EU should now swiftly understand its new global responsibility, and promptly strengthen its engagement with China and other countries to keep up momentum and decisively proceed along the road defined in Paris.


Republishing and referencing

Bruegel considers itself a public good and takes no institutional standpoint. Anyone is free to republish and/or quote this post without prior consent. Please provide a full reference, clearly stating Bruegel and the relevant author as the source, and include a prominent hyperlink to the original post.

View comments
Read article More on this topic More by this author

Blog Post

Getting better all the time: The benefits of learning for decarbonisation

The technological development will dramatically impact decarbonisation cost. In this blog post, the author suggests that national decarbonisation strategies should put a special emphasis on the benefits of learning.

By: Georg Zachmann Topic: Energy & Climate Date: April 16, 2019
Read about event More on this topic

Upcoming Event

May
15
12:30

How do national energy policies fit into EU decarbonisation plans?

Through considering several different national perspectives, we discuss how to reconcile the EU Climate Strategy targets with national energy and climate policies.

Speakers: Maciej Burny, Carole Mathieu, Christian von Hirschhausen and Georg Zachmann Topic: Energy & Climate Location: Bruegel, Rue de la Charité 33, 1210 Brussels
Read article More by this author

Opinion

Europe and the new imperialism

For decades, Europe has served as a steward of the post-war liberal order, ensuring that economic rules are enforced and that national ambitions are subordinated to shared goals within multilateral bodies. But with the United States and China increasingly mixing economics with nationalist foreign-policy agendas, Europe will have to adapt.

By: Jean Pisani-Ferry Topic: Global Economics & Governance, Innovation & Competition Policy Date: April 3, 2019
Read article More on this topic More by this author

Opinion

Takeaways from Xi Jinping’s visit to France and Italy and ideas for the EU-China summit

The author appraises China's strategy towards Europe ahead of next month's EU-China summit.

By: Alicia García-Herrero Topic: Global Economics & Governance Date: March 27, 2019
Read about event More on this topic

Past Event

Past Event

A new climate strategy for the EU

At a pivotal point in time, three major EU sides come together to discuss the future climate strategy.

Speakers: Silke Karcher, Andrei Marcu, Raffaele Mauro Petriccione, Kathleen Van Brempt and Georg Zachmann Topic: Energy & Climate Location: Bruegel, Rue de la Charité 33, 1210 Brussels Date: March 19, 2019
Read article More on this topic More by this author

Opinion

The geopolitical implications of the global energy transition

Energy has traditionally played an important role in global geopolitics, contributing to the rise of great powers, the formation of alliances and, in many cases, also to the emergence of wars and conflicts. Every international order in modern history has been based on an energy resource. This piece discusses how the ongoing low-carbon energy transformation could reshape global geopolitics in the future.

By: Simone Tagliapietra Topic: Energy & Climate Date: March 7, 2019
Read article More by this author

Opinion

The case for green realism

The transition to a carbon-neutral economy is bound to make us worse off before it makes us better off, and the most vulnerable segments of society will be hit especially hard. Unless we acknowledge and address this reality, support for greening the economy will remain shallow and eventually wane.

By: Jean Pisani-Ferry Topic: Energy & Climate, Global Economics & Governance Date: March 7, 2019
Read article More by this author

Podcast

Podcast

Backstage: The next decade of European energy transition

This episode of 'The Sound of Economics' features Bruegel research fellow Simone Tagliapietra in conversation with Sir Philip Lowe and Alberto Pototschnig about the progress of the European energy transition as we prepare to enter the third decade of the 21st century.

By: The Sound of Economics Topic: Energy & Climate, European Macroeconomics & Governance Date: February 26, 2019
Read article More by this author

Blog Post

The Economists’ Statement on Carbon Dividends and the Green New Deal

In the last month two prominent policy proposals that aim to combat climate change have been presented in the United States. The Green New Deal calls for the deployment of substantial government resources to combat climate change. The Economists’ Statement on Carbon Dividends, suggests a market-based and budget-neutral approach through a carbon tax. Michael Baltensperger reviews reactions to both.

By: Michael Baltensperger Topic: Energy & Climate, Global Economics & Governance Date: February 25, 2019
Read article More on this topic More by this author

Blog Post

Greening monetary policy: An alternative to the ECB’s market-neutral approach

The ECB’s market-neutral approach to monetary policy undermines the general aim of the EU to achieve a low-carbon economy. An alternative tilting approach would foster low-carbon production, accelerating the transition of the EU to a low-carbon economy, and could be implemented without undue interference with the chief aim of price stability.

By: Dirk Schoenmaker Topic: European Macroeconomics & Governance Date: February 21, 2019
Read article More on this topic More by this author

Podcast

Podcast

Deep Focus: A greener monetary policy approach for the ECB

Bruegel fellow Dirk Schoenmaker walks Sean Gibson and 'The Sound of Economics' listeners through his latest working paper, focusing on how to make monetary policy in Europe more climate-friendly

By: The Sound of Economics Topic: European Macroeconomics & Governance Date: February 21, 2019
Read article Download PDF More by this author

Working Paper

Greening monetary policy

The author proposes a tilting approach to steer the allocation of the Eurosystem’s assets and collateral towards low-carbon sectors, which would reduce the cost of capital for these sectors relative to high-carbon sectors. Central banks have already started to look at climate-related risks in the context of financial stability. Should they also take the carbon intensity of assets into account in the context of monetary policy?

By: Dirk Schoenmaker Topic: Energy & Climate, European Macroeconomics & Governance Date: February 19, 2019
Load more posts