International Negotiations Weren’t Fixing Climate Change, But Leaving the Paris Agreement Sure Doesn’t Help

There is a grim symbolism to the world’s biggest historic greenhouse gas emitter and second-biggest emitter today pulling out of the international agreement aimed at cutting those emissions just a week or so after climate change-juiced fires destroyed chunks of its second-biggest city. Donald Trump doesn’t much care about symbols though, not when there is money to be made for him and his friends, and so there it was, the expected executive order repeating the 2017 move of withdrawing the U.S. from the Paris Agreement.

There seems to be a sort of parallel track of reactions to this move from people within the climate advocacy community, or really just anyone who isn’t terrible. It’s sort of a “two things can be true” sort of situation: the largest economy in the world abdicating any responsibility to participate in the global effort to save a livable climate is undeniably Not Good, but also there is momentum in certain areas out there, much of the actual climate progress was being made on levels other than the national and international, and in fact the now three-decades-old multilateral negotiations process hasn’t exactly blown our collective socks off with its efficacy.

In other words, the U.S. abandoning the Paris Agreement can’t possibly be good, in the sense that it surely won’t help emissions come down, but it also might not be that bad, given the general realities of the fight against climate change. This is all, let’s say, a bit speculative; global emissions are an enormous beast, and the way Country X responds to an ugly U.S. move might include some subtle change in a national law’s wording that maybe changes a percentage or two of its 2030 output. Now multiply that by 195.

“By leaving the Paris Agreement, this administration has abdicated its responsibility to protect the American people and our national security,” said former EPA administrator, Biden climate advisor, and climate advocate Gina McCarthy, to Politico — this move is bad. “But rest assured, our states, cities, businesses, and local institutions stand ready to pick up the baton of U.S. climate leadership and do all they can — despite federal complacency — to continue the shift to a clean energy economy.” This move isn’t that bad.

There are versions of this that are very dark, in that they admit the UNFCCC process that yielded the Paris Agreement has all but failed. Tim Sahay, a climate policy expert, recently described the post-Baku (host of the most recent, extremely disappointing climate talks, COP29, in November) situations as the “total collapse of global cooperation and multilateralism in favor of the law of the jungle.” If that’s where we were before Trump took office, how bad could him taking his ball and going home really be? As I’ve mentioned elsewhere, if we, collectively — and to date that largely means the multilateral process — were going to solve climate change, we would have solved climate change.

The counter to that, of course, is that Paris and the UNFCCC is all we have, on that level. It is a counterfactual that’s more or less impossible to quantify fully, but where would emissions and global temperatures be with nothing at the multilateral level?

And still, there are lighter versions that focus on other areas of progress. A coalition of global cities united to fight climate change at the municipal level known as C40 Cities released a series of statements from its members’ mayors reacting to Trump’s move, and many echo McCarthy’s contention that there is plenty of work to be done outside the halls of the United Nations and, obviously, the White House. “Regardless of the federal government’s actions, mayors are not backing down on our commitment to the Paris Agreement,” said Phoenix’s mayor Kate Gallego.

Cities can make pretty big dents through changes to building policy, efficiency policy, and more, and so they have at least some point that progress can continue without federal American leadership. But they all agree it’s an ugly swamp to have to swim through, regardless; again, there’s no actual upside here, just a vague potential that the downside is only slightly down. “Now couldn’t be a more perilous time for world leaders to renege on their climate responsibilities and ignore the science on the existential threat posed by climate change,” said London’s mayor Sadiq Khan. “Cities like London will continue to lead the way.”