A recent analysis by Carbon Brief found that nearly 95% of the countries that signed the Paris Agreement have missed the United Nations (UN) deadline to submit new climate pledges for 2035 — a troubling sign of waning global momentum in tackling climate change. This revelation comes as U.S. President Donald Trump has withdrawn the United States from the Paris Agreement. The majority of the global south relies heavily on international climate finance to implement their climate action plans. Historically, the United States has been a significant contributor to such funding. The U.S. withdrawal now threatens nearly a tenth of global climate finance, jeopardizing projects and initiatives that depend on this support.
This decision reignited global anxiety about the future of international climate commitments. While many view this withdrawal as a major setback, history offers a counterintuitive lesson: Trump's withdrawal in 2017, rather than derailing climate action, inadvertently strengthened it. By exposing the limitations of a voluntary agreement plagued by delays and weak enforcement, Trump’s decision could push global climate action toward a more accountable and results-driven framework — one that is less dependent on U.S. leadership and more grounded in economic realities and decentralized innovation.
Breaking Free from a Flawed Agreement
While the Paris Agreement was a landmark diplomatic achievement, it has faced significant criticism for its structural weaknesses. It relies on voluntary pledges (Nationally Determined Contributions, or NDCs) with no binding enforcement mechanisms. Many countries, including signatories such as China and Saudi Arabia, have continued expanding fossil fuel investments even as they promise emissions reductions. Even within the United States, emissions reductions largely occurred due to market shifts—such as cheaper renewable energy—rather than because of federal adherence to the agreement.
Trump’s withdrawal exposes these flaws yet again, forcing global leaders to confront an uncomfortable reality: the Paris framework, while symbolic, lacks accountability. With the U.S. no longer constrained by diplomatic formalities, other nations and international coalitions may feel compelled to develop stronger mechanisms—ones that go beyond voluntary pledges and introduce real penalties for non-compliance. This could accelerate progress by pushing for a Paris 2.0 framework, one that enforces accountability rather than relying on political goodwill.
Subnational Leadership and Market-Driven Solutions
One of the most significant outcomes of Trump’s first withdrawal was the rise of state, city, and corporate leadership in the U.S. Climate alliances like the U.S. Climate Alliance (comprising multiple states) and initiatives from major corporations helped maintain emissions reductions even in the absence of federal support. Renewable energy growth outpaced expectations, driven by technological advances and cost reductions rather than federal mandates.
Now, with another federal withdrawal, subnational actors will again have an opportunity to accelerate their climate ambitions. The increasing affordability of clean energy—solar and wind are now the cheapest electricity sources in much of the world—makes federal support less critical than it once was. Many states, especially California, New York, and Texas, have already set aggressive decarbonization goals, and with federal disengagement, they may double down on policies that attract investment, creating a decentralized but resilient climate movement.
A Shift Away from U.S.-Centric Leadership
For decades, global climate negotiations have been disproportionately influenced by U.S. domestic politics. The cyclical nature of American elections has led to instability, where climate policies fluctuate between administrations, making long-term commitments unreliable. Trump’s withdrawal reinforces the need for the rest of the world to decouple climate action from U.S. political whims.
In 2017, when Trump first withdrew, countries like China and the European Union took on stronger leadership roles, expanding renewable energy investment and financing climate adaptation in developing countries. Now, with another exit, we may see an even stronger push for non-U.S. leadership. The European Union's Carbon Border Adjustment Mechanism (CBAM), for instance, could gain further traction, forcing even non-participating nations to reduce emissions to access European markets. Similarly, China, which has positioned itself as a clean energy leader, may intensify its push for green finance and technological dominance in the sector.
By shifting leadership away from the United States, climate diplomacy could become more stable and independent. Countries that once waited for U.S. direction may now take proactive roles, strengthening global commitments and accelerating net-zero pathways.
Energy Security and the Economic Case for Decarbonization
Trump’s rationale for withdrawal has been largely economic—protecting American fossil fuel jobs, reducing regulatory costs, and maintaining energy independence. However, this argument is increasingly outdated. The economic viability of fossil fuels is declining, and clean energy is now a key driver of job creation.
Ironically, by removing federal backing for climate policies, Trump’s withdrawal could spur market-driven competition in clean energy. Private sector investment in renewables has already been outpacing fossil fuel investment, and without government interference, businesses may accelerate their shift to sustainable practices purely for economic gain. Furthermore, states and corporations seeking international market access will still need to comply with foreign carbon regulations, ensuring that decarbonization remains a business priority even without federal mandates.
The Road Ahead: A More Resilient Climate Framework
If history is any guide, Trump's withdrawal will not mark the collapse of climate action but rather its next evolution. By exposing the fragility of an agreement dependent on voluntary compliance, this moment may push the world toward a stricter, more enforceable climate governance model. By forcing states, businesses, and foreign governments to act independently, it may create a more resilient, diversified, and innovation-driven approach to emissions reductions.
Rather than relying on unstable political agreements, climate action must now be embedded in economic structures, financial incentives, and legal frameworks that outlast election cycles. Trump's withdrawal, while appearing like a retreat, may paradoxically hasten this transition—pushing the world toward climate action that is not just symbolic but truly transformative.
(Disclaimer: The opinions expressed in this article are those of the writer. The facts and opinions expressed here do not reflect the views of ETV Bharat)
