Blog Post

Trump and the Paris Agreement: better out than in

It would be better for international climate governance if Trump stays out of the Paris Agreement, rather than stays in with a new, weakened deal.

By: Date: September 18, 2017 Topic: Energy & Climate

The United States administration appears to be rethinking its 1 June 2017 decision to withdraw from the Paris Agreement on climate change. US Secretary of State Rex Tillerson, for example, has signalled a shift in tone from the Trump administration, declaring that the US could remain in the Paris climate accord under the right conditions.

Tillerson’s statement echoes President Trump’s words when he announced the US withdrawal in a speech at the White House Rose Garden. He said during the speech that the US was ready to “begin negotiations to re-enter either the Paris accord or an entirely new transaction, on terms that are fair to the U.S., its businesses, its workers, its people, its taxpayers.”

World leaders gather in New York this week for the General Assembly of the United Nations, during which the implementation of the Paris Agreement will be discussed. The US position will no doubt be a major talking point.

Beyond the inevitable political twists however, other nations face a fundamental question over the US position: is it better for the global climate architecture to have the US outside the Paris Agreement, or inside – but with a weaker commitment?

The architecture of the Paris Agreement has shown great resilience to the US withdrawal. A few hours after Trump’s announcement, the European Union and China forged a new alliance to take a leading role in tackling climate change, and many other countries have reaffirmed their commitments. Even India, an originally reluctant signatory, promptly declared its intention to go even beyond its Paris commitment. The US withdrawal from the Paris Agreement did not have any domino effect, and seems to have contributed to strengthened global momentum on climate action.

A US decision to stay in the Agreement, but with a new, weakened emissions reduction pledge (ie a watered-down US nationally determined contribution, NDC), could represent a blow to the structure of the Paris Agreement.

Article 4.11 of the Agreement states: “A Party may at any time adjust its existing nationally determined contribution with a view to enhancing its level of ambition in accordance with guidance adopted by the Conference of the Parties serving as the meeting of the Parties to this Agreement.”

With this article, negotiators wanted to encourage the Parties to make changes to their commitments in the direction of greater ambition, on the basis of the Agreement’s underlying spirit of raising the climate change mitigation effort over time. However, the negotiators did not insert in the text of the Agreement any clause prohibiting the revision of an NDC to make it less ambitious. So, as outlined by legal experts and former climate negotiators, the US would be legally entitled to revise its NDC downward.

This would be a dangerous political precedent and a major political blow to the underlying spirit of the Paris Agreement. From a practical point of view, it would be preferable for the international climate machinery to advance without the sort of handbrake that this US Administration could represent for the implementation of the Paris Agreement, for instance on international climate finance.

To put it simply, it would be better for international climate governance if Trump stays out of the Paris Agreement, rather than stays in with a new, weakened NDC. On this basis, while convening in Bonn for the COP23 in November, the other Parties should not accept a negotiation offer from the US, but should rather seize the reinforced global climate momentum generated by the US withdrawal announcement to speed-up the implementation of the Paris Agreement.

Such an approach would be the best option in terms of minimising harm to the climate, as the US will anyhow continue to reduce its emissions as a result of energy market trends (ie coal-to-gas switch, declining competitiveness of coal, declining costs of renewables), which are not affected by the US’s lack of political commitment.

 

 

 


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 about event More on this topic

Past Event

Past Event

Domestic determinants of foreign policy in the United States and the European Union

Foreign policy begins at home, and in Europe and the United States the domestic drivers of foreign policy are shifting in important ways. The election of Donald Trump as U.S. president, the decision of British voters to leave the European Union, and popular pressures on governments of all stripes and colors to deal with the […]

Speakers: Rosa Balfour, Maria Demertzis, Steven Erlanger, Daniel S. Hamilton, Rainer Münz and Teija Tiilikainen Topic: Global Economics & Governance Location: The German Marshall Fund of the United States, Rue de la Loi 155, 1040 Bruxelles Date: February 19, 2018
Read article More on this topic More by this author

Podcast

Podcast

Brexit consequences for EU climate and energy policy

Bruegel fellow Georg Zachmann joins Richard Tol, professor in the Department of Economics at the University of Sussex, and Pieter-Willem Lemmens, head of analysis at the climate policy think-tank Sandbag, for this episode of 'The Sound of Economics', to discuss the impact of Brexit on climate and energy policy in the European Union.

By: The Sound of Economics Topic: Energy & Climate Date: February 15, 2018
Read article More on this topic More by this author

Blog Post

Is it a Transatlantic, Transpacific or Eurasian global economy?

A look at the data on bilateral trade, services, investment and protectionism between Asia, Europe and the US in recent years gives some indication of the future shape of the world economy.

By: Nicolas Moës Topic: Global Economics & Governance Date: February 14, 2018
Read article More on this topic More by this author

Opinion

Climate policies risk increasing social inequality

The aggressive political interventions needed to effectively counteract climate change will make the rich richer and the poor poorer, if social concerns are not given greater prominence in policy debates.

By: Georg Zachmann Topic: Energy & Climate Date: February 8, 2018
Read article More on this topic More by this author

Opinion

US tax reform and implications for the German coalition agreement

Major recent reform of US tax laws represents a serious challenge to Germany, highlighting several weaknesses in the country's economy. The formation of Germany's coalition government represents an opportunity to discuss its own tax changes, which could remedy current problems and stimulate a sustainable domestic boom.

By: Guntram B. Wolff Topic: Global Economics & Governance Date: February 7, 2018
Read article More on this topic More by this author

Blog Post

EU budget: Expectations vs reality

The public's impressions of where money is spent in the European Union can often be wide of the mark. But whether this is a result of wishful thinking or just a lack of information remains unclear.

By: Yana Myachenkova Topic: European Macroeconomics & Governance Date: January 29, 2018
Read about event More on this topic

Past Event

Past Event

EU long term climate change strategy

This meeting, which will take place in Czestochowa, is part of the project “Developing the EU long-term climate strategy”.

Topic: Energy & Climate Location: Czestochowa, Poland Date: January 29, 2018
Read about event More on this topic

Past Event

Past Event

EU Long Term Climate Change Strategy

This meeting, which will take place in Copenhagen, is part of the project “Developing the EU long-term climate strategy".

Topic: Energy & Climate Location: Copenhagen, Denmark Date: January 26, 2018
Read article More on this topic

Blog Post

Climate change adds to risk for banks, but EU lending proposals will do more harm than good

Climate change is a relevant risk factor for the banking sector, but the European Commission's plan to lower capital requirements for greener investments is irresponsible in encouraging banks to forego proper risk management.

By: Arnoud Boot and Dirk Schoenmaker Topic: Energy & Climate Date: January 16, 2018
Read article More by this author

Opinion

China Fails to Woo U.S. With Financial Sector Opening

China's recent announcement of reforming its financial market has received little enthusiasm from the U.S. despite its potential benefits. The lack of a clear agenda regarding its economic rival has pushed the Trump administration to minor any significant progress of China's reform, and to maintain focus on strategic issues.

By: Alicia García-Herrero Topic: Finance & Financial Regulation, Global Economics & Governance Date: January 5, 2018
Read article More on this topic More by this author

Blog Post

The Republican Tax Plan (2): The debate rumbles on

Reactions to the Republican tax plans continue, concentrating on different aspects of the proposed legislation. We review the latest contributions.

By: Silvia Merler Topic: Global Economics & Governance Date: December 18, 2017
Read article More on this topic More by this author

Blog Post

How the EU has become an immigration area

Natural change of EU28 population (the balance of live births and deaths) has fallen from high positive values in the 1960s to essentially zero recently, while the previous close-to-zero net immigration has turned positive and, since the early 1990s, become a more important source of population growth than natural increase

By: Zsolt Darvas Topic: European Macroeconomics & Governance Date: December 6, 2017
Load more posts