EXPERT REACTION: The US formally withdraws from the Paris Agreement

Media Statement from the Australian Academy of Science—withdrawal of the US from the Paris Accord

“The Paris Accord in 2015 was a landmark in global acceptance of the need to avoid the worst impacts of climate change.

Signatories accepted that to limit global warming to 1.5-2.0-degrees above pre-industrial levels, we needed to reach net-zero carbon emissions by the second half of the century, and reduce atmospheric greenhouse gas levels thereafter.

The withdrawal of the world’s largest economy from the Accord will certainly have an impact on global climate change efforts. However it shouldn’t affect the resolve of the many countries already committed to reducing greenhouse gas emissions. We acknowledge the Australian government's resolve to maintain its own commitment but also urge them to use the best available science to guide action on climate change and to take further action to achieve net-zero greenhouse gases emissions.

 

Australia is one of the highest per-capita emitters in the world, and our coastal infrastructure, water resources and ecosystems in parts of southern Australia are highly vulnerable to climate change.

“By virtue of our position in the southern hemisphere, Australia also has primary stewardship for monitoring and understanding half of the world’s climate, so climate change must be central to public discussion and policy thinking.

The Australian Academy of Science has a number of publications that help people understand the science of climate change, both our best understanding of the current situation and what is uncertain. The challenge is monumental—even more so following this announcement—and will require the very best science from around the world to provide understanding, to adapt to the existing impact of climate change; to suggest solutions and to evaluate the success of efforts to combat this global challenge."

Climate action is required on a global scale due to the global (or, indeed, planetary) level of the current and projected impacts. The trans-border nature of climate change causes and responses necessitates the maximum number of participating countries. The US is an important member of the agreement due to its significant contribution to carbon emissions historically, potential positive impact from action now, and for the symbolic role in global partnership.

The US’s withdrawal from the Paris Agreement sends a powerful message that the United States’ is an unreliable partner in multilateral climate governance. Withdrawal may have limited practical impacts, especially since an incoming Biden Administration has pledged to re-join the Agreement. However, the US’s credibility and influence are further diminished. The international community remains on notice that future Republican administrations will likely have limited interest in international mitigation efforts.

The likelihood that Republicans will maintain control of the Senate after Tuesday’s election also has significant climate implications. The Biden Administration’s ambitious climate plans will almost certainly need to be negotiated through a Republican-dominated Senate. Consequently, the Democrats’ shift toward more politically pragmatic climate policy will likely continue. For example, it seems very unlikely that a Biden Administration would seek to implement national carbon pricing. However, recent Democrat climate plans have emphasised massive investments in clean infrastructure (emphasising wind and solar, but also including nuclear power and carbon capture & storage) and energy research; the prospects for these policies may be brighter. Much of this innovation and infrastructure-focused agenda may gain Republican support. Consequently, we may see real progress toward developing and deploying low-carbon infrastructure under a Biden Administration, despite all the headwinds.

Twenty-four hours ago, this would have seemed a disastrous announcement. We know that concerted global action is urgently needed to slow the currently accelerating climate change. Withdrawal by the world’s second-worst polluter would fatally sabotage our chances of success.

Now we know that Joe Biden is almost certain to replace Donald Trump as US President, this announcement will go down in history as one of the last acts of a very sorry chapter in that country’s history. Biden is committed to rejoining the world community and setting serious targets to reduce emissions of greenhouse gases. There will consequently be pressure on the Australian government to move past its sorry record of inaction, obfuscation, creative accounting and irresponsible approval of new fossil fuel ventures.

The formal US withdrawal from Paris Agreement is disappointing, given the fact that US is a major contributor to greenhouse gas emissions. However, the world is moving significantly to address climate emergency and major emitters including China, Japan, South Korea, countries in Europe/EU have announced net-zero targets. Countries are seeing increasing advantages of undertaking the economy transformation and the business opportunities that emerge from a low-carbon world.

Climate change is a global problem and to tackle it properly requires global participation. The Paris Agreement aims to prevent the most dangerous effects of climate change by bringing countries together to work on reducing their greenhouse gas emissions. With the presidential election, this may simply be a bump in the road as the US likely re-joins the Paris Agreement in the near future. If the world can come together and achieve the Paris Agreement's goal of limiting global warming to well below 2°C, then every country will benefit from smaller climate change impacts compared to the alternative path of continued high greenhouse gas emissions and higher levels of global warming.

Under potential President-elect Biden, the US will have the most progressive position on climate change in the nation’s history. Biden has already laid out a US$2 trillion clean energy and infrastructure plan, and a commitment to rejoin the Paris agreement and a goal of net-zero emissions by 2050.

For Australia this means every international negotiation our diplomats turn up to, climate change will not only be top of the agenda, but we will likely face constant criticism, as the Prime Minister did from Boris Johnson last week.

And fireside chats in the White House may come with new expectations that Australia significantly increases its ambitions. Committing to a net zero emissions target will be just the first. 

Global cooperation is a central element of combating climate change, the challenge that remains the most significant for our generation. Yet we see increasing uncertainty about our capacity to work together internationally, as the USA leaving the Paris Agreement yesterday, and American federal politics demonstrates remarkable ongoing polarisation and divide.

This is highly concerning for our health and wellbeing and for our human future. Australia, where our climate vulnerability was laid bare by the Black Summer fires 2019/2020, should pay particular attention to the challenge that lies ahead.

There is, however, a real opportunity in Australia to lead in climate action. The need for investment in adaptation strategies was described in the recent Royal Commission into Natural Disasters and represents an opportunity for Australia to lead the world in an increasingly volatile climate as the world warms.

The uncertainty regarding global coordination on climate change adds even more urgency to the call for action described in the Royal Commission report.

The more global warming there is, the bigger the risks to human health.  

As a major polluter, the cooperation of the US in meeting the Paris target is no doubt preferable. But the world doesn’t have to look to the US for leadership on this crucial global issue. Instead, this presents an opportunity for the rest of the world to take the lead on emissions reduction, drive the global transition to clean renewable energy, and reap the health and economic benefits.

The US withdrawal from the Paris Climate Agreement is a blow to international morale but ultimately will leave them behind as the rest of the world embraces a post-COVID green recovery. Consumers and businesses around the globe are already embracing carbon neutrality. Australian agriculture is well placed to implement the '4 per thousand' initiative, launched at the Paris Climate talks, that outlines the path to manage our soils for food and climate security. Creative win-win solutions to climate change exist in every sector and they will emerge from practitioners, with or without legislative support.

Article 28 of the Paris Agreement allows a Party to give notice that it is withdrawing from the Paris Agreement three years after it signed up to the Agreement. The US signed up on 4 November 2016 so it was only allowed to give notice on 4 November 2019 which it did. The Agreement states further than the withdrawal will only take effect one year after notice of that withdrawal - 4 November 2020. So this is not really news in the sense that this has been anticipated since 1 June when Trump declared that he was withdrawing the US from the Paris Agreement. We always knew this would happen one day after the Presidential election.

Still it is shocking that a US President would withdraw from the only multilateral process in existence that aims to stabilise the rise in global temperature to 2 degrees if not 1.5 degrees above pre-industrial temperatures, when climate induced disasters are being experienced all around the world - including in the United States. These disasters come with significant economic and non-economic costs for society and for our biodiversity and ecosystems - as we have just witnessed in Australia. The US is the second largest emitter of greenhouse gases after China. If we look at China by distinction it has pledge to being carbon neutral by 2060 and so many other countries have pledged to do so by 2050. 

Of course we are now in the final throes of the US Presidential election and Joe Biden has declared that he is expecting to win. He has said that if elected he will rejoin the Paris Agreement and has also pledged to spend $2 trillion over four years to significantly increase investment in clean energy.”

The United States’s official withdrawal from the Paris Agreement will have some impact on the UNFCCC but ultimately will not stop the trend towards the global uptake of renewable energy in the fight to limit greenhouse gas emissions to 1.5-2 degrees above pre-industrial levels. 

While every commitment is needed to reduce emissions from all states, if President Trump is re-elected, the US will not be part of the negotiations for a global framework for carbon markets. If this is the case, then it is unlikely that we would be able to meet the 1.5-2 degree target for managing climate change. This would exacerbate ongoing and cascading environmental disasters and act as a multiplier for the types of extreme weather events we are now seeing across the globe.

The withdrawal of the US from the Paris climate agreement is a blow to mitigation efforts. But the reality is that the agreement is too weak anyway, and only deals with part of the emissions problem.

There is another key aspect of global emissions that is not yet on the agenda of the international COP negotiations: reducing the supply of fossil fuels by recognising the responsibility of countries exporting fossil fuels, and the emissions that result when they are burned - what’s called ‘Scope 3 emissions’.

You may be surprised to learn that the big fossil fuel exporters such as Norway, Canada, Australia, the U.S., and Saudi Arabia take no responsibility for the emissions that result from their exported fossil fuels.

Biden's $2 trillion Clean Energy Plan would return Australia to pariah status in the international climate community.

This is very sad but is not going to stop climate mitigation efforts worldwide. The financial world has chosen this time of post-COVID-rebuilding to declare that only projects with a Net Zero strategy will get funded. The US will therefore miss out on some of its planned financing though most industries are not waiting for US government support anymore. Innovations are now available for removing 80% of fossil fuels which will improve the economy and not damage it.

A Biden Presidency will recommit the United States to the Paris Agreement. This would be done simply through notification by US administration to the UN, this does not require Congressional approval.

The withdrawal was foreshadowed by Trump in 2017 and put in train a year ago, the timing was determined by the provisions of the Paris Agreement not the Trump administration. America rejoining will give a boost to the international climate policy framework.

Biden will likely proclaim a net-zero emissions targets for the US, just like Europe, China, Japan, Korea and many other countries have done. The US will likely also take on a stronger medium-term emissions target, superseding the 2025 emissions target set by the Obama administration.

The White House will push other countries to take on stronger emissions targets including long-term net-zero targets. The biggest change however will be domestically in the United States. A Biden-Harris administration will look after America’s interests first, especially expansion of new industries that will create jobs and prosperity.

There are much larger opportunities in clean and green industries like renewables, renewable energy-based manufacturing and electric cars than in fossil fuels, and this is what we will see play out.

The withdrawal of the USA from the Paris Agreement on climate change was initiated in 2017, yet there was no form of significant negotiation or pressure so far by any of its allied countries, such as Australia, which are signatories to the agreement. This is indicative of a gap in international diplomacy.

The other large greenhouse gas emitter alongside the USA, China, has been publicly broadcasting its commitments and actions in emissions reduction. It is confounding that an autocracy such as China has chosen to abide by an international agreement, yet a supposedly democratic country such as the USA has chosen not to.

There has been hardly any scientific rationale presented by the US administration to pull out, in contrast to the plethora of scientific evidence on the detrimental consequences of not addressing climate change. It seems entirely based on economic assumptions relating to a business-as-usual fossil fuel-reliant model, without any cost-benefit analysis of alternative business models. Thus, there is both the science and the potential for business acumen.

There has been almost no national consultation process. The efforts of state governments that have progressed on climate policy as well as the voice of the American people have been undermined.