“Green energy is not yet a substitute for fossil fuels – it`s just expanding it,” says Timothy Lenton, a climatologist at the University of Exeter in the UK. “I don`t think anyone will follow Mr Trump from Paris,” said Peter Betts, a former negotiator for Britain and the EU in global climate negotiations and now an associate fellow at Chatham House. Following Trump`s announcement, ExxonMobil, Chevron, Shell and General Motors reaffirmed their support for the Paris agreement and measures to combat climate change.  Although it has been a long time, there is still a sense of disappointment for many Americans who believe that climate change is the greatest global challenge and that the United States should oppose it. There is a lot of misinformation about the Paris agreement, including the idea that it will hurt the U.S. economy. It was a series of unsubstantiated assertions that Trump repeated in his rose garden speech in 2017, arguing that the deal would cost the U.S. economy $3 trillion in jobs by 2040 and $2.7 million by 2025, making us less competitive with China and India. But, as the auditors pointed out, these statistics come from a March 2017 unmasked study that exaggerated the future cost of reducing emissions, underestimated advances in energy efficiency and clean energy technologies, and was completely unaware of the enormous health and economic costs of climate change itself. Many of the major auto companies and airlines had already invested billions in emissions reductions and are unlikely to change course.
General Motors, the largest automaker in the United States, immediately stated, “Our position on climate change has not changed… We are publicly committed to climate protection,” reaffirming our support for various climate commitments. Analyst Rebecca Lindland also pointed out that automakers did not have any specific restrictions under the agreement and that nothing had changed. Even if Trump relaxed other restrictions on the auto industry, allowing the production of less polluting cars, these cars still had to meet the standards before being exported to other continents, or even some states. Jason Bordoff, an energy policy expert at Columbia University, agreed that a withdrawal would make no difference to the economy and argued that it would be determined by market conditions such as oil prices and gas prices. At the same time, airlines have spent billions to find more fuel-efficient flight options – fuel is a company`s second-biggest effort after work, and therefore using less fuel (meaning less emissions) is in their financial interest.  Kabir Nanda and Varad Pande, senior consultant and partner at Dahlberg, argued that despite the U.S. withdrawal, the U.S. private sector continues to engage in renewable energy and technology. It is also remarkable that solar energy has become cheaper than coal in more and more countries.  WASHINGTON – Goodbye, Paris Agreement.
Since Wednesday, the United States has officially withdrawn from the global climate agreement, in accordance with United Nations rules. Here`s a look at how it happened, what it means and what might happen next. In 1992, President George H.W. Bush joined 107 other heads of state at the Rio Earth Summit in Brazil to adopt a series of environmental agreements, including the UNFCCC framework, which is still in force today. The international treaty aims to prevent dangerous human intervention in the planet`s climate systems in the long term. The pact does not set limits on greenhouse gas emissions from individual countries and does not contain enforcement mechanisms, but establishes a framework for international negotiations on future agreements or protocols to set binding emissions targets.