According to data from the Climate Action Tracker, by the end of February this year, only 18 countries that signed the Paris Agreement had updated their plans to meet climate goals through 2035. While the global fight against rising CO₂ emissions is not progressing as rapidly as needed, the Paris Agreement itself remains a historic achievement that is expected to yield long-term benefits. Kamil Wyszkowski of the UN Global Compact Network Poland (UN GCNP) believes that even the withdrawal of the United States from the accord should not undermine its value.
“This year, all countries are expected to present updated plans for achieving their climate goals by 2035. The UN system monitors how ambitious and credible these plans are. One of our tools is the annual Emissions Gap Report, published ahead of each climate summit to assess the gap between political declarations and real-world action, including the emissions cost of planned investments,”
says Wyszkowski.
“The goal remains clear: to limit global temperature rise to 1.5°C above pre-industrial levels, in line with the Paris Agreement.”
He points out that wealthier, developed countries—responsible for around 86% of global greenhouse gas emissions—can finance their own green transitions. In contrast, poorer nations, accounting for just 14% of emissions, need financial support. That’s why mechanisms like the Loss and Damage Fund were established, first introduced at COP27 in Egypt and funded during subsequent climate summits in Dubai and Baku. The fund is expected to provide around $300 billion annually to help the Global South implement necessary changes.
“The Paris Agreement is a major success simply because it exists. All countries acknowledged climate change as a real threat that must be addressed. Every nation agreed to the deal, and it established specific international commitments—including ending deforestation, cutting methane emissions, and creating marine reserves,”
adds Wyszkowski.
“Another key component is sustainable green finance. Capital markets, development banks, and commercial banks are increasingly directing money toward transforming the global economy into a zero-emissions model—and it’s already happening.”
Adopted in 2015 by 196 countries, the Paris Agreement set ambitious goals to limit global warming and spurred international cooperation on climate. The European Union is among its most active proponents, pledging to reduce emissions by at least 55% by 2030 and to reach climate neutrality by 2050.
Despite this, global greenhouse gas emissions continue to rise. The most recent UNEP Emissions Gap Report shows that global emissions in 2023 reached a record 57.1 gigatons of CO₂ equivalent, a 1.3% increase year-over-year. Without stricter climate policies, global temperatures could rise by up to 3.1°C by the end of this century—far beyond the Paris targets. To stay within the 1.5°C limit, emissions must fall by 42% by 2030 compared to 2019 levels. A 2°C scenario requires a 28% reduction. From 2024 to 2035, this would mean annual emission reductions of 7.5% for the 1.5°C path and 4% for the 2°C scenario.
Ahead of COP30 in Brazil, countries are expected to submit updated climate action plans. As of February, only 18 had done so. The United States is not among them. In January 2025, immediately after taking office, President Donald Trump signed an executive order withdrawing the U.S. from the Paris Agreement—repeating the move from his previous term. As a result, the U.S., one of the world’s top CO₂ emitters, now joins nations like Iran, Libya, and Yemen, which are not party to the agreement.
“Trump’s withdrawal doesn’t change much. He did the same in 2016, and no other leader followed his example—not Bolsonaro, not Putin. No one saw value in such a move,”
Wyszkowski observes.
He notes that while U.S. political shifts influence global climate policy, the previous U.S. withdrawal did not derail international efforts. In 2017, numerous U.S. states and cities continued their climate initiatives independently of federal policy. A similar dynamic may emerge again—governors of New York and New Mexico have already reaffirmed their climate commitments.
“When Trump tweeted in 2016 that he was elected to represent Pittsburgh, not Paris, the city’s mayor responded that the message didn’t apply to all its residents and declared: ‘We stay.’ The hashtag #WeStay was then picked up by dozens of states and cities, starting with California. It was almost like a ‘climate civil war,’ and society won. Most populous states remained in the Paris regime. Trump’s exit was reversed by Biden, and if Trump serves another term, it’s likely his successor will rejoin the agreement once more,”
predicts Wyszkowski.
Trump’s decision to leave the Paris Agreement aligns with his campaign rhetoric promoting fossil fuels and deregulation. His administration argues the agreement unfairly restricts U.S. economic growth. Recently, Trump signed an executive order boosting support for the coal sector. However, market forces—such as the rise of cheap natural gas and renewables—are working against coal’s revival. Despite Trump’s stance, America’s energy transition continues, and green technologies now form a major pillar of the U.S. economy, generating billions in revenue. This makes it increasingly difficult for any administration to ignore the sector’s importance.
“In 2016, coal accounted for 32% of U.S. energy generation. Today, it’s less than 15%—a drop of more than half. Wind energy, once at 5%, has risen to over 12%. These shifts affect how American businesses operate and how competitive they are by relying on cleaner energy. It also matters to President Trump and his administration, who can’t simply disregard the long list of American companies thriving on green technologies,”
Wyszkowski concludes.
