Add Category
Updated
The Paris agreement was hailed as a success of diplomacy.
China and the United States — the two key nations with the most emissions and influence — were front and centre at the negotiating table.
The outlook for future climate negotiations was promising.
Scientifically, the Paris agreement was never likely to deliver the immediate, drastic changes researchers say the planet needs to avoid dangerous climate change, but it was a start that set a clear path for future emissions reductions.
To put the agreement into force, at least 55 countries and 55 per cent of the world's emissions needed to be ratified.
The US accepted the Paris agreement on September 3, 2016 and was bound by the agreement on its entry into force on November 4, 2016.
Right now according to Climate Analytics, 123 of the 147 countries are bound, and 80.43 per cent of the world's emissions are ratified.
Article 28 of the agreement stipulates countries cannot withdraw from the agreement within three years from their date of entry.
Withdrawal only takes effect one year after notification of withdrawal.
So under Article 28, the earliest the US can formally resign from the Paris agreement is November 4, 2019, and the withdrawal would not take effect until 2020.
But President Donald Trump could rely on his executive powers to pull the US out when he announces his decision at 5am on Friday.
So what happens once the US pulls out?
The US makes up 17.89 per cent of global emissions — so even if it leaves the agreement, it will still remain in force.
And Australian National University researcher Dr Luke Kemp, who attended the Paris summit, has argued that the US pulling out may actually be good for the remaining countries.
"A US withdrawal would be the best outcome for international climate action," he wrote recently.
"A US withdrawal would minimise risks and maximise opportunities for the climate community.
"Simply put: the US and the Trump administration can do more damage inside the agreement than outside it.
"There are four key, interconnected risks related to US participation in the Paris agreement: that the US will miss its emissions target; that it will cut climate finance; that it will cause a "domino" effect among other nations; and that it will impede the UN negotiations."
Dr Kemp argues the US will probably miss its reductions target anyway; that it has already made moves to cut climate finance; that the "domino effect" is more likely to be set in train by concrete actions, not a symbolic pull-out; and that a US remaining inside the Paris agreement wold have more capacity to "act as a spoiler in international climate talks".
What will everyone else do?
At this stage, most countries have indicated they will stay within the agreement — including Australia and China.
But Dr Kemp said that's what other countries said when the US could not ratify the Kyoto Protocol (the previous major emissions reduction agreement).
"In the longer term the absence of US leadership led to countries abandoning Kyoto," he said.
"If Trump wins a second term, then a potential exodus becomes much more real."
Follow the money
According to Dr Kemp, the biggest impact will not be US withdrawal, but the likely cancellation of climate funding.
The UN's Green Climate Fund has raised more than $10 billion from wealthy, developed countries.
Its purpose is to help poorer, developing countries pay for programs to adapt and mitigate the impacts of climate change.
"Currently the US is scheduled to provide almost a third of the Green Climate Fund (GCF), having pledged $US3 billion, but it has only deposited $US1 billion," Dr Kemp said.
"The remaining $US2 billion will almost certainly be abolished by Trump, as well as other financing to the negotiations in general.
"If anything is going to cause countries to drop-out of the agreement, then it will be the loss of this money."
What does it mean for Australia?
The most noticeable, short-term impact for Australia will be felt in the political sphere.
John Connor, the former head of the Climate Institute who is now helping the Fijian Government run this year's major UN climate talks, has watched and tracked the Australian political ups and downs of climate policy for the last decade.
He said that there was no question Mr Trump's election and rhetoric had emboldened the hard right of Australian politics.
"However the Government has, positively, reaffirmed its support for the agreement and now faces the task of living up to, not only its inadequate Pre-Paris 2030 commitment of reducing emissions by 26-28 per cent off 2005 levels, but also its Paris commitment of helping achieve net zero emissions," Mr Connor said.
"Chief amongst that is the need to ensure the inevitable transition to clean energy is not chaotic and expensive.
"This is the current situation which is being driven by not having a national plan to integrate climate and energy policies."
Global negotiations over climate change have tortuously dragged on for decades — the Paris agreement was supposed to put an end to that.
The full impact of the Trump decision won't be felt for years to come.
Topics: climate-change, world-politics, united-states
First posted