What Did the US Lose and China Gain by Withdrawing from the Paris Agreement?

On January 20th, local time, Trump was officially sworn in as the 47th President of the United States, returning to the White House. On the very same day, U.S. policy took a new turn—a “flip-flop,” as Trump made swift moves to scrub nearly 80 policies of his predecessor, President Biden, signing executive orders to announce the U.S. withdrawal from the Paris Agreement and the World Health Organization.
The Paris Agreement, signed in 2015, aimed to limit global warming to no more than 1.5 degrees Celsius above pre-industrial levels. However, during Trump’s first term, on June 1, 2017, he announced the U.S withdrawal from the agreement, making the U.S. one of the few non-signatory countries in the world.
This situation continued until January 20, 2021, when Biden became President of the United States. Four years ago on his first day in office, Biden signed 17 executive orders, overturning many of Trump’s political legacies, including rejoining the Paris Agreement and the World Health Organization. By February 19, 2021, the U.S. had rejoined the Paris Agreement.
As Trump returns to the White House four years later, will his “withdrawal moves” simply repeat the past, or will they have additional impacts? Similarly, over the years, the world seemed to have gotten used to uncertainties and to America’s absence in some arenas, continuing to develop amidst uncertainties, generating new trends. So, the question remains: who will pick up the responsibilities abandoned by “the Big Brother” after it exits these accords? Re-examining this four years later, has the answer become clearer or changed?
This article was originally written in 2017 when Trump announced the U.S. withdrawal from the Paris Agreement, originally published on China’s largest political website, Guancha.cn, authored by Xu Shi, republished for readers’ reflection.
On June 1, 2017, U.S. President Trump announced that the U.S. would withdraw from the Paris Agreement, once again making sensational global news.
Within the U.S., reactions were divided: Democrats and their supporters were devastated, former President Obama believed the U.S. was joining nations “rejecting the future”; conservatives praised Trump as “a real man,” considering the move as beneficial to the U.S. economy.
The news stirred reactions across the Pacific Ocean in China: some believed China should continue to adhere to the Paris Agreement to rapidly develop its new energy sector and gain a global advantage; others thought China should follow the U.S. lead, exit the Paris Agreement, and break free from the “curse” of greenhouse gas reduction to restore rapid economic growth.
Notably, among these discussions was a voice suggesting that after “the Big Brother” (the U.S.) exits, as the “largest global economy,” China should take on the mantle and win global leadership. So, what political gains does Trump hope to exchange for by exiting the Paris Agreement, going against the current and risking estrangement from long-time allies? What strategy should China adopt in response to America’s actions?
On June 1, 2017, local time, Trump announced U.S. withdrawal from the Paris Agreement. CNN
U.S.: Gains and Losses
During his campaign, Trump frequently clashed with the Republican Party, but as a Republican, he couldn’t entirely set himself apart from party interests. In the U.S., the Democratic Party consistently advocates for clean energy, while Trump’s Republican Party takes a critical stance against it. According to a report by the Center for American Progress during the Obama administration, over 50% of the newly elected more than 100 Republican lawmakers denied that human activities cause climate warming.
The reason is simple, high-carbon industries, and states are a significant source of Republican votes.
In 2015, during the Obama administration, geothermal, solar, wind, and hydroelectric energy—renewables that produce zero carbon emissions—accounted for only 5% of total U.S. energy consumption; coal, oil, and natural gas—a high 81%. To save energy and reduce emissions, the Obama administration formulated plans focusing on improving fossil fuel plant energy efficiency, replacing coal with natural gas, and promoting carbon-neutral new energy. The first two measures meant heavy investments and equipment upgrades for traditional energy companies, the third fostered competitors for these companies, all staunch Republican supporters.
Later, Republican Trump took office, with a short four-year term, he prioritized visible short-term gains and found a breakthrough in the Paris Agreement. By withdrawing, he lifted the “energy-saving and emission-reduction” constraints for energy companies, potentially lowering U.S. energy prices and reducing manufacturing costs.
This not only helped Trump align with the Republican establishment but also helped revive U.S. manufacturing in the short term, offering reassurance to the “angry blue-collars” who supported him. In this sense, Trump was indeed fulfilling his campaign promises, rewarding himself as the main beneficiary, gaining allies within the Republican Party and votes from the social lower class.
However, few things benefit without costing anything. Trump’s approach has a high cost—squandering national credibility and damaging relationships with traditional allies. The Paris Agreement was hard-won, achieved through tough negotiations among nearly 200 parties to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change at the Paris Climate Summit. As the second legally binding climate agreement after the Kyoto Protocol, it took 18 years to achieve, illustrating the sensitivity and complexity of energy-saving and emission reduction issues. Obama’s involvement in the Paris Accord was a significant achievement, with then-Secretary of State Kerry, holding his granddaughter, signing it, symbolizing the U.S.’s dedication to future generations.
On April 22, 2016, then-U.S. Secretary of State Kerry, holding his granddaughter, signed the Paris Agreement; little did anyone expect a quick turnaround by the U.S.
Trump’s announcement to withdraw from the Paris Agreement has severely impacted U.S. national credibility, at least in two ways:
Firstly, it sends a clear political signal—America is beginning to practice unilateralism, making crucial decisions independently without traditional ally consultation. During the Obama administration, significant international relations often required prior negotiation with traditional allies before taking unified action, such as the TPP negotiations to economically surround China. In 2017, Trump first quit the TPP, then smashed the Paris Agreement. This Big Brother’s sudden abandonment makes life tough for its little brothers!
Secondly, the alternating U.S. party leading to policy discontinuity inside and outside. The Democratic Party saw the Paris Agreement as major policy and widely publicized it. Once the Republican Party came to power, it drastically reversed significant previous commitments like flipping a pancake. If subsequent administrations can easily overthrow significant promises of the former ones, how will other countries perceive U.S. commitments in the future?
There are instances of U.S. foreign policy “flipping pancakes” in history. The Bush administration’s refusal to fulfill the Clinton administration’s commitments to North Korea led Kim Jong-il to resume his nuclear research in anger. However, the difference was that the U.S. previously flipped pancakes in front of opponents, now it is doing so with traditional allies. This sudden turnaround by Big Brother makes it hard for the little brothers to carry on.
In this sense, while Trump’s actions might bring short-term economic benefits to the U.S., it abandons America’s strategic alliance coalition. With Trump’s four-year term, he only needed short-term gains but did not have to bear long-term negative consequences. Hence, this disregard for opposition is consistent with the “after my death, let the deluge occur” mentality.
Such self-centeredness implies the U.S. will either voluntarily or involuntarily give up its leadership in certain international affairs. This difficulty for the U.S. in politically or economically cordoning off other countries, potentially lasting a long time, may offer new opportunities to other political entities.
China: Acting Within Capabilities
Why doesn’t China immediately exit the Paris Agreement?
Firstly, we need to clarify a basic stance—China’s strategy must favor protecting its national interests, and as a sovereign country, China should have its political judgment and perseverance. China is still a developing country, with over 70 million impoverished people; we must act within our capabilities. Remember Gorbachev, advocating “humanity’s interests above everything,” and his series of unreal policies that toppled the Soviet Union. How China interacts with the Paris Agreement should depend on maximizing our benefits.
After Trump’s withdrawal announcement, Premier Li Keqiang visited Germany, stating, “Addressing climate change is a global consensus. China has actively participated and promoted the Paris Agreement, becoming one of the first countries to recognize it through legislative procedures, and to submit a national climate change plan to the UN. This is part of China’s international responsibility as a developing power and an internal need to transform development ways. China will continue to uphold commitments, striving for green, low-carbon, sustainable development, alongside other nations, advancing towards the goals of the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development.”
This statement showcased China’s commendable national image and governmental credibility, not only to eco-conscious EU nations but also to the majority of those in the developing world, indicating who to open their economies to, and who to do business with. Once realized China was more committed than the U.S., the “Belt and Road” initiative and Chinese foreign investments would be more successful.
Staying in the Paris Agreement doesn’t necessarily bring significant loss to China. In terms of carbon emissions, China, the U.S., and the EU are the three key global blocks. Now with the U.S. unwilling to uphold the Paris Agreement, should China also exit, the EU would be left helpless, watching the Paris Agreement crumble.
In many EU countries, the Green party is politically significant. The Green party alliance holds 5 of the 28 seats in the EU council and 51 of the 751 seats in the European Parliament. Hence, the Green party is a sought-after target for EU governing groups, whose electoral and governing programs often feature environmental content. Should the environmental endeavor falter, EU governments would face extreme political pressure. Consequently, they genuinely need China, hoping China will maintain cooperation in environmental matters with the EU.
In these favorable conditions for China, the EU lacks leverage to enforce excessively stringent energy-saving and emission reduction clauses on China. As long as China takes minimal action on energy conservation and emissions reduction, it can hold the moral high ground.
Trump’s pancake flipping has significantly hurt the Paris Agreement—the agreement stipulates developed countries should provide $100 billion annually to developing countries by 2020 for energy conservation and emissions reduction. Now with the U.S. ditching this commitment, no one knows who will supply this annual $100 billion. In the absence of such material incentives, numerous developing countries would have no motivation to engage in energy conservation and emissions reduction, potentially failing even to maintain low economic growth. Without China’s active participation, the Paris Agreement will essentially become worthless, making it unlikely for the EU to antagonize China.
Given this, China should leverage this favorable situation fully, obtaining concessions in critical domains from the EU, bringing China clear economic advantages. For example:
· Ban the EU from investigating anti-dumping on Chinese renewable products—China’s booming electric vehicle and photovoltaic industries align precisely with EU’s environmental policies.
· Use increased forest reserves to deduct carbon emission reductions—China is indisputably the fastest in forest cover growth worldwide. With a forest cover rate of 16.55% in 2000 rising to 21.66% in 2015, whereas most countries globally faced rapidly decreasing forest cover during that period, this advantage only benefits China.
· Demand the EU opens its markets to China, ensuring no barriers for Chinese enterprises in technological investments and acquisitions—China’s technical acquisitions in the EU aim to boost productivity and achieve emissions reductions, naturally sound.
· Demand EU’s issuance of airworthiness certificates for China’s commercial airliners—China’s domestically-produced aircrafts have economic advantages, contributing to energy conservation, leaving no reason for the EU to refuse.
The U.S. prioritizes short-term benefits, using them for electoral gains. Meanwhile, systemic advantages render China’s foreign policy more consistent than the U.S., allowing for a focus on long-term benefits in international relations. The U.S. and EU once attempted to jointly suppress China’s development over environmental and climate concerns; the 2009 Copenhagen climate conference was steeped in conspiracy theories. Things have now shifted, yet China doesn’t need to advance overly fast, assuming responsibilities mismatched to its abilities or improperly assigned. We must consider our current national context and avoid foreign manipulations.
Editor: Zhongxiaowen