Paris Agreement in Crisis? The Return of Trump and the Future of Climate Law
Since 2015, the Paris Agreement has been the key to creating a robust long-term framework for responsible and comprehensive climate policy. The accords were intended as a fundamental shift in global policymaking by establishing specific demands, such as binding nationally determined contributions (NDCs) and funding agreements on behalf of developed countries. Crucially, the agreements determine the discourse at subsequent COP gatherings. A key achievement of COP29 finally agreed to a globally UN-backed carbon offset trading mechanism in Article 6 – first discussed at COP21. Thus, the agreements and initiatives agreed upon in COP conferences are crucial in establishing climate law, as they require large-scale, multilateral cooperation, and it can be difficult to dictate necessary policy to sovereign states. With the looming Trump presidency, this difficulty manifests itself in a critical moment for the Paris Accords.
The US has long been a key player in leading the fight against climate change. From being the second largest emitter of greenhouse gases to outstripping other economies in consumption, the climate crisis cannot be resolved without the US. However, Trump’s last presidency saw him unilaterally withdraw from the Paris Accords and adopt a climate sceptic approach to policymaking. His America-first policies were geared around domestic production and the withdrawal of federal regulations in numerous sectors key to combatting fossil fuel emissions. Consequently, the federal American government became an obstacle to global climate law consolidation and threatened to take on a similar role come January 20 2025.
Trump has maintained that climate change is a natural phenomenon and the narrative of a looming climate emergency is a misguided hoax. Already, the president-elect has shown his hand, nominating Chris Wright, a climate-sceptic and CEO of America’s second-largest fracking company, to presumptive energy secretary. Alongside this, increasing US investment in LNG terminals and production suggests the lacklustre efforts of US policy to move away from fossil fuels will continue. Even under the Biden administration, the US doubled down on using shale gas to consolidate energy security following the energy price inflation arising from Russia’s invasion of Ukraine. This move away from decarbonisation in the name of security will likely be disastrous for global efforts to reduce emissions and is also apparent in EU nations to a lesser extent.
Despite this, the multilateral nature of these agreements means it remains possible to pursue international climate law despite the US withdrawal. The continued efforts of the EU, which is a major market for consumer goods and continues to be committed to climate law, means it is unlikely the deal will fall apart if the US withdraws. Nonetheless, COP29 has given us a clear view of a conference where US delegates are absent: European leaders repeatedly cited fears of US withdrawal in response to underwhelming financial pledges. Furthermore, NGOs and existing state institutions will continue to be crucial in bringing climate policies and litigation despite the federal government’s change in attitude. For example, the Californian state legislature succeeded in maintaining stricter emissions standards in 2018 despite an attempt at federally mandated standards. Therefore, Trump’s insistence on anti-climate federal policy may expand the scope and incidence of climate litigation in the US.
Ultimately, Trump’s sceptical approach to climate law will prove to be a substantial challenge to climate law and existing initiatives to prevent climate disasters in poorer countries. Despite this, it is not an existential threat. With the persistence of EU pledges and increasing corporate spending on climate responsibility, a pluralist approach may avoid the demise of climate law. Furthermore, the increasing role of China, though currently limited to voluntary contributions, is a limited but useful counterweight to the American withdrawal.
The Paris Agreement will remain a landmark development in climate law and a cornerstone of continuing efforts in climate policy. As we come out of COP29, we can see how the withdrawal of the US, whilst a severe blow, will not impede the continuation of multilateral climate agreements. Trump’s insistence on climate scepticism may prove to be an interesting development in the growth of climate litigation in the US during his presidency.
By Ali Gohari
