• Klein says it remains in US economic interest to reduce fossil fuel use and invest in renewables

ANKARA

The US formally withdrew from the Paris Agreement on Tuesday, following an executive order signed by President Donald Trump on his inauguration day last year.

The one-year withdrawal period has now expired, reducing Washington’s formal role in global climate efforts, though experts say the immediate impact on negotiations may be less disruptive than initially feared.

The Paris Agreement is a voluntary framework with no strong enforcement mechanisms or automatic penalties for withdrawal or non-compliance. Countries face no fines, but exiting removes obligations such as submitting climate action reports, updating nationally determined contributions, and participating in formal review processes.

Speaking to Anadolu, Richard J. T. Klein of the Stockholm Environment Institute said the withdrawal largely formalizes the low-profile role the US had already adopted in recent climate negotiations.

“The US was not actively involved in key discussions, such as those in Belem, and maintained a minimal presence at intersessional meetings in Bonn over the past year. This change does not dramatically alter the ongoing processes,” he said.

Klein said the US will no longer need to submit updates under the agreement, but the broader impact remains limited due to the pact’s non-binding nature.

One of biggest threats facing humanity

The effects of climate change are considered one of the biggest threats facing humanity today, according to many studies and scientific bodies.

Klein also addressed related withdrawal moves announced by the Trump administration, noting that the US exit from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) remains legally limited.

The IPCC is not a standalone body the US can simply leave; it operates under the WMO (World Meteorological Organization) and UNEP (United Nations Environment Programme), neither of which is on the current withdrawal list.

As a result, the US remains an automatic IPCC member even if it skips meetings, halts funding, or withdraws support from working groups.

Membership in the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) also carries financial obligations, including contributions to the secretariat in Bonn, where the US has historically been a major donor.

On Jan. 7, 2026, the Trump administration announced its intention to withdraw from both the UNFCCC and the IPCC, a move that would make the US the first country to exit the convention. The withdrawal would take effect one year later, around January 2027.

As of late January 2026, the US remained formally a party but had already halted participation, funding, and engagement in climate meetings.

Legal questions persist over whether the president can withdraw unilaterally without Senate approval, but the process has effectively sidelined Washington from global climate diplomacy.

Klein said the repeated pattern of entering and exiting the Paris Agreement under different administrations has created uncertainty about future US commitments.

He asked whether a future administration that prioritizes climate change would rejoin the Paris Agreement once again.

US absence from negotiations notable

Klein emphasized that the US absence from negotiations is notable, even though the country has its own priorities and was not always the most progressive voice on climate issues.

“The US was a strong negotiator,” he said, “for example, putting China on the spot for more ambitious policies and arguing that Saudi Arabia should recognize its own climate risks beyond just oil exports.”

While some fear other countries might follow the US lead and downgrade climate commitments, Klein said past examples suggest otherwise.

He pointed to Argentina’s temporary withdrawal during the first US exit from the Paris Agreement, which did not trigger widespread imitation.

According to Klein, the world is losing a powerful negotiating bloc that often worked with others to advance stronger climate action, and it remains unclear whether a future US administration will restore that influence.

Despite the withdrawal, Klein said economic forces are likely to continue driving emissions reductions in the US.

“It will be in the US’s own interest to reduce fossil fuel consumption. It will be in the US’s own interest to invest in renewables simply for economic reasons,” he said.

Scientific assessments indicate the Paris process has already delivered measurable progress. Without it, end-of-century global warming could have approached 4C, but current trajectories now trend toward below 3C.

While this remains short of the below 2C target, Klein said the system of periodically increasing ambition has proven effective.

“If a major emitter like the US is no longer part of this, that will clearly have an effect on the emissions,” he warned.