[ad_1]
As of today, the US is no longer a member of the Paris Climate Agreement. The consequences of the exit affected the world with delay, and a re-entry would not be without obstacles.
By Werner Eckert, SWR
Today at 6 a.m. German time, the United States is finally out of the Paris international climate protection agreement. The date is more of a coincidence and has nothing to do with the US elections. But the result could have an impact. Because: it takes a long time to get out, but you can get back in quickly, at least in theory.
In 2015, 195 countries around the world agreed in Paris that they would jointly limit global warming to less than two degrees, if possible even 1.5 degrees. One of the architects of the agreement that was signed there was the then president of the United States, Barack Obama.
His successor, Donald Trump, described climate change as an invention of the Chinese and also declared that the scientific findings on global warming are purely a matter of opinion: the international agreement is unilaterally hurting the United States and that is why he is resigning. At first he couldn’t do that because there are rules in international law.
Only two years after the entry into force of the Paris Agreement, a state can declare its exit and the exit will take effect another year later. This is how it emerged on November 4, 2020.
The consequences of leaving the United States were initially limited
At the international level, initially there was great fear that other countries would follow the example of the United States and stop cooperation in climate protection. But that was not the case. Therefore, the consequences of leaving the United States remain limited for the time being. It also does not influence the validity of the agreement, and even the factual effect on world climate is hardly noticeable. Especially since many states, cities and even large parts of the economy continue to focus clearly on international cooperation and working together on the “We are still in” initiative (we are still part of it).
Markets are also working to protect the climate, at least in the energy sector. In the last decade, coal’s share of electricity production in the United States has roughly halved, while that of gas and renewables has doubled. Cheap gas from fracking and, in many parts of the country, even cheaper wind power have reduced emissions. However, this development has essentially already taken place under Obama. But this market move is one of the reasons Trump failed to deliver on his promise to reactivate coal.
However, the energy sector is also the only one in which there has been progress, not because of Trump, but in spite of him. In all other areas, in the construction sector, in industry and in transport, emissions have increased again in the last four years.
Without the US, it will be difficult to meet climate targets
In Paris, the US announced that it would reduce its greenhouse gas emissions by 26 to 28 percent by 2025 (compared to emissions in 2005). In fact, they are likely to reach between 20 and 21 percent, even if current policies are maintained. In the long run, however, there will be no further progress with another Trump term in office. Too many environmental laws have been abolished or restricted, from emission standards for cars to methane emissions from oil and gas wells and environmental regulations for coal-fired power plants.
Without the US, the second country with the highest greenhouse gas emissions, it will be difficult to achieve the Paris target. Because the states would not only have to comply with the obligations they have contracted so far, but they would also have to go one step further this year.
With the exit, Washington will also fail as a financier in international climate protection. Industrialized countries agreed long ago to mobilize $ 100 billion annually starting in 2020 so that developing countries can expand their energy supply in a climate-friendly way. The United States no longer participates in this program under the Trump administration. This increases the pressure on all other industrialized countries. However, investments by American companies and banks are also included, which do not follow the requirements of the White House, but are based on the laws of the market and therefore continue to flow.
What if Biden becomes president of the United States?
Joe Biden, the Democratic presidential candidate, wants the United States to return to the international community, including protecting the climate. It has announced that it will rejoin the Paris Agreement as soon as possible. Formally, the United States only needs to write a letter to the UN Secretary General and 30 days later it is again a signatory state.
However, the United States just made far-reaching commitments based on Obama’s strict environmental laws. Therefore, Biden would have to swiftly back climate protection at the national level with a new law credibly or have the Paris Agreement formally ratified in Congress. Obama was able to avoid that because national laws were already in force and the international agreement did not pose an additional burden; at this point, the Paris Agreement was tailored precisely to the needs of the president of the United States at the time.
After all: Biden wants to tackle the problem. And he wants to put the American part back into the coffers of international agreements.
