[Transcript]
Robert Frederick:
Ten years ago, the world joined together to adopt the Paris Agreement — an international treaty on climate change at the United Nations Climate Change Conference. Eight years ago, on June 1, 2017, President Trump withdrew the United States from it… the first time.
[music begins]
You’re listening to SustainLab. Whether you’re engaged in sustainability efforts or simply care about the world we’re leaving to future generations, I hope you’ll find ideas, connections, and purpose in SustainLab. I’m Robert Frederick.
[music ends]
The U.S. rejoined the Paris Agreement four years ago. It was one of President Biden’s first acts on his inauguration day, Earlier this year, on President Trump’s second inauguration day, Trump withdrew the U.S. from the Paris Agreement a second time. What is so contentious about the U.S. being in the Paris Agreement?
Sue Biniaz:
When we were developing the Paris agreement, we really thought it would address the issues that Republicans had with previous agreements.
Robert Frederick:
That’s Sue Biniaz. For decades, she was the lead climate lawyer for the U.S. government and served in the state department.
Sue Biniaz:
When the Senate adopted its resolution 95 to 0 in the middle of the Kyoto Protocol negotiations…
Robert Frederick:
…in 1997, known as the Byrd-Hagel resolution…
Sue Biniaz:
… they basically said don’t an agreement that will either harm the U.S. economy or that contains binding targets for the United States if it doesn’t also include such targets for developing countries. Didn’t have to be the same ones. But they had to be in the same time period. Well, we really took that to heart. I worked for all the different administrations. And I know that every one, including the democratic ones, kind of took those principles to heart.
Robert Frederick:
And simply, that’s how the Paris Agreement works. The agreement itself is a 25-page document. But a very short video from the United Nations Framework Convention for Climate Change gives the fundamentals.
UNFCC video excerpt:
The Paris agreement works on a five-year cycle of increasingly ambitious action. By 2020, countries communicate their plans, known as "nationally determined contributions.” Countries communicate actions they will take to reduce the greenhouse gas emissions in order to reach the goals of the Paris Agreement. Countries also communicate actions they will take to build resilience to adapt to the impacts of rising temperatures. This may include information on adaptation and finance flows. The Paris Agreement also provides a framework for financial, technical, and capacity-building support to those countries who need it. Starting in 2024, countries report transparently on actions taken. Collective progress under the Paris Agreement will be assessed through a global stocktake. This will lead to recommendations for countries to set more ambitious plans in the next round.
Robert Frederick:
And ten years ago, the world joined together to adopt the Paris Agreement.
Sue Biniaz:
First of all, everybody was in…
Robert Frederick:
Again Sue Biniaz.
Sue Biniaz:
Everybody would design their own target. And that meant, not only that, like, the Obama administration could put in its target, but it meant that if a future Republican administration came along — and we didn’t know it would be so soon — they could change the target. We specifically said a party can change the target, kind of mid-stream. So we really thought we, in good faith, had developed something that would work for the ages.
Robert Frederick:
But, obviously, it didn’t work for the Trump Administration. Now twice.
George David Banks:
I was essentially hired to help keep the United States in the Paris Agreement and to help convince the President to stay.
Robert Frederick:
George David Banks was special assistant to President Trump starting just after his inauguration in February, 2017.
George David Banks:
And one of my first steps was I brought in all this industry that would have been, sort of, regulated in order to meet — you know what I mean — that would have faced compliance issues when it came to reaching or meeting the U.S. NDC.
Robert Frederick:
NDC is…
UNFCC video excerpt:
…known as “nationally defined contribution”…
George David Banks:
And none of them understood the Paris agreement. None of them did. And so that was kind of the landscape that we had. And so it was very, very hard to kind of unwind that, and to walk into a meeting in the White House and say ‘You know, you guys have it all wrong. This isn’t correct.’ They just, they didn’t understand it.
Robert Frederick:
Banks said he tried.
George David Banks:
We had a lively debate on the Paris Agreement in the first months of 2017. And he went back in forth of whether to stay or whether to leave. At the end, he didn’t know how to communicate that to his base.
Robert Frederick:
So, on June 1st, 2017. Trump withdrew the U.S. from the Paris Agreement in a speech at the Rose Garden.
Donald Trump (speech excerpt):
Thus as of today, the United States will cease all implementation of the non-binding Paris Accord and the draconian financial and economic burdens the agreement imposes on our country.
Sue Biniaz:
When President Trump did made that Rose Garden announcement, he did not give an explanation that made sense.
Robert Frederick:
Again Sue Biniaz.
Sue Biniaz:
It sounded like he was talking about the Kyoto Protocol when he criticized the Paris Agreement. So I am at a point where I don’t think there is any form of international agreement that would satisfy the Paris Agreement critics because what else could you possibly do? It was all there.
Robert Frederick:
But to Banks, more was needed to — shall we say — clarify the misunderstanding.
George David Banks:
Where I sat there was no real, sort of, engagement of Republicans on the Hill. I didn’t see people going up to the Hill to Jim Inhofe and Mitch McConnell — people who all voted for the Byrd-Hagel amendment — and saying ‘Look, guess what? We heard you. We admit Kyoto was wrong. We’re following your instructions and here’s what we have.’ I didn’t see any of that, right? Instead what I saw was, you know, ‘Paris agreement is the best thing since sliced bread. It’s going to stop sea level rise. It’s the answer to climate change.’
Robert Frederick:
And so — even though it was a non-binding agreement —
Donald Trump (speech excerpt):
…of the non-binding Paris Accord…
Robert Frederick:
Banks says when the United States announced its nationally defined contribution, NDC, alongside China — that was a mistake, domestically. It might have helped get the Paris Agreement across the finish line internationally, Banks says, but it was a mistake domestically.
George David Banks:
You make up your own target, right? You’re not negotiating with anyone. But then the U.S. made a decision — and I know, I get why they did it — you know, a decision to announce their NDCs with China. So when they announced them with China, what happened was the people on the Hill, the Republicans on the Hill and downtown D.C. looked at it and was like ‘Oh, they negotiated the NDC with China, and look how bad our NDC is compared to the deal that China got.’
Donald Trump (speech excerpt):
For example, under the agreement, China…
Robert Frederick:
Again, President Trump in his Rose Garden speech on June 1, 2017.
Donald Trump (speech excerpt):
…will be able to increase these emissions by a staggering number of years, thirteen. They can do whatever they want for thirteen years. Not us. India makes its participation contingent on receiving billions and billions and billions of dollars in foreign aid from developed countries. There are many other examples. But the bottom line is that the Paris Accord is very unfair at the highest level to the United States.
George David Banks:
It’s one of these things where, you know, sometimes reality doesn’t matter.
Robert Frederick:
Again, George David Banks, who was special assistant to President Trump until March, 2018.
George David Banks:
Right? It’s just the perceived facts that matter. And Republicans were convinced that this was, you know, the Paris Agreement undermined U.S. interests, circumvented the Senate, didn’t understand it….
Robert Frederick:
Banks and Biniaz were speaking on a panel I attended earlier this month at the Institute for Climate and Sustainable Growth. The institute, founded last fall, 2024, is at the University of Chicago. Michael Greenstone, an economist there, is the founding director of the institute.
Michael Greenstone:
The U.S. has historically played an important role in climate conversations over the past few decades, building consensus and designing many of the key mechanisms of global climate agreements. I would say probably the U.S.’s role going forward is a little less clear than it was. And so that raises a whole series of fascinating questions: why the change, what kind of void does this create, will any one country or group of countries try to step in to the role that the U.S. had previously held, how does this affect the U.S.’s role more broadly not just in climate space? And, I think, regardless of the role the U.S. plays, the climate is still changing, its impacts are felt more and more every year… and it influences people’s lives and people’s well-being.
Robert Frederick:
Also on the panel, Hina Rabbani Khar, Pakistan’s former Foreign Minister.
Hina Rabbani Khar:
As somebody who comes from the developing world, I cannot tell you, and I cannot name another multilateral agreement which has been as effective in going down to the root and to the bottom of every developing country’s agenda. It’s been completely internalized. It’s part of your development agenda. It’s part of your environmental agenda. It’s there.
Robert Frederick:
So for the U.S. to walk away from the Paris Agreement — now a second time — Hina Rabbani Khar says, makes the U.S. less powerful because the U.S. is both less predictable and less credible.
Hina Rabbani Khar:
We live in the same world, but we almost deny the fact that we have a common good called the atmosphere that we all share.
Robert Frederick:
Instead of a second Rose Garden speech withdrawing the U.S. from the Paris Agreement, President Trump signed an executive order on his inauguration day, 2025, saying the deal is not good enough, and “not… in the interests of the American people.”
Hina Rabbani Khar:
So it’s really, to me, it’s almost like being a denier of the reality that is staring us in the face. We can either save everyone, or no will be saved. And I keep on repeating this, this is a reality check that needs to be taken in, it’s already there…. And your GDP per capita is not going to save you. Your high-rises are not going to save you. It’s not a matter of if, it’s a matter of when.
Robert Frederick:
There is some good news, though, says Sue Biniaz: the U.S. is not defined by the federal government,
Sue Biniaz:
It was really important during Trump one and it’s even more important now that 25 of our 50 states are part of an alliance that is committed to Paris… And I think that’s important to our diplomacy — to show that the U.S. is not a monolith where the federal government’s withdrawal from the agreement means the entire United States is not participating.
Robert Frederick:
And George David Banks adds there also may be a way forward that involves a new art of the deal with trade.
George David Banks:
So the Trump trade team is very interested in sort of exploring this concept of pursuing action against countries that use lax environmental standards, enforcement, and compliance to create an artificial advantage in trade. Lots of interest. Secretary Lutnick, Bessent, Jamieson Greer — they’re all very interested in this… and does that result in a potential, sort of, carbon-related trade policy. I think that if they were here right now they would say ‘Oh you know we're talking about the environment.’ But I think that there will be interest. And if they pursue the policy — they're so busy now with fifty-thousand things related to trade that they may not get to it — but there's no question that they have an interest in exploring this and that and, in my opinion, President Trump would support something like that. There's a potential though for it to lay the foundation for cooperation.
Robert Frederick:
Laying out that foundation for cooperation, or at least hinting at it, U.S. Senator Kevin Cramer — Republican from North Dakota — recently published an opinion article in Real Clear Energy, titled, “If Countries Want Access to Our Markets, They Must Abide By Our Standards.”
Senator Cramer writes, “Paired with effective trade measures that hold overseas polluters accountable, we can monetize the superior environmental performance of our workers and industry and protect public health. At the same time, we can create a durable and transparent trade agenda that not only encourages domestic investment in manufacturing but also cleans up the global environment.”
So maybe, just maybe that will be the new art needed for the climate change deal.
[music starts]
You’ve been listening to SustainLab. Thanks to the University of Chicago’s Institute for Climate and Sustainable Growth for hosting the panel, moderated by Amy Harder. Find links to the articles mentioned in this podcast and a link to the full video of the panel discussion at SustainLab. Substack.com. I’m Robert Frederick. If you liked this podcast, please subscribe to SustainLab at Sustainlab.Substack.com. Thanks for listening.
The music is Acetaldehyd by Julian Winter (licensed under CC BY-NC-ND 4.0)
[music ends]
Share this post