elpais.com
U.S. Cities Maintain Climate Action Despite Trump's Withdrawal from Paris Agreement
On January 20, 2025, President Trump's re-election led to the immediate withdrawal of the U.S. from the Paris Agreement, yet numerous U.S. cities reaffirmed their commitment to the accord's objectives, showcasing the crucial role of local climate leadership and highlighting the fact that cities are responsible for 70% of greenhouse gas emissions despite covering only 3% of the Earth's surface.
- What is the immediate impact of the U.S.'s withdrawal from the Paris Agreement under President Trump's leadership, and how significant is this on a global scale?
- On January 20, 2025, President Trump rejoined office and immediately withdrew the U.S. from the Paris Agreement, a decision previously made during his first term. Despite this, many U.S. cities pledged to continue meeting the agreement's goals independently, highlighting the significant role of local governments in climate action. This is particularly crucial as cities, despite occupying only 3% of the Earth's surface, account for roughly 70% of greenhouse gas emissions.
- How do U.S. cities' actions demonstrate a capacity for climate leadership in the absence of federal support, and what factors contribute to their ability to implement effective climate policies?
- The U.S.'s withdrawal from the Paris Agreement under Trump's presidency underscores the growing importance of subnational climate action. Cities, possessing greater regulatory flexibility than state governments, can experiment with and implement innovative climate policies. This is especially significant considering that 68% of the world's population is projected to live in urban areas by 2050, emphasizing the transformative potential of municipal governments in achieving climate goals.
- Considering the projected urban population growth by 2050, what is the long-term significance of local climate action, and what role might private entities play in supporting or supplementing governmental efforts?
- The actions of U.S. cities during Trump's previous and current terms show that subnational entities can effectively mitigate climate change even without federal support. A University of Maryland study suggests that non-federal climate leadership could reduce U.S. greenhouse gas emissions by 54-62% by 2035, compared to 2005 levels. Michael Bloomberg's pledge to maintain U.S. funding for the UN Climate Change Convention further underscores the capacity of private and local actors to compensate for federal inaction, and this shows a possible future where private actors step in for national governments in climate action.
Cognitive Concepts
Framing Bias
The article frames the narrative positively, emphasizing the resilience and effectiveness of local climate action despite federal opposition. The headline (if any) and introductory paragraph likely highlight the success of cities in mitigating climate change, potentially downplaying the overall impact of federal policy changes. The focus on city-level success might overshadow the challenges and limitations faced by these initiatives.
Language Bias
The article uses generally neutral language. While describing Trump's actions, it avoids overtly charged or inflammatory language. Phrases such as "not in terms generally a good news" could be considered slightly subjective but do not show significant bias.
Bias by Omission
The article focuses primarily on the actions of cities and states in response to federal policies, potentially omitting the perspectives of groups or individuals who may disagree with these local efforts. It also doesn't delve into potential economic consequences or challenges faced by cities in implementing climate action policies. The article could benefit from including a broader range of viewpoints and a more in-depth examination of potential drawbacks.
False Dichotomy
The article presents a somewhat simplistic dichotomy between federal and local action, implying that only these two levels of government matter. It overlooks the roles of other actors such as private companies, non-profit organizations, and international collaborations. The article frames the situation as either cities stepping up or federal inaction, which ignores the nuances and complexities of climate action.
Sustainable Development Goals
The article highlights the significant role of US cities in maintaining climate action despite the federal government withdrawing from the Paris Agreement. Cities, responsible for 70% of greenhouse gas emissions globally, demonstrated their ability to implement local policies promoting renewable energy and sustainable practices, even defying federal policies favoring fossil fuels. This subnational climate leadership mitigated the negative impact of federal inaction and contributed to the US rejoining the Paris Agreement. The actions of cities like Pittsburg, and initiatives like "We Are Still In," showcase effective climate action at a local level, significantly reducing emissions. Philanthropic contributions also stepped in to fill the funding gap left by the federal government's withdrawal from the UN Climate Change Convention.