Skip navigation
Skip navigation

US-proofing the Paris Climate Agreement

Kemp, Luke

Description

What can be done if a future US President withdraws from the Paris Climate Agreement? This is a critical question for an agreement which relies on universal participation for legitimacy. The US can and likely will ratify the Paris Agreement via a presidential-executive agreement. However, this could be easily reversed by a future President or an antagonistic Congress. A non-party US operating outside of the Paris climate architecture is a real threat, especially given Republican opposition to...[Show more]

dc.contributor.authorKemp, Luke
dc.date.accessioned2021-10-12T02:47:28Z
dc.identifier.issn1469-3062
dc.identifier.urihttp://hdl.handle.net/1885/250661
dc.description.abstractWhat can be done if a future US President withdraws from the Paris Climate Agreement? This is a critical question for an agreement which relies on universal participation for legitimacy. The US can and likely will ratify the Paris Agreement via a presidential-executive agreement. However, this could be easily reversed by a future President or an antagonistic Congress. A non-party US operating outside of the Paris climate architecture is a real threat, especially given Republican opposition to international climate policy. This article explores both what tools are available for addressing a non-party US in any climate agreement and what the Paris Agreement in particular can do. The Paris Agreement is extremely vulnerable to the withdrawal of the US, or any other major party. It possesses no non-party measures, although it can be amended to help avoid this Achilles heel. Through amendments to Article 6 a market link between subnational states in a renegade US and international carbon markets could be created. Ideally, a more semi-global approach with punitive carbon border tax adjustments could be taken to help US-proof an alternative climate agreement. The Paris Agreement will be fatally susceptible to a US dropout unless amendments to the treaty are made. Relying on the good will of a single president is short-sighted. Longer-term climate governance needs to take seriously the threat of non-parties, particularly if they are superpowers
dc.format.mimetypeapplication/pdf
dc.language.isoen_AU
dc.publisherElsevier
dc.rights© 2016 Informa UK Limited, trading as Taylor & Francis Group
dc.sourceClimate Policy
dc.subjectclimate policy frameworks
dc.subjectclimate regime
dc.subjectmulti-level governance
dc.subjectpost-2012 architecture
dc.subjectUNFCCC
dc.subjectUnited States
dc.titleUS-proofing the Paris Climate Agreement
dc.typeJournal article
local.description.notesImported from ARIES
local.identifier.citationvolume17
dc.date.issued2017
local.identifier.absfor160600 - POLITICAL SCIENCE
local.identifier.ariespublicationU3488905xPUB19135
local.publisher.urlhttp://www.tandf.co.uk/journals/default.asp
local.type.statusPublished Version
local.contributor.affiliationKemp, Luke, College of Science, ANU
local.description.embargo2099-12-31
local.bibliographicCitation.issue1
local.bibliographicCitation.startpage86
local.bibliographicCitation.lastpage101
local.identifier.doi10.1080/14693062.2016.1176007
local.identifier.absseo960000 - ENVIRONMENT
dc.date.updated2020-11-23T11:26:07Z
local.identifier.scopusID2-s2.0-84969180629
local.identifier.thomsonID000387996200008
CollectionsANU Research Publications

Download

File Description SizeFormat Image
02_Kemp_US-proofing_the_Paris_Climate_2017.pdf316.38 kBAdobe PDF    Request a copy


Items in Open Research are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved, unless otherwise indicated.

Updated:  17 November 2022/ Responsible Officer:  University Librarian/ Page Contact:  Library Systems & Web Coordinator