US withdrawal from Paris deal: Ignorant or reluctant?
The Ozone layer knows no political boundary—nations do. Yet, it is the only common roof beneath which life flourishes. This roof is decaying, getting weak enough to filter out lethal rays of the Sun, contributing to global warming. The effects are evident: melting of the snow-capped mountains, rising sea levels, and deteriorating climatic conditions on Earth. That is inviting an adverse change in the ecosystem.
While political interests of nations may vary, they should not outweigh the cost of environmental degradation, which affects all life. There is no denying the fact that the developed nations in their race for industrialization have always been the major contributors to the emission of gases that deplete the ozone layer. From mining Bitcoin to constructing a skyscraper, the price has been paid heavily by the environment. This underlines the need for strong global policies and accountability to reduce further environmental damage. Given what we have seen so far, recent developments in international politics in the wake of Trump’s executive order to withdraw from the Paris Agreement raise common concerns since the environmental crisis is a global one.
Donald J. Trump was sworn in as the 47th President of the United States on 20 Jan. Upon his swearing into office, he has signed a number of executive orders that have become the subject of heated debate over the policies set for his term.
Views remain sharply divided on particularly those orders which portend grave implications for withdrawal from international obligations. However, Trump’s policies were expected generally to be mired in controversy, based on cardinal principles of the “America First” policy that he put forward during his first tenure as the 45th president of the US. As a nation, national interest plays a central role, often at the expense of international obligations. The emphasis on national interests in the administration’s policy is a reflection of the “America First” principle that marked Trump’s presidency, where domestic interests were placed above international commitments.
International political practices, from the ethical point of view, should surely rest on the very basic principle of acknowledging “inevitable interdependencies while also protecting sovereign rights” a principle the US seems unconcerned with. The question thus arises whether a nation like the US, long believed to be an inspiration for humankind’s greatest problems, actually should step aside from international commitments.
The Paris Agreement, which was adopted in 2015, was negotiated at the United Nations Climate Change Conference (COP21) in Paris, France. The Paris Agreement is a legally binding international treaty on climate change. In 2016, it was opened for signature, and with great enthusiasm, almost every nation including the United States, signed the agreement. In addition, the main goals of the Paris Agreement are to Limit Global warming by reducing the temperature below, boost adaptation, fund developing nations, ensure transparency, and review progress every five years.
Similarly, Article 3.1 of the United Nations Framework Convention UNFCCC and Article 2 of the Paris Agreement articulate this principle of “Common but Differentiated Responsibilities” clearly. Supported by developing nations, CBDR recognizes that climate change is indeed a problem of the world, while responsibility for its resolution lies with each country’s history of GHG emissions and existing resources. Poor countries insist that developed, industrialized countries like the United States need to bear the burden of carrying a larger load given their historical responsibility and availability of superior resources and technology. The Paris Agreement represented an outstanding opportunity for the United States to demonstrate commitment and leadership, given that it is one of the world’s largest carbon emitters. However, its withdrawal in 2019, rejoining in 2021, and the decision to withdraw from the agreement again in 2025 shows unconformity in International Environmental Policies.
Article 28 of the Paris Agreement provides that the signatory state may withdraw by sending a written notification to the depositary. Based on this, Trump signed executive orders to begin the process of withdrawal from the agreement. Therefore, there is no legal obligation of the United States to adhere to the agreement commitments but under moral grounds, it has failed to prove its global leadership.
Despite the US’s reluctance to follow through with international agreements, the country has a domestic legal regime and regulations dealing with environmental concerns such as climate change, air, and water pollution, and resource depletion with inter-agency cooperation between the federal government and the states as well as local government entities. Therefore, we should not be judgmental regarding the United States' concerns with environmental crises. However, its withdrawal from the Paris Agreement suggests that though the US might be effective in responding to environmental crises within its national boundary, it is reluctant when it comes to global cooperation.
US environmental aid to Nepal ends after the US exits the Paris Agreement. Nepal, a Himalayan country one of the most vulnerable to environmental crises, pleads the principle of Common But Differentiated responsibility (CBDR). In her oral pleadings at the ICJ, Foreign Minister Arzu Deuba Rana advocated the principle following the request for an Advisory Opinion from the states on climate change. “We are bearing the brunt of the impacts of climate change in a disproportionate manner,” said Rana Deuba. “We have been penalized for the mistakes we never made, for the crimes we never committed.”
The United States’ withdrawal from the Paris Agreement is a “selfish move against a shared responsibility” that underlines the tension between National economic priorities, political ideologies, and global environmental obligations. While the withdrawal does not create any legal obligation, it does raise moral questions about US leadership and foreign policy. Whether driven by ignorance or reluctance, the decision has profound implications for the global fight against climate change.
