By: Nidhi Sharma

So he hasn’t made up his mind. Not yet. US President Donald Trump has left the world guessing whether he would really back out of the commitments made by Barack Obama in the 2015 Paris Agreement to reduce carbon emissions and to tackle global warming.

Could it be a complete withdrawal from Paris that would mean the US not participating in the annual meetings the treaty requires? Or could it be withdrawal from the overarching UN Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC), adopted by President George H W Bush in 1992? Or could the US simply ignore the nationally determined contributions (NDCs) spelt out in Paris?

As the ‘will he-won’t he?’ pendulum swings, Trump’s continued ambivalence has shifted the focus towards China and India. So far, the two countries have been painted as the biggest culprits unwilling to change their errant coal-friendly ways to help the world achieve emission targets. But the latest data emerging out of China and India — No. 1and No. 3 producers of greenhouse gases — show that both countries will easily exceed the targets set in Paris agreement.

India is expected to obtain 40% of its electricity from non-fossil fuel sources by 2022 — eight years ahead of schedule. China has reduced coal use for three years in a row and recently scrapped plans to build more than 100 coal power plants. Electric vehicle sales went up by 70% in China last year. The enthusiasm of the Asian giants has helped in globally driving down the prices of renewables.

Climate-change experts and world leaders are finding succour in a recently unveiled study by Climate Action Tracker (goo.gl/pnvdkm), which shows that China and India could fill the vacuum created by a proposed rollback of US climate policies. The study says that adverse rollbacks by Washington would flatten US emissions instead of continuing on a downward trend. However, how far zealousness on the part of India and China can fill the vacuum created by Trump’s policies is really a number game that climate scientists are unwilling to call.

This wouldn’t be the first time the US would back out of an international pact on climate change. In 2001, the newly elected George W Bush administration announced that it would not abide by the Kyoto Protocol.

The Kyoto Protocol, a shorter and less detailed agreement than Paris covering developed countries, was meant to tackle global warming by implementing a cap-and-trade deal. Bush had refused to sign the agreement as it did not include India and China. However, for Trump, the situation is different as both the countries are signatories and look far more committed than US in the present scheme of things.

Internationally, this could mean the US losing the high moral ground on climate change. Any guesses who could win this? If the tone and tenor of the recently concluded Petersberg Climate Dialogue in Berlin is anything to go by, it would be China. German Chancellor Angela Merkel started an annual informal ministerial forum after the failure to secure a global climate agreement in Copenhagen in 2009. This saw China taking centre stage.

China’s special envoy Xie Zhenhua and German minister for environment, nature conservation and nuclear safety Barbara Hendricks underlined the fact that one country could not derail the process that was unveiled in Paris. Hendricks, and later Merkel, even emphasised the important role China played in climate-change dialogues.

For the US, it could well mean loss of jobs, the very argument Trump has been taking on his campaign trail to justify his possible withdrawal from Paris. The US economy could suffer if it does not pursue the growth potential of investing in low-carbon technology and the jobs it can bring. What may be the US’ loss could diplomatically be China’s gain, as arollback could seriously dent America’s stature in world politics. This was evident in Merkel’s exasperation at the G7 summit in Sicily when she said that Europe should pay more attention to its own interests.

The bigger fear has been about the possible domino effect a US withdrawal could have. However, world leaders, first in Berlin and later in Sicily, made a strong case against other countries following suit. Simply put: it is uncool to go back on your word on an impending global crisis.

The overall messaging is clear: Trump or no Trump, the world is not ready to take a step back on the climate change path.