From Paris to Washington: The struggle to keep global climate goals alive amid uncertain US policy

The world leaders are once again confronted with uncertainty, compounded by the shifting political landscape in the United States, as they gather for the latest climate conference — COP24.
Given the pivotal role the US plays in international climate efforts, concerns were raised worldwide by President Donald Trump’s decision to withdraw from the Paris Climate Agreement back in 2020.
However, US climate envoy John Podesta reassured governments, emphasizing that while Trump may slow the pace of the country’s climate commitments, he cannot halt the country’s progress towards a clean energy future.
Podesta underlined that regardless of political shifts, the growing momentum in clean technologies and renewable energy would persist.
The world now awaits Trump’s climate stance to determine how it will shape the future international climate cooperation, both economically and environmentally.
There are trepidations that the push among countries that have depended on US leadership to increase their climate aspirations may get weakened by Trump’s possible departure from climate pledges. Reducing US climate obligations might hinder global efforts and undermine major nations’ climate goals.
Without US pressure, the EU’s 2050 carbon neutrality aim, China’s 2060 net-zero ambition, India’s growth in renewable energy, and Brazil’s anti-deforestation initiatives might all falter, endangering the Paris Agreement’s global warming goals, especially the 1.5°C or 2°C increase limit over pre-industrial levels.
Podesta’s claim that Trump “can slow but not stop” clean energy in the US already shows the established economic momentum in the renewable energy sector.
Jobs in the clean energy sector are expanding faster than those in the conventional fossil fuel sectors, and solar, wind, and battery storage have become significantly more affordable.
Due to consumer demands and financial savings, major corporations such as Apple, Google, and Amazon have made a commitment to using renewable energy to power their operations.
According to the report of the industry group American Clean Power Association, the top three corporate buyers of wind and solar energy are Amazon, Facebook parent firm Meta, and Google, controlled by parent company Alphabet. Their central projects, like wind and solar farms, AI for Earth (utilizing the enormous potential of artificial intelligence (AI), machine learning (ML), and the cloud to tackle some of the most difficult issues facing the globe.) would not have progressed as quickly due to regulatory delays or restrictions. Although these businesses can overcome regulatory obstacles, the lag may result in inefficiencies and postponements of sustainable objectives. Also slowdown in U.S. federal action might negatively impact their reputation since these companies’ strong public commitments to sustainability.
Even countries like Germany, which aims for carbon neutrality (the amount of greenhouse gases emitted will be balanced by the amount removed) by 2045, and China, a leader in renewable technology with a goal of 20% non-fossil energy by 2025, continue to push forward climate goals.
India is rapidly expanding its renewable capacity with a 2030 target of 500 GW of non-fossil fuel power, while Denmark is investing heavily in wind energy, aiming for 50% renewable energy by 2030.
In the US, growth may be momentarily slowed by federal policies that favour fossil fuels, but corporate investments and state-led programmes — like California’s aggressive renewable portfolio standards — will probably keep driving the energy industry towards renewables. Additionally, foreign investors might shift their funds to nations that are pioneering green energy, which could lessen American competitiveness in a growing economy.
Meanwhile, rising sea levels pose existential concerns to Small Island Developing States (SIDS), such as Kiribati and the Maldives, which depend on US assistance for climate adaptation through the Paris Agreement and the Green Climate Fund.
Bangladesh also relies on US support for climate resilience initiatives, such as early warning systems and flood defences.
Without the US support, many of these nations could find it difficult to put adaptation plans into action. This might result in a rise in climate migration and economic stress that could have broader geopolitical repercussions.
On top of that, if Trump’s government withdraws from the Paris Climate Agreement, it would also affect war- and disaster-affected nations like Syria, Yemen, and Afghanistan.
These countries already face economic instability, population displacement, and destroyed infrastructure; climate change simply makes matters worse.
Catastrophic droughts brought on by climate change have occurred in Syria, which, when paired with the ongoing conflict, has led to widespread migration and food shortages.
Similar to this, Yemen is now heavily reliant on foreign assistance, particularly climate-related funds for disaster recovery and water management, as a result of the prolonged conflict, frequent droughts, and extreme weather events.
Funding and international pressure for adaptation and mitigation in these war-torn nations may decline if the US lowers its climate commitments, which would further postpone their recovery and exacerbate the effects of climate change.
Numerous states, cities, and businesses have reiterated their commitment to climate goals in the face of federal retraction. Regardless of federal policy, initiatives like the US Climate Alliance, which is made up of states that together account for a sizeable amount of the US GDP, seek to keep working towards the Paris Agreement targets. Some slowdowns at the national level might be lessened by this decentralised strategy. However, as states have no authority over more significant policies like federal subsidies for renewable energy and national emissions regulations, the efficacy of these initiatives without federal alignment may be constrained.
Furthermore, innovation in areas like enhanced battery storage, carbon capture, and next-generation solar might be slowed if federal funding for clean technology research and development (R&D) is cut. Nations like China and the EU, which have increased their investments in green technology, may overtake the US in terms of technology. The US’s future economic role in a clean-energy-based global economy may be impacted by this change, which could result in employment losses in tech-forward businesses.
Since the US is frequently regarded as a leader in global governance, any departure from its international climate pledges could damage its standing and dependability as a partner. The US influence in establishing international standards may be diminished if allies in Europe and Asia who are giving priority to climate change are less likely to work together on climate and other concerns.
Furthermore, diplomatic ties may be strained if the US is perceived as an untrustworthy friend by states most at risk from climate change, such as poor and island nations.
The global effects of less US involvement could be substantial, even while market forces and subnational leadership in the US might lessen some of the effects of a federal climate pullout. The effects would be felt much beyond the boundaries of the US, ranging from changes in the global economy to geopolitical tensions and reduced international commitments.
Afruza Akter is a student of Doctor of Philosophy in Media and Communication Studies, Taylor’s University, Malaysia
Dr Tan Kim Hua is an associate professor at Taylor’s University, Malaysia