President Trump is pulling us out of the Paris climate agreement. In March 2001, shortly after taking office, President George W. Bush announced that the United States would not implement the 1997 Kyoto Protocol. The protocol — an agreement negotiated by former Vice President Al Gore and signed by former President Bill Clinton, which was later ratified by 140 countries — was aimed at containing greenhouse gas emissions and combating global warming. The Kyoto Protocol provided that 37 industrialized countries and the EU would reduce their greenhouse gas emissions. Developing countries were invited to voluntarily commit and more than 100 developing countries, including China and India, were totally excluded from the Kyoto agreement. Taking part in an election campaign promise, Trump – a climate denier who has claimed that climate change is a “hoax” perpetrated by China, announced in June 2017 his intention to withdraw the United States from the Paris Agreement. But despite the rose garden president`s statement that “we`re going out,” it`s not that simple. The withdrawal procedure requires that the agreement be in effect for three years before a country can formally announce its intention to withdraw. She`ll have to wait a year before she leaves the pact. This means that the United States could formally withdraw on November 4, 2020, the day after the presidential elections. Even a formal withdrawal would not necessarily be permanent, experts say. a future president could join us in a month.
The protocol left unresolved several issues that could be resolved later by the sixth UNFCCC Cop6 conference, which attempted to resolve these issues at its meeting in The Hague at the end of 2000, but it was unable to reach an agreement, given that the European Union (which advocates stricter implementation) and the United States , Canada, Japan and Australia (who wanted the agreement to be less demanding and more flexible) was unable to reach an agreement. However, another key objective of the protocol, which should not be overlooked, is to provide industrialized countries with the means to demonstrate their “leadership” needed to convince developing countries to participate in environmental efforts. This “political” objective is different from what has been discussed so far, in that it is not easy to quantify the conditions under which it would be achieved, as it is largely a matter of perception (political). While it seems plausible to say that a failure to enter into force the protocol would be sufficient to fail to achieve this political objective, and a failure of Liechtenstein`s ratification alone would not do so, it is not at all clear what the consequences of a failure of ratification by the United States (considered by many developing countries as the main culprit) would be. However, if the United States were the only (large) Schedule I country that did not ratify the protocol, developing countries could simply decide to join a successor agreement (if only to describe the United States as an “environmental pariah”). The Berlin mandate was recognized in the Kyoto Protocol, as developing countries were not subject to emission reduction commitments during the first Kyoto commitment period.  However, the great potential for emissions growth in developing countries has strained negotiations on this issue.  In the final agreement, the Clean Development Mechanism was developed to limit emissions in developing countries, but so that developing countries do not bear the costs of reducing emissions.  The general assumption was that developing countries would be subject to quantitative obligations in subsequent commitment periods and that, at the same time, developed countries would meet their first-round obligations.
 — Donald Trump`s withdrawal from the Paris climate accord this afternoon was not the first time a U.S. president has overturned a global climate agreement.