Paris Agreement, environmental justice and climate politics of the US

The date 11 April 2025 is very important because on that date a chorus for climate justice echoed worldwide. In various parts around the globe, people stood together for the sake of climate action and justice. In Bangladesh, people, mostly youth, stood together in demand for climate actions, accountability and sustainable future. But the interesting thing is that just a few months before this global strike, one of the major stakeholders in the climate justice regime, USA, retreated from one of the most powerful International Environmental Legal Instruments, the Paris Agreement.

The membership withdrawal by USA does not just clarify their position in the realm of climate justice and their historic responsibilities but also the fragility of these international environmental instruments. Here we will focus on the complex relationship between the US and the Paris Agreement, how this withdrawal made the international legal framework vulnerable and lastly some plausible way outs to strengthen the global climate regime.

The Paris Agreement came into existence through the environmental convention, United Nations Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) in 2015. At that time USA didn’t enter into the agreement. In 2016 under President Obama’s administration, USA became a party to this agreement. This action by the US signaled their commitment towards environmental justice.  At that time the US also declared the Green Climate Fund which was indeed a great initiative. However this commitment got disrupted after the end of the Obama regime. When President Trump took office, he announced the departure of the US from this significant agreement in 2017.

The Paris Agreement is significant because most of the countries of the world joined this agreement for the protection of the environment. However due to the restriction in Article 28, the US couldn’t leave the agreement immediately and Trump had to wait for at least 3 more years to exit. In 2019, finally US left the agreement but interestingly, this exit didn’t last long. When President Biden came into power, he promptly rejoined the agreement in 2021. But again dramatically this renewed arrangement didn’t last long. After 2024 election, Trump administration got elected again and made another declaration to exit from this agreement.

As per the provisions embodied in the Paris Agreement any nation’s request for withdrawal takes effect after the lapse of one year following the submission of an official notice to the Secretary-General of the United Nations.  So for the US the earliest effective date of official withdrawal is, therefore, in January 2026. But one point here to be mentioned that the US will still be a party to the mother climate convention, UNFCCC.

In US the dynamics of the politics of climate change is very interesting. This area is highly influenced by the political parties and the important organisations. For example the Democratic Party advocates for an expansion of various climate change mitigation policies, effective environmental regulations, and investment on renewable energy. On the other hand, the Republican Party tends to advocate slower changes and have always focused on national economic growth over international responsibilities. So the party politics plays a very vital role for determining the ideological stand of the USA regarding climate justice.

But the point is that, the stand of the US in the climate justice sector doesn’t only affect itself, but affects the rest of the whole world. This is because the United States is the second largest greenhouse gas emitter after China on the first position. Moreover it has the record of the highest greenhouse gas emissions per person in the world. Cumulatively, the United States has emitted over a trillion metric tons of greenhouse gases, more than any country in the world.

The international legal framework on climate change often become fragile due to the decisions of the state parties. For example the decision of the US to exit the Paris Agreement can make the whole international climate change framework vulnerable. First of all, the main goal of the Paris Agreement is to “keep the global temperature rise well below 2 degrees Celsius above pre-industrial levels and to pursue efforts to limit the temperature increase even further to 1.5 degrees Celsius.”

Membership withdrawal of US, one of the biggest emitters of greenhouse gas will severely affect the achievement of this goal of the Paris Agreement. Secondly, by this decision of the US other countries also might get demotivated to continue their commitment under this agreement. Though no other country has disclosed their clear intent to depart from this agreement, a few that have historically been skeptical about their position or economically dependent on fossil fuel can take the same path in future.

For example, there is Iran. Iran has signed but hasn't ratified the agreement yet.  Then Turkey, the state which took a long time to ratify the agreement finally joined in 2021. Another very important example of such states is, Russia. Russia has been very passive in implementing this agreement from the very beginning. So after the departure of the USA from this agreement any other state can also make such a move as the rules of international environmental regime is not that much hard and fast. This is how the decision of the US can make the whole legal system weaker.

Lastly, the exit of the US from the Paris Agreement will jeopardise climate financing. As, most of the third world countries and small island states have contributed very little to climate change but they are the worst sufferers of this problem, the Paris Agreement came with a plan that the developed countries and others “in a position to do so” to continue to provide financial support to the vulnerable countries so that they can bear the loss caused due to climate change. As the US is one of the biggest contributors to climate funding, its exit will definitely hinder climate adaptation and mitigation for the least developed and the developing countries, which is an absolute barrier that can make the entire climate governance weaker.

Strengthening the climate change legal regime is not an easy task to perform. There are many obstacles to overcome. The biggest one is that, no state can be compelled to be a party to any international legal instrument nor any state can be compelled to remain a party to the same. Moreover, the current international environmental legal regime is very much flexible in nature and comes without any strict penalties. So the first possible way to make this regime stronger might be, to make it stricter. Unlike the ‘Kyoto Protocol’, the ‘Paris Agreement’ purely lies on voluntary national goals which is known as ‘NDC’s. Making these goals legally binding with clear penalties such as ‘restrictions’ and ‘fines’ can make it stronger in terms of compliance by the state parties.

Another possible way can be, tying climate commitment with international trade deals so that withdrawal of any state party from any such commitment can become more costly and less appealing. In the future trade deals, climate compliance clauses can be added. European Union’s trade policy can be given as an example here. The ‘EU–Mercosur Trade Agreement’ which is not ratified though, comes with a climate compliance clause. Another example can be, European Union’s Carbon Border Adjustment Mechanism (CBAM). Though it is not a trade agreement but still it is effective in case of compliance of climate responsibilities through trade. This system imposes carbon tariffs on import from the countries without equivalent climate policies. So this method is quite an effective one.

To conclude, while there are several potential ways to make this legal regime stronger, the core challenge is that no state can be compelled to be a member of any international legal instrument nor can they be compelled to remain a member to any such instrument. This is also true for the ‘Paris Agreement’. The success of this agreement thus relies upon the willingness of the parties. In fact making this system rigid can also lead this agreement to ultimate failure like the Kyoto Protocol which saw limited participation and weaker compliance.

Despite these limitations, there is still room for hope. Most states recognize that leaving or not being a member of such important instrument like the Paris Agreement can severely damage their global reputation and standing. But still the USA left this agreement. This proved that even the severe pressure is not enough for them to comply with this global responsibility. So ultimately, it remains to be seen that   how the global climate governance will be operated in future and whether global community will stand together to make the world better with a stronger climate regime or whether the national interest will continue to suppress the collective wellbeing.

* Paramita Bhattacharyya is a student at the Department of Law & Justice, Jahangirnagar University.