Donald Trump signed the decree to exit the Paris Agreement on Monday, what will this change?
Arnaud Gossé: Quite imprecisely worded, the executive order of January 20, 2025 provides that the United States withdraws from the 2015 Paris Climate Agreement but also from all “agreement, pact or commitment” taken pursuant to the 1992 Framework Convention on Climate Change.
The problem is that this formulation is very vague: on the one hand, the United States announces leaving the Paris Agreement, which required its signatories to do everything possible not to exceed 2°C and even limit it to 1.5°C. C the rise in temperature compared to the pre-industrial era. On the other hand, it does not indicate the withdrawal of the United States from the list of parties to the 1992 Convention.
In a very concrete way, we can therefore imagine that the United States abandons its climate commitments and in particular that of reducing their greenhouse gas emissions by 66% by 2035. Or at least that they consider that these commitments have no binding nature.
But to date, this also means that Donald Trump is not leaving the international climate negotiation table. American delegations will continue to attend the COPs but with a weakened status because they will no longer participate in discussions on the implementation of the Paris Agreement. The opportunity, incidentally, for China or the European Union to strengthen their roles in these negotiations.
Already in 2017, Donald Trump signed the exit from this Agreement. What were the consequences?
A. G. : They are difficult to assess, already because the exit was never officially recorded: the exit process was started very late and was interrupted by his successor, Joe Biden. Then because part of his mandate was marked by the health crisis, which resulted in a drastic reduction in greenhouse gas emissions from the United States and the rest of the world. Finally, because regulations are far from being the only ones to guide the investment decisions of economic players.
In 2017, for example, Donald Trump’s promises to revive the mining industry led to the opening of only one coal-fired power plant in the entire country. Over the course of his first mandate, 50 coal-fired power stations even closed, due to the lack of profitability of these infrastructures.
Ultimately, the country’s greenhouse gas emissions (the world’s second largest emitter after China) have fallen by 20% since 2005, which is not nothing but insufficient to implement the Paris Agreement. Furthermore, they did not fall any more under Biden’s mandate than Trump’s, and even stagnated in 2024.
In fact, gas and oil production exploded during Joe Biden’s mandate…
A. G. : This shows how important it is to distinguish rhetoric from reality. Despite the promises, Joe Biden’s mandate was marked by two major events from a climate point of view: the adoption of the IRA, this law aimed in particular at financing the deployment of carbon-free energies, and the explosion in production gas and oil.
Here again the economic situation, against a backdrop of war in Ukraine, largely explains this hydrocarbon boom. This is why it is important not to overestimate the role of national governments, especially in the United States, where the federal states have their own climate agenda.
Can the federated states play a counter-power role on the climate?
A. G. : The American federal state acts at the level of national taxation, certain subsidies, and international negotiations. It is a central role, but one which should not overshadow the no less central role of the federated states, which set territorial objectives in terms of decarbonization, grant project authorizations and can also participate in the financing of these projects.
In the United States, almost half of the states (24 in total) have joined the Climate Alliance, which was founded the day after Trump’s first election by the governors of the states of New York, California and of Washington. This Alliance, which represents 54% of the American population, mainly in Democratic states, seeks to coordinate the action of the federated states to respect the Paris Agreement.
Beyond political divisions, we must also remember that the country is particularly vulnerable to climatic disasters, as the fires in California have just reminded us. Insurers are increasingly reluctant to cover these risks, which could force States to act as guarantors. Also, whatever Donald Trump says, he alone will not be able to slow down the current transition.
In the end, what should we fear most from an environmental point of view with Trump coming to power?
A. G. : Legal risk must be distinguished from political risk. In my eyes, political risk is the major risk: by attacking the symbol of the Paris Agreement, the American president is fueling climate skeptic speeches and making the transition inaudible to the ears of some.
We must remain vigilant but not give too much importance to Donald Trump. By leaving the Paris Agreement, Trump is also making a gesture of admission: he admits that this text is fundamental. If it goes so far as to call into question the aid mechanisms for renewable energies, Europe could even have a hand in attracting investments in the transition.