Impact of U.S. withdrawal from the Paris Agreement – GIS Reports

Report on the Geopolitical Implications of the United States’ Withdrawal from the Paris Agreement and its Impact on the Sustainable Development Goals

Introduction and Executive Summary

This report analyzes the consequences of the United States’ second withdrawal from the Paris Agreement, initiated in January 2025. The withdrawal significantly alters the landscape of global climate governance and poses substantial challenges to the achievement of the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development. The primary focus is on the direct and indirect impacts on several Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), including:

• SDG 13 (Climate Action): The core objective of the Paris Agreement is directly undermined.
• SDG 17 (Partnerships for the Goals): The withdrawal fractures global cooperation, reduces financial flows, and weakens institutional trust.
• SDG 10 (Reduced Inequalities): The action exacerbates the divide between developed and developing nations, particularly concerning climate finance and responsibility.
• SDG 16 (Peace, Justice and Strong Institutions): The U.S.’s inconsistent policy damages the credibility and stability of international environmental agreements.
• SDGs 7, 9, and 11: Progress on Affordable and Clean Energy, Industry, Innovation and Infrastructure, and Sustainable Cities and Communities is threatened by the reduction in climate finance for developing nations.

The U.S. exit disrupts established negotiating dynamics, shifts the burden of climate leadership, and creates a leadership vacuum that other global powers are poised to fill, reshaping the pursuit of global sustainability.

Impact on Global Climate Governance and SDG 13

The Paris Agreement represents the primary international framework for achieving SDG 13. The U.S. withdrawal fundamentally weakens this structure by removing a key actor and historical emitter from its obligations.

Erosion of Institutional Effectiveness and Trust

The U.S. pattern of disengagement undermines the stability and perceived legitimacy of global institutions, a core tenet of SDG 16. This action introduces significant uncertainty and increases the political costs of international cooperation.

• Weakened U.S. Leverage: By exiting the Agreement’s institutional framework, the U.S. loses its formal role in shaping the rules governing transparency, market mechanisms, and finance, thereby diminishing its ability to influence outcomes that align with its long-term interests.
• Loss of Credibility: The policy reversal damages the reputation of the U.S. as a reliable partner, complicating future diplomatic efforts across various international forums and hindering the robust partnerships required by SDG 17.
• Leadership Vacuum: The withdrawal creates an opportunity for other powers, notably the European Union and China, to steer the future of climate governance. This may lead to frameworks that do not align with the priorities of the U.S. or its traditional allies.

Consequences for International Cooperation and Finance (SDG 17)

The withdrawal has profound spillover effects on international partnerships and financial commitments, which are critical for the implementation of the entire SDG agenda.

Shifting Burdens Among Developed Nations

The U.S. action fractures the cohesion of the Umbrella Group (a coalition of non-EU developed countries), increasing the diplomatic and financial pressure on remaining members like the EU, Canada, and Japan.

1. Increased Financial Pressure: Other developed countries face heightened expectations to compensate for the financial gap left by the U.S., which had pledged over $11 billion annually in climate finance. This shortfall directly threatens the financing mechanisms essential for SDG 17.
2. Weakened Negotiating Bloc: Without U.S. leadership, the Umbrella Group’s collective bargaining power is diminished, potentially altering the balance of power in negotiations with the G77/China coalition.

Implications for the Global Majority and SDG 10

For developing nations, the U.S. withdrawal presents a complex mix of challenges and strategic opportunities, fundamentally impacting the principle of equity central to SDG 10.

• Challenge: Climate Finance Deficit: The most critical impact is the loss of a major source of funding for mitigation and adaptation projects. This jeopardizes progress on SDG 7 (Affordable and Clean Energy), SDG 9 (Resilient Infrastructure), and SDG 11 (Sustainable Cities), which rely heavily on international support.
• Opportunity: Increased Diplomatic Influence: The absence of the U.S. may empower key countries from the Global Majority, such as India, Brazil, and South Africa, to advocate more forcefully for their priorities, including a greater focus on historical responsibility and adaptation finance.

Projected Scenarios and Long-Term SDG Implications

The geopolitical realignment resulting from the U.S. withdrawal could lead to several distinct future scenarios, each with significant consequences for the 2030 Agenda.

Scenario 1: Resurgence of the North-South Divide (Most Likely)

The U.S. remains outside the Agreement, leading to a revival of the rigid division between developed (North) and developing (South) countries. This would undermine the collaborative spirit of SDG 17 and polarize negotiations, making consensus on ambitious climate action (SDG 13) more difficult. The G77/China coalition may push for more aggressive redistributive measures, stalling progress on market-based mechanisms.

Scenario 2: Fragmentation of Alliances and EU Isolation (Somewhat Likely)

The Umbrella Group dissolves as a cohesive bloc, leaving the EU isolated in its advocacy for ambitious, efficiency-driven climate policies. The Global Majority coalition gains significant negotiating leverage, successfully shifting the focus of the climate regime towards adaptation, loss and damage, and climate justice (SDG 10). While this addresses key equity concerns, it may occur at the expense of global mitigation efforts, risking the long-term targets of SDG 13.

Scenario 3: Systemic Breakdown of the Paris Agreement (Least Likely)

The U.S. withdrawal triggers a domino effect, with other major economies weakening their commitments due to economic pressures and concerns over unfair burden-sharing. This would lead to the collapse of the Paris framework, representing a catastrophic failure for SDG 13 and SDG 17. The resulting fragmentation of global climate governance would severely impede international cooperation and leave the world highly vulnerable to climate impacts, setting back progress across all SDGs.

Analysis of Sustainable Development Goals in the Article

1. Which SDGs are addressed or connected to the issues highlighted in the article?

1. SDG 13: Climate Action
   • This is the central theme of the article. The entire text revolves around the Paris Agreement, which is the primary international framework for combating climate change. The article discusses mitigation efforts, adaptation, climate finance, and the consequences of a major country withdrawing from its climate commitments.
2. SDG 17: Partnerships for the Goals
   • The article extensively discusses the importance and fragility of international cooperation for climate action. It analyzes the impact of the U.S. withdrawal on global climate governance, negotiating blocs (like the Umbrella Group and G77/China), and the leadership roles of other entities like the EU and China.
3. SDG 16: Peace, Justice and Strong Institutions
   • The article examines the institutional framework of the Paris Agreement and the UNFCCC. It discusses how the U.S. withdrawal affects the credibility, rules, and effectiveness of these global institutions. It also touches upon the principles of justice and equity in climate negotiations, particularly in the context of the “North-South divide.”
4. SDG 7: Affordable and Clean Energy
   • This goal is connected through the discussion of climate finance. The article explicitly mentions that U.S. agencies have historically financed climate projects in developing regions, with a specific focus on “renewable energy.” The withdrawal threatens this funding and, by extension, progress on clean energy access in those regions.
5. SDG 9: Industry, Innovation and Infrastructure
   • The article connects to this SDG by mentioning that U.S.-funded climate projects focus on “infrastructure resilience.” The discussion on flawed climate resilience strategies and the need for better disaster preparedness also relates to building resilient infrastructure.

2. What specific targets under those SDGs can be identified based on the article’s content?

1. Under SDG 13 (Climate Action):
   • Target 13.2: “Integrate climate change measures into national policies, strategies and planning.” The article directly discusses this through the concept of “nationally determined contributions (NDCs),” which are the core of the Paris Agreement. It states that the U.S. withdrawal “terminates obligations for NDCs.”
   • Target 13.a: “Implement the commitment undertaken by developed-country parties to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change to a goal of mobilizing jointly $100 billion annually… to address the needs of developing countries.” The article is replete with references to “climate finance,” the “finance gap” created by the U.S. exit, and the increased pressure on other developed nations to contribute.
   • Target 13.b: “Promote mechanisms for raising capacity for effective climate change-related planning and management in least developed countries and small island developing States.” This is addressed in the discussion of how U.S. withdrawal reduces financial support for developing nations’ efforts in “mitigation and adaptation.”
2. Under SDG 17 (Partnerships for the Goals):
   • Target 17.3: “Mobilize additional financial resources for developing countries from multiple sources.” The article highlights the disruption to this target, noting the U.S. was a “vital source of financial support” and its exit “reduces the overall amount of climate finance resources available to developing countries.”
   • Target 17.7: “Promote the development, transfer, dissemination and diffusion of environmentally sound technologies to developing countries.” This is mentioned as a key demand of the G77/China coalition, which pushes for “technology transfer” as part of climate negotiations.
   • Target 17.16: “Enhance the global partnership for sustainable development, complemented by multi-stakeholder partnerships.” The entire article is an analysis of this target, detailing how the U.S. withdrawal weakens the “universality of the Paris Agreement,” fractures negotiating blocs like the “Umbrella Group,” and undermines “states’ confidence in climate cooperation.”
3. Under SDG 7 (Affordable and Clean Energy):
   • Target 7.a: “By 2030, enhance international cooperation to facilitate access to clean energy research and technology, including renewable energy… and promote investment in energy infrastructure and clean energy technology.” The article directly relates to this by stating that U.S. agencies have “historically financed climate projects in developing regions, focusing on renewable energy.”

3. Are there any indicators mentioned or implied in the article that can be used to measure progress towards the identified targets?

1. Indicator for Target 13.a / 17.3 (Financial Resources):
   • The article provides a specific, quantifiable indicator: “U.S. international climate finance increased to over $11 billion a year in 2024.” This dollar amount serves as a direct measure of financial flows from a developed country to support climate action in developing countries. The absence or reduction of this funding is an indicator of regression.
2. Indicator for Target 13.2 (National Climate Policies):
   • The submission and implementation of “Nationally Determined Contributions (NDCs)” is a key indicator. The article uses a country’s commitment to its NDC as a measure of participation in the Paris Agreement. The U.S. termination of its NDC obligations is a clear negative indicator for this target.
3. Indicator for Target 17.16 (Global Partnerships):
   • The number of countries that are party to the Paris Agreement is an implied indicator of the strength of the global partnership. The article notes that the U.S. exit means it “joins Iran, Libya and Yemen as the only countries not committed to the global accord,” which quantifies the universality (or lack thereof) of the agreement.
4. Indicator for Target 7.a (Investment in Clean Energy):
   • The amount of financing directed towards “renewable energy” projects in developing countries is an implied indicator. While no total figure is given, the article specifies that U.S. agencies like USAID and the Export-Import Bank have historically funded such projects, indicating that tracking these financial flows is a way to measure progress.

4. Table of SDGs, Targets, and Indicators

Source: gisreportsonline.com