Climate change sits among the defining tests of modern civilization, not as a distant scenario but as a present reality shaped by intensifying disasters and rising political uncertainty. The Paris Agreement, adopted under the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change at COP21 in Paris on December 12, 2015, was designed to channel that urgency into coordinated action. Its central aim is to hold global temperature rise to well below 2C above pre-industrial levels, while pursuing efforts to limit warming to 1.5∘C, largely through each country’s nationally determined contributions.
In the years that followed, U.S. climate policy became a case study in volatility. Under President Barack Obama, the United States helped drive the Paris negotiations and signed the agreement in 2016, later ratifying it on September 3 of that year. The U.S. commitment at the time set a target of cutting greenhouse gas emissions by 26–28% below 2005 levels by 2025, signaling to partners that a major emitter was prepared to anchor collective progress.
That sense of continuity fractured after Donald Trump took office in January 2017. The United States ultimately withdrew from the agreement in 2020, a move that reverberated well beyond Washington and raised alarms among climate advocates and allies about what it could mean for global momentum. Although Joe Biden reversed course after winning the 2020 election and rejoined the agreement in April 2021, submitting a new NDC targeting 50–52% reductions below 2005 levels by 2030, the pendulum swung again. Trump returned to the presidency after last November’s election and began the withdrawal process on his first day back in office.
Trust, Finance, and the Cost of Delay
When a central player steps back from a shared pledge, the damage is not only symbolic. The U.S. withdrawal has undercut trust that underpins international climate cooperation and has increased pressure on developing countries, including India and China. That shift can weigh on climate finance pathways available to those states, complicating efforts to fund mitigation and adaptation at the pace demanded by worsening impacts.
The consequences also ripple through how other countries plan their own trajectories. If one major actor disengages, the effective carbon space for everyone else tightens, potentially lifting the economic cost of emissions and creating additional strain for large, fast-growing economies such as India’s. Even smaller policy signals can amplify the message, including Trump’s executive order encouraging the use of plastic straws, which runs against prior efforts aimed at curbing single-use plastics and improving waste management.
At the same time, the global picture is not defined by U.S. actions alone. Some governments, including China, India, and parts of Europe, have reinforced their stated commitments and voiced continued willingness to collaborate on lowering greenhouse gas emissions. Yet the broader landscape remains fragile. Carbon Brief’s analysis found that almost 95% of countries did not submit updated climate commitments for 2035 by the United Nations deadline, intensifying doubts about whether Paris mechanisms can generate sufficient forward motion. With record heat, severe flooding, and extreme wildfires escalating, the risk grows that the agreement reads less like an enforceable course of action and more like an unfulfilled promise.
China and India Step Into a Watching World
As the United States pulls away, the question becomes who fills the resulting gap in global climate governance and how quickly. The vacuum also creates an opening for China to expand its role in shaping climate leadership. China has pursued emission-reduction measures that project credibility and ambition, while framing its approach as a contribution to international climate governance through concrete policy moves and investment direction.
Those efforts include increased investment in renewable energy, expansion of its carbon trading system, and the development of green investment principles tied to the Belt and Road initiative. China also adjusted its domestic governance structure in April 2018 by reorganizing functions and establishing the Ministry of Ecology and Environment, intended to strengthen oversight of climate change and improve coordination between ecological protection and climate action. In 2020, China announced targets to peak carbon dioxide emissions by 2030 and reach carbon neutrality by 2060, accompanied by updated nationally determined contributions with new plans and more forceful policies. A dedicated leadership group followed in 2021 to steer the carbon-peaking and carbon-neutrality agenda.
China has also emphasized support for developing countries and continued engagement in negotiations. Ahead of the 29th UN Climate Change Conference in Baku, Azerbaijan, Chinese officials reaffirmed that since 2016 China has provided more than $24 billion in financial support to developing countries for climate-related initiatives, while expressing willingness to sustain that assistance. Alongside high-level exchanges in multilateral and bilateral talks, China has sought more practical cooperation on climate issues, presenting itself as capable of pairing ambition with institutional capacity, even as it acknowledges that significant challenges remain.
For India, the U.S. exit presents a different blend of strain and possibility, as New Delhi weighs how to maintain growth while projecting climate leadership. Prime Minister Narendra Modi has reiterated India’s commitment to a green transition and has pushed renewable energy programs positioned as both ambitious and results-oriented. According to a government press release, by December 2024 India’s installed renewable energy capacity reached 209.44 GW, led by solar at 97.86 GW and wind at 48.16 GW, and the Ministry of New and Renewable Energy has set a goal of 500 GW of non-fossil fuel power capacity by 2030.
Still, India’s pathway is not insulated from geopolitical or structural headwinds. The article notes that tariff disputes with the United States, alongside challenges such as weaker infrastructure, may complicate the speed and scale of India’s renewable expansion. Even so, as global attention shifts toward who can sustain progress when a former anchor steps back, India’s choices, timelines, and delivery will be measured closely, not only in domestic terms but as part of the wider architecture of climate governance.
