In recent weeks, Europe and Asia have made a number of ambitious climate commitments. The European Parliament decided last month to reduce emissions by 60% by 2030, with the aim of achieving carbon neutrality by 2050. This measure is now being considered by the Council of Ministers of the European Union. China has promised to become carbon neutral by 2060. This promise was followed by the outside of South Korea and Japan, both of which promised to stop reducing net emissions by 2050. No responsible leader can bring workers – and people – of their country into this debilitating and enormous disadvantage. The fact that the Paris Agreement is hampering the United States, while allowing some of the world`s largest polluters, should dispel any doubt as to why foreign lobbyists want to link and bind our great country to this agreement: it is about giving their country an economic advantage over the United States. That will not happen as long as I am president. I am sorry. (Applause) “What Obama did at the end of his second term was fundamentally undemocratic to sign a Paris agreement without going to the Senate and Congress and doing it instead through an executive,” said former U.N. climate chief Yvo De Boer. At a rose garden ceremony on June 1, 2017, U.S. President Donald Trump declared his intention to withdraw the United States from the Paris Climate Agreement.
Trump argued that meeting the goals of the agreement, which was to control and reduce greenhouse gas emissions, would have a negative impact on job growth, hamper production and lead to dramatic declines in the coal mining, natural gas, steel and cement industries. He also stressed that the agreement had set unfair standards for U.S. efforts to limit greenhouse gas emissions, while it would allow developing countries such as China and India to provide greater flexibility to meet their own climate goals. Towards the end of his speech, Trump left open the possibility of renegotiating the agreement to give the United States a better deal that serves the country`s interests: before Trump took office, the United States had pledged to cut emissions 26 to 28 percent below 2005 levels by 2025, a goal they did not want to achieve. Biden has promised to invest nearly $2 trillion in clean energy and low-carbon infrastructure, but he hasn`t said what emissions reduction target he could set if he becomes president. Many of the major auto companies and airlines had already invested billions in emissions reductions and are unlikely to change course. General Motors, the largest automaker in the United States, immediately stated, “Our position on climate change has not changed… We are publicly committed to climate protection,” reaffirming our support for various climate commitments. Analyst Rebecca Lindland also pointed out that automakers did not have any specific restrictions under the agreement and that nothing had changed. Even if Trump relaxed other restrictions on the auto industry, allowing the production of less polluting cars, these cars still had to meet the standards before being exported to other continents, or even some states.
Jason Bordoff, an energy policy expert at Columbia University, agreed that a withdrawal would make no difference to the economy and argued that it would be determined by market conditions such as oil prices and gas prices. At the same time, airlines have spent billions to find more fuel-efficient flight options – fuel is a company`s second-biggest effort after work, and therefore using less fuel (meaning less emissions) is in their financial interest.  Kabir Nanda and Varad Pande, senior consultant and partner at Dahlberg, argued that despite the U.S. withdrawal, the U.S. private sector continues to engage in renewable energy and technology.