Editor's note: Yasiru Ranaraja, a special commentator on current affairs for CGTN, is a researcher on maritime affairs and an expert on Belt and Road Initiative development. He is also the founding director of the Belt and Road Initiative Sri Lanka, an international development organization and think tank in Sri Lanka. The article reflects the author's views and not necessarily those of CGTN.

In January 2025, U.S. President Donald Trump signed an executive order to pull the United States out of the Paris Agreement again, with the exit set to take effect on January 27, 2026. This is the second time the U.S. has withdrawn from the agreement, signaling the deep political divide in the United States over climate change.

As U.S. Democrats generally support climate science and international cooperation on this front, while U.S. Republicans, especially under Trump, have prioritized domestic economic interests and ideological skepticism, framing climate agreements as a threat to national sovereignty and an economic mismatch. 

Globally, among scientists, academics and governments, the impacts of anthropogenic climate change are no longer a matter of debate, but rather a common concern of humanity. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) reports that global temperatures have risen by approximately 1.1°C since pre-industrial times, largely due to human activity, and warns that the 1.5°C threshold under the Paris Agreement could be breached in the early 2030s. This would raise the risk of extreme weather, food insecurity and irreversible ecological damage, as predicted in IPCC reports. Moreover, atmospheric carbon dioxide levels exceeded 420 parts per million in 2024, the highest in millions of years, while global greenhouse gas emissions surpass 57 gigatons of carbon dioxide equivalent annually. 

Additionally, the economic risks of climate change are substantial. The Global Commission on Adaptation estimates that, by 2030, climate disasters could cost $2 trillion a year if no mitigation measures are taken. Yet investing $1.8 trillion globally from 2020 to 2030 in five identified areas of climate adaptation could yield $7.1 trillion in net benefits. Meanwhile, the World Economic Forum's 2024–2025 Global Risks Perception Survey identified the top four risks over the next 10 years as being related to climate change and environmental damage. 

These findings are supported by virtually all climate scientists, academic studies and globally recognized institutions. The United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) member parties and IPCC studies have emphasized the urgency of coordinated global action.

Nonetheless, the U.S. withdrawal is not a case of science denial, but rather a combination of economic nationalism, ideological skepticism and strategic isolationism. Trump's "America First" slogan frames international climate agreements as burdens to domestic growth, potentially disadvantaging U.S. workers in fossil fuel industries – a stance he campaigned on extensively during the U.S. elections. His executive order mentions rejecting "globalist agendas" and reaffirms a broader retreat from multilateral institutions, including 66 international organizations such as the UNFCCC.

Yet evidence shows that the renewable energy transition represents a significant economic opportunity. By 2024, over 3 million Americans were employed in the clean energy sector, surpassing employment in the fossil fuel industry, while investment in green technologies continues to grow. This not only reveals a disregard for scientific and statistical evidence, but also a disconnect between political rhetoric and economic reality.

Globally, the U.S. is not only one of the largest current carbon dioxide emitters, but also the largest cumulative emitter of carbon dioxide since 1850, responsible for roughly 25 percent of total emissions over this period. This makes its withdrawal particularly consequential, as the choices of the U.S. carry substantial weight in meeting global climate targets. 

The Paris Agreement, adopted in 2015, aims to limit global warming to well below 2 degrees Celsius above pre-industrial levels and supports multiple UN Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), including SDG 7 (Affordable and Clean Energy) and SDG 13 (Climate Action). U.S. disengagement weakens these frameworks, suspends new voluntary contributions for initiatives like the Green Climate Fund, and undermines the confidence of developing nations that rely on international cooperation. Notably, developing nations are actively pursuing climate solutions, demonstrating that global climate leadership is increasingly multipolar.

However, climate leadership is no longer the exclusive domain of the traditional Western powers. Currently, China accounts for nearly half of global renewable energy capacity additions, with massive investments in solar, wind and battery technologies, and is expanding green infrastructure through the Belt and Road Initiative. India has increased non-fossil fuel power to over 40 percent of its electricity capacity and targets 500 gigawatts of renewable energy capacity by 2030, aligning climate action with economic development.

Indonesia, though still reliant on coal, has committed to net-zero emissions by 2060 and submitted a long-term low-emissions development strategy in accordance with UNFCCC guidelines. Following the conclusion of the 30th United Nations climate change conference, commonly known as COP30, in Belem, Brazil, the latest UNFCCC data shows that around 122 countries have submitted updated Nationally Determined Contributions under the 2025 cycle, collectively accounting for roughly 74 percent of global greenhouse gas emissions. Despite this progress, collective efforts still fall short of the emissions reductions needed to align with the Paris Agreement's 1.5 degrees Celsius goal. These examples underscore that climate leadership is no longer the sole preserve of historically developed nations.

Although climate policy in the U.S. has increasingly become a partisan identity marker, with positions on climate change closely aligned with political party affiliation, even when the federal government steps back, states like California and New York, and cities like Los Angeles and New York City, continue to push forward with their own climate goals.

Some other states have maintained ambitious emissions reduction programs and formed coalitions like the U.S. Climate Alliance, creating a patchwork of subnational leadership that partially offsets federal inaction. Major corporations, including Apple, Google and Microsoft, are pursuing carbon neutrality and investing in clean energy to meet both regulatory requirements and investor demands. Yet the inconsistency of U.S. federal policy makes it harder for businesses and investors to predict, plan and move forward with confidence.

The global implications of this second withdrawal are profound. It undermines trust in international institutions, diminishes U.S. global leadership and leaves vulnerable nations – including small island states facing sea-level rise – more exposed to climate risks. Simultaneously, China and the European Union may expand their influence through green initiatives and climate diplomacy, accelerating the shift toward a multipolar global order in climate governance. Ironically, this U.S. retreat may inadvertently strengthen global climate action, as emerging powers assert their climate leadership.

Ultimately, greenhouse gas emissions are a tragedy of the commons. They are not confined by national borders. Tackling climate change is a collective endeavor, as no country can insulate itself from rising sea levels, extreme heatwaves, or climate-related economic fallout.

The U.S.'s second withdrawal from the Paris Agreement illustrates the prioritization of short-term political posturing over long-term global responsibility. Ethical global leadership requires embracing multilateral cooperation and recognizing that planetary survival and economic opportunity are inextricably linked. The world cannot afford repeated retreats at this critical juncture for addressing climate change, a common concern of humanity.

(If you want to contribute and have specific expertise, please contact us at opinions@cgtn.com. Follow @thouse_opinions on X, formerly Twitter, to discover the latest commentaries in the CGTN Opinion Section.)