Ahead of COP29, discover how the US has switched up its climate stance over the last several decades. Will it happen again?
By
It’s a game of tug of war. As one US governmental administration pulls climate policy in one direction, a shift in the hands of power brings about the opposite effect. This flux is something we’ve come to recognise as common with the US, from the Kyoto Protocol of the 1990s with Clinton and Bush, to the Paris Agreement fiercely defended and opposed by Biden and Trump recently. Could we expect it again at COP29?
Amidst a murky and uncertain past, with climate policies agreed upon and then rescinded, it is clear that the US’s climate stance hinges heavily on the political policies of those in power.
And now following Trump’s election as the new US president, questions arise over whether more turbulent changes – including a second exit from the Paris Agreement – will happen.
With COP29 beginning today in Azerbaijan, here we look back at the history of the US’s ever-changing and shifting climate policies. What policies has the US gone back and forth on – and why? And more importantly, is the US heading for more rocky changes to key agreements and treaties in its future?
Enjoying this article? Check out our related reads:
Kyoto Protocol
One of the first bumps in the road for the US and its climate policies was the Kyoto Protocol, the first legally binding agreement requiring developed countries to reduce their greenhouse gas emissions and counter global warming.
It initially sounded promising – ticking all the boxes of a climate-conscious future – so much so that the Democratic Clinton administration participated actively in negotiations leading toward the protocol.
After its creation, Vice President Al Gore signed the Kyoto Protocol on behalf of the US back in 1998. However, the US Senate at the time opposed the protocol for its lack of emissions targets for developing countries, a reason justified due to the potential harm that curbing emissions could have on the US economy.
So although the Clinton administration expressed an interest in the Kyoto agreement, it was never actually ratified – in other words, permission was never granted for the US to be fully on board.
A further pushback to the protocol occurred in 2001, when the Bush administration took power.
President Bush confirmed that the US would not be engaging in the Kyoto Protocol by officially withdrawing it from what he coined the ‘fatally flawed’ agreement. Since the Kyoto Protocol did not compel developing countries like China and India – who was also some of the world’s biggest emitters – from taking action, the Bush administration again felt that joining the protocol would ‘affect the US economy in a negative way‘.
Although the Kyoto Protocol still remains today, the Paris Agreement has superseded it as the primary instrument in tackling global climate change.
Agreeing – or not – on the Paris Agreement
The back-and-forth of the Kyoto Protocol was one of the US’s first experiences in dealing with a flux in its viewpoint of climate policies, but by no means was it is last. The Paris Agreement – the legally binding international treaty to limit global warming – was yet another climate policy facing endorsement and objections as political parties changed hands.
First adopted at COP21 back in December 2015, the Paris Agreement was signed by the US under the Obama administration. A total of 195 Parties were involved, with the treaty coming into force almost a year later in November 2016.
Three key elements became the core tenets of the Paris Agreement and are still the same today: limiting temperature rise to 1.5ºC, reviewing countries’ commitments to cutting emissions every five years, and providing climate finance – funding that helps mitigate climate change – to developing countries.
But despite the threat posed by leaving climate change effectively unattended, Trump withdrew the US from the Paris Agreement back in 2017 for reasons similar to Bush more than twenty years prior. Trump cited the ‘unfair economic burden‘ imposed on American workers, businesses and taxpayers through pledges that the country had made under the agreement, as well as the unfair advantage given to countries including China and India.
As of 2020, the US officially left the Paris Agreement – years after its initial notification to leave, due to UN regulations – making it the first country in the world to formally withdraw.
The withdrawal from the Paris Agreement was far from the only change to climate policies that Trump made during his last presidency. Over the course of their four year term, the Trump administration also rolled back more than 100 environmental rules – including those requiring oil and gas companies to report methane emissions, as well as amending rules governing how refineries monitor pollution in nearby communities.
However, after the Democrat win of the 2020 US Elections, the US once again flipped in its stance on key climate policies. President Biden signed the US back into the Paris Agreement on his first day in office in January 2021.
Will the US pull out again – and what would it mean?
Almost ten years on since the Paris Agreement was first signed – and now with the Republican party back in power for COP29 – some express concerns over the status of the US’s role in the agreement, and whether they will leave again. This isn’t all theory and conjecture: back in June, a Trump campaign spokesperson did say the president would repeat removing the US from the landmark climate agreement.
For Senior Lecturer at the Centre for Environmental Policy at ICL, Dr Friederike Otto, the US has ‘never been a great team player at COPs, regardless of which party is in government.’
‘People don’t go to COPs expecting the US to push for more ambition,’ Otto continued.
So what could a second US exit mean for the success of the Paris Agreement? For some experts, the effect would certainly not be minimal, and instead ripple through the viability and overall performance of the treaty.
‘The Paris agreement can survive, but people sometimes can lose important organs or lose the legs and survive,’ said UN secretary general António Guterres. ‘But we don’t want a crippled Paris agreement. We want a real Paris agreement.’
Beyond the clear climate repercussions, another US withdrawal from the Paris Agreement could leave the country out of the loop from key discussions on clean energy expansion. This could lead to China continuing to outpace the US in green technologies, such as solar panels, electric vehicles, and other renewable energy sources, according to Jonathan Pershing, a former special envoy for climate change during the Obama administration.
While Trump’s economic approach emphasises ‘unleashing’ the US oil sector during his presidency, even a full-speed-ahead strategy in oil and gas may have more challenges than at first glance. Imported oil from countries including Saudi Arabia and Canada is cheaper, and US refineries do not possess the manufacturing infrastructure to process domestically sourced oil.
Added to these challenges, therefore, the potential economic drawbacks of leaving the Paris Agreement—particularly in terms of dialling back the US’s foothold in the clean energy sector – could hamper the Trump administration’s plans to ‘strengthen’ the country’s economy.
Looking to COP29
Although the US’s stance at COP29 remains uncertain, there are notes of optimism on a more localised and national level: leaving the Paris Agreement before didn’t stop individual US states from taking climate matters into their own hands.
Launched in 2017 by governors of Washington, New York, and California – following Trump’s first pull out of the agreement – the US Climate Alliance is comprised of 24 states and territories, representing around 55 per cent of the US population and 60 per cent of its economy. Members of the alliance work on achieving the Paris Agreement goals, through reducing greenhouse gas emissions, accelerating policies and reporting their progress on the world stage.
So as COP29 takes place over the next few weeks, global players including the US will come together on key climate issues.
The country’s ever-changing stance on key climate policies between administrations means that predicting the likelihood of their next move is far more complicated, and whether they will tip over the precipice to shun the Paris Agreement once more under Trump’s presidency is an outcome only time will tell.
