Global climate action, minus the US

‘The United States’ (US’) abstention from the 30th Conference of the Parties (COP 30) was only a followup to its withdrawal from the Paris Agreement. A few months ago, the US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) decided to undertake a formal review of its “endangerment findings,” thereby even questioning the scientific basis of climate change. The EPA action has serious implications for the US government-supported research programmes and will have an adverse impact on the development of corresponding action plans.

- RAJEEV KHER & ANSHUMAN GUPTA

Among the major contributors to greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions, the European Union (EU) adopted the “Green Deal” and the “Fit for $s” package in 2019 and 2021, respectively. It plans to reduce its emissions by 55 per cent by 2030 to meet its Paris commitments, eventually achieving net-zero emissions by 2050. However, Donald Trump’s second term in the White House has put the EU’s plans under severe strain.

According to the “new deal” forced upon it, the EU must take charge of its security, ensure better political integration in the face of new challenges within, and build strong economic and strategic relationships outside to ensure its own sustainability. The severance from cheap Russian gas and oil has already burdened it with seeking costlier energy resources from elsewhere while it transitions to greater use of renewable resources.

The US’ demand that North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) members increase their defence budgets to 3 per cent of their gross domestic product (GDP) will make the EU’s task of meeting its climate targets tougher. Increasing its defence expenditure from 1.9 per cent (2024) to 3 percent of GDP would put a significant burden on the EU members’ budgets.