The Paris Agreement  Introduction 

• The Paris Agreement, adopted in 2015, is a groundbreaking global pact to combat climate change. Signed by 196 nations, its primary aim is to limit the global temperature rise to well below 2°C, with an ambitious target of 1.5°C, compared to pre-industrial levels. 
• President Donald Trump withdrew the United States (US) from the Paris climate deal for the second time in a decade as he signed a series of executive actions hours after being sworn in. 
• While the agreement marks a significant milestone in global climate diplomacy, its implementation faces challenges, particularly the United States’ withdrawal under President Donald Trump. 

What is the Paris Agreement and What Are Its Goals?

• Definition: The Paris Agreement is a legally binding international treaty on climate change. It was adopted by 196 Parties at the UN Climate Change Conference (COP21) in Paris, France, on 12 December 2015. It entered into force on 4 November 2016.  
• Aim: The agreement lists a series of commitments:
  • To “pursue efforts” to limit global temperature rises to 1.5C, and to keep them “well below” 2.0C above those recorded in pre-industrial times
  • To achieve a balance – known as net zero – between the greenhouse gases that humans put into the atmosphere and the gases that they actively remove, in the second half of this century
  • Each country to set its own emission-reduction targets, reviewed every five years to raise ambitions
  • Richer countries to help poorer nations by providing funding, known as climate finance, to adapt to climate change and switch to renewable energy.

Importance of Keeping Global Warming To 1.5C

• Scientists say that every 0.1C of temperature increase brings with it greater risks for the planet, such as longer heatwaves, more intense storms and wildfires.
• The 1.5C target was agreed because there is very strong evidence that the impacts would become much more extreme as the world gets closer to 2C. Some changes could become irreversible.
• The science is not completely certain, but according to the UN, the consequences of 2C global warming versus 1.5C, external could include:
  • Extreme hot days would be on average 4C warmer at mid-latitudes (regions outside the poles and tropics), versus 3C at 1.5C
  • Sea-level rise would be 0.1m higher than at 1.5C, exposing up to 10 million more people to more frequent flooding
  • More than 99% of coral reefs would be lost, compared with 70-90% at 1.5C
  • Several hundred million more people may be exposed to climate-related risks and susceptible to poverty by 2050 than at 1.5C.

U.S. Withdrawal from Paris Agreement and Its Impact on Global Climate Action

• When President Donald Trump announced that the U.S. would withdraw from the Paris Agreement in 2017, it sent shockwaves through the global climate community. ‘
• Trump’s administration placed priority on fossil fuel production, aiming to boost oil and gas extraction while reversing the progress made on climate policies under President Obama. The withdrawal, which officially took a year to complete, has far-reaching consequences, as outlined below:
• Impact on Emissions:  The U.S. exit could lead to an additional 4 billion tonnes of CO2 emissions by 2030 and 27 GtCO2e by 2050. This is significant, considering that the U.S. is the second-largest emitter of CO2, contributing to approximately 15% of global emissions. This setback puts global efforts to mitigate climate change in jeopardy and makes it harder to achieve the Paris Agreement’s goals. For comparison, the emissions of the U.S. in 2019 were 5.8 billion tonnes, so an additional 4 billion tonnes by 2030 represents a substantial increase. 
• Policy Reversals:  Under Trump’s leadership, the U.S. rolled back key environmental regulations, including restrictions on coal-fired power plants and limits on methane emissions from the oil and gas industry. For instance, the Trump administration weakened regulations on the methane emissions from oil and gas wells, which are responsible for nearly 25% of greenhouse gas emissions in the U.S. This not only deepened the climate crisis but also undermined the U.S.’s credibility in international climate diplomacy. 
• Global Impact: US withdrawal from the Paris Agreement, a multilateral arrangement to keep global warming from reaching dangerous levels, sets a poor precedent for developing countries such as India. 
  • Also, with the U.S. stepping back, other nations, particularly China and India, have taken on greater leadership roles in the renewable energy sector. hina, for example, met its renewable energy targets six years ahead of schedule. As of 2020, China had become the global leader in renewable energy installations, with over 250 GW of installed solar capacity and over 120 GW of wind energy capacity, setting an example for other countries to follow. 

 Future Implications of U.S. Withdrawal from Paris Agreement

• • Distrust Between Developed and Developing Nations: Wealthy nations have consistently failed to meet their climate finance commitments. For instance, developed countries missed their $100 billion annual climate finance pledge for developing countries, with the $100 billion commitment delayed until 2023. By 2021, the pledge stood at just $83 billion, far from the required amount. The lack of commitment has increased distrust between developed and developing nations, which see the financial support as crucial for transitioning to a low-carbon economy. According to the UN, developing nations need $5–6 trillion by 2030 to meet their climate goals.

• Strain on India’s Climate Goals: India, with its ambitious goals of achieving net-zero emissions by 2070 and installing 500 GW of renewable energy capacity by 2030, is particularly vulnerable to the absence of U.S. leadership. India depends heavily on international cooperation, both in terms of technology transfer and climate finance. For example, India’s solar energy capacity of 92 GW in 2021 places it among the world’s top solar energy producers, but its continued growth relies on global collaboration. Without the U.S.’s financial and technological support, India’s renewable energy transition could be delayed.

• Financial Ramifications: The U.S. withdrawal has had significant financial consequences for global climate action. The Trump administration had previously committed to contributing $11 billion annually to international climate finance, but this plan was revoked. This funding gap has exacerbated the financial strain on developing countries, making it more difficult for them to transition to clean energy and adapt to climate change. The absence of U.S. support also means a decline in the ability of international organizations such as the World Bank to fund climate-related projects.
• Climate Inequality: According to Oxfam, the wealthiest 1% of the global population are responsible for 15.9% of CO2 emissions, while the poorest 50% contribute only 7.7%. This stark contrast highlights the deep inequality in global emissions. For example, the richest 1% in the U.S. alone are responsible for 27% of emissions, further underscoring the global inequality. Moreover, Oxfam reported that the wealthiest 1% of people will exhaust their fair share of the global carbon budget by the first 10 days of 2025. To meet the 1.5°C target, these individuals would need to reduce their emissions by 97% by 2030. 
• Geopolitical Challenges: As the U.S. withdrew, China began to take center stage in the global clean energy market. In 2020, China installed 72 GW of new solar capacity, far ahead of the U.S. and Europe. With China’s aggressive push for renewable energy, this shift in the global energy landscape could create geopolitical tensions, particularly for countries like India, which may find itself competing for access to clean energy technologies and international climate funds.

Key Challenges Within the Paris Agreement

• Unmet Targets: Despite the ambitious targets set by the Paris Agreement, multiple UN climate summits have failed to generate meaningful commitments. In 2024, four key climate summits failed to produce substantial agreements, and with global emissions continuing to rise, the world is likely to exceed the 1.5°C target. 

• For example, the 2018 Emissions Gap Report from the UN Environment Programme indicated that current policies and NDCs put the world on track for a temperature increase of 3.2°C by 2100, far above the 1.5°C target.
•  The report also highlighted the widening gap between the emissions reduction required to meet the 1.5°C target and the pledges made by countries. For instance, while the global economy grew by 3.5% in 2021, global CO2 emissions increased by 6%, indicating a failure to decouple economic growth from carbon emissions. 
• Moreover, while countries have pledged to phase out fossil fuels, the reality remains that fossil fuel subsidies continue to rise. According to the International Energy Agency (IEA), governments spent approximately $425 billion on fossil fuel subsidies in 2020, undermining global efforts to transition to cleaner energy sources. The lack of progress in phasing out fossil fuels is one of the key reasons the world is likely to exceed the 1.5°C threshold. 

• Shortcomings of the Agreement: The NDCs submitted by countries are not legally binding, which means that countries are not held accountable for their emissions reductions. 

• For example, India’s NDC to reduce its emissions intensity (emissions per unit of GDP) by 33-35% by 2030, compared to 2005 levels, is seen as insufficient by many experts given the country’s rising energy consumption, particularly from coal. The China NDC outlines plans to peak carbon emissions by 2030 and achieve carbon neutrality by 2060. 
• The lack of enforceability is also visible in the reporting process. According to a 2019 report from the European Environment Agency (EEA), more than 40 countries, including Brazil, Mexico, and South Africa, failed to meet the Paris Agreement’s transparency requirements for reporting their emissions. 

• • The 1.5°C Target: Despite the significance of this target, the reality is that even with drastic emissions reductions, global temperatures are expected to surpass the 1.5°C limit. According to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), if current emissions trends continue, the world could be on track to see a temperature rise of 3°C by the end of the century. Although the 1.5°C temperature threshold is crucial, it is increasingly seen as symbolic, particularly for vulnerable countries such as small island states. For example, the Maldives and Kiribati, which are facing existential threats from rising sea levels, have advocated for more ambitious global commitments. 

• Financial Shortcomings and Climate Finance Gaps: Another critical shortcoming of the Paris Agreement lies in the climate finance commitments made by developed nations. 

• Under the agreement, developed nations pledged to provide $100 billion per year to developing countries to help them mitigate and adapt to climate change. In 2020 only $83.3bn was raised, but the goal was eventually achieved in 2022, according to data from the OECD.

• Furthermore, the UN Climate Change Conference (COP29) developed countries agreed to provide $300bn (around £245bn) a year to developing nations by 2035, with a broader ambition for $1.3tn to be raised from private and public sources by the same date. However, developing countries – which had hoped for more – criticised the $300bn figure as a “paltry sum”. 

• This shortfall is particularly concerning for countries like Bangladesh, which are highly vulnerable to climate change impacts such as flooding and cyclones. 

• Increasing Fossil Fuel Production:  Despite the global consensus on limiting fossil fuel use, many countries continue to ramp up fossil fuel production. For instance, in 2020, the U.S. government pushed for policies aimed at increasing domestic oil and gas production, even as global leaders pledged to reduce emissions. According to the International Energy Agency (IEA), the world’s oil production in 2020 reached 93.2 million barrels per day, marking a significant rise in global supply.

• Meanwhile, the G20 countries have invested heavily in fossil fuels, with $15.4 billion in 2020 alone. This direct support for fossil fuel industries undermines international efforts to shift toward renewable energy, which is essential to meeting the Paris Agreement’s goals.

• The Role of Greenwashing and Delayed Action: Many corporations and governments have been accused of greenwashing, or misleading claims about their environmental efforts. A 2021 study by Oxfam revealed that over 100 of the world’s largest companies are responsible for 70% of global emissions, yet only a small fraction has taken substantive action to reduce their environmental impact. 

Impact of U.S. Withdrawal from Paris Agreement on India

• Funding and Technology Gaps: India relies heavily on international climate finance to fund its renewable energy projects. The U.S. withdrawal has delayed these initiatives, especially with regard to the Green Climate Fund, which is intended to support developing countries like India in their renewable energy transition. The absence of U.S. financial contributions means that India may need to seek alternative sources of funding, which could take longer and result in slower progress.
• Weakened Global Climate Action: The U.S. withdrawal has weakened global momentum, placing additional pressure on India to meet its climate goals without the collective action that the Paris Agreement envisioned. For instance, while India has made significant strides in renewable energy, it is still heavily dependent on fossil fuels, which account for around 70% of its energy consumption. The lack of global cooperation could slow down India’s transition to clean energy.
• Geopolitical and Trade Tensions: With the U.S. retreating from global leadership, China is set to dominate the clean energy market. This shift could create geopolitical tensions, particularly for India, which could find itself competing for access to renewable energy technologies and international climate funds. Moreover, trade disputes over solar panels and wind turbine technologies could further strain international relationships.
• Strain on India’s Climate Goals: India’s ambitious climate goals, including achieving net-zero emissions by 2070 and expanding renewable energy capacity to 500 GW by 2030, are now under greater strain. Without the promised financial and technological support, India may face delays in meeting these targets, which could impact both its national climate policy and the broader international effort to combat climate change.
• Increased Fossil Fuel Competition: Trump’s push to increase U.S. fossil fuel production could lead to a drop in global energy prices, making renewable energy less competitive. In 2020, the cost of solar energy fell by more than 80% over the last decade, but global fossil fuel prices may reduce the economic incentive for countries like India to invest heavily in clean energy. India’s solar power initiatives could face challenges as fossil fuels become cheaper and more abundant globally.

Way Forward 

• Adaptation Strategies: Countries need to develop robust strategies to mitigate the effects of climate change on vulnerable populations. This includes investing in resilient infrastructure, water management systems, and early warning systems to protect communities from climate-related disasters.
• International Cooperation: Rebuilding international climate cooperation will be crucial in securing a future of sustainable growth. The success of future climate summits depends on all countries upholding their promises and strengthening their commitments.
• Sustainable Consumption and Production: A shift towards more sustainable consumption and production patterns is necessary to achieve long-term emission reductions. Nations should work to eliminate subsidies for fossil fuels and promote cleaner, more efficient production processes.
• Unified Global Action: Nations must re-engage in global efforts to tackle climate change, renewing collective commitments to limit global temperature rise. For example, countries should scale up their NDCs to close the gap between current commitments and what is needed to keep global warming below 1.5°C.
• Sustainable Solutions: Investment in clean energy technologies and renewable sources of energy must be prioritized to transition from fossil fuels. For instance, investments in solar, wind, and battery storage technologies can provide cleaner, more reliable energy options.
• Public-Private Partnerships: Collaboration between governments, industries, and research institutions is essential to innovate and scale sustainable solutions. The $2 trillion global clean energy market presents immense opportunities for countries like India to attract investment and create jobs.