Remain in Paris Climate Agreement — HR 9, Climate Action Now Act

SUMMARY: This bill effectively blocks the United States from withdrawing from the Paris Agreement on climate change (formally known as the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change's 21st Conference of Parties in Paris) by prohibiting the use of federal funds to withdraw, and it requires the president to develop a plan for the United States to achieve by 2025 the 26-to-28% reduction in greenhouse gas emissions below 2005 levels as has been proposed by the U.S. under the Paris accord.

    Under the measure, that presidential plan to achieve emissions reductions must be submitted to Congress and be made public, and it must be updated annually. The plan must also describe how the United States will use the Paris agreement's transparency provisions to confirm that other major nations are fulfilling their obligations to address greenhouse gas emissions.

    The measure, however, does not require that the president's plan to reduce emissions be implemented.

BACKGROUND: The Foreign Affairs Committee reported the bill with dissenting views by a 24-16 vote, and the Energy and Commerce Committee reported it with dissenting views by a 29-19 vote (H Rept 116-41, Parts 1 & 2).

    While the Earth's climate over its history has changed, scientists have generally been in agreement that human activity is now having a major impact. The Congressional Research Service notes government reports stating there is strong scientific agreement that human activities are responsible for most of the climate change observed since the 1950s — particularly from the emissions of carbon dioxide (CO2) from burning fossil fuels (coal, oil and gas).

    Continued emissions and accumulations in the atmosphere of CO2 and other "greenhouse gases" (GHG) are projected to induce further climate change and pose significant risks for many human and natural systems. Impacts of a warming planet include a rise in sea level and more frequent coastal flooding, more severe weather events including droughts, and the loss of crops. The United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) in its most recent report says the impact of a 1.5 degrees Celsius increase in global temperatures will "disproportionately affect disadvantaged and vulnerable populations through food insecurity, higher food prices, income losses, lost livelihood opportunities, adverse health impacts, and population displacements."

    Recent U.S. climate assessments, released by various federal departments and agencies, have concluded that "the impacts of global climate change are already being felt in the United States and are projected to intensify in the future — but the severity of future impacts will depend largely on actions taken to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and to adapt to the changes that will occur."

    A large majority of scientists and governments say that stabilizing the concentrations of GHG in the atmosphere and avoiding further GHG-induced climate change would require concerted effort by all major emitting countries. Currently, the United States is the second largest emitter of GHG globally after China.

International Efforts & Paris Agreement

    In recognition of the dangers of increases in greenhouse gases, in 1992 the international community adopted the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC), establishing a general objective to "stabilize greenhouse gas concentrations in the atmosphere at a level that would prevent dangerous anthropogenic interference with the climate system." Formally adopted by the necessary signatories in 1994, the agreement set non-binding limits on greenhouse gas emissions for individual countries and contained no enforcement mechanisms. The United States is a signatory to the treaty, and it was ratified by the Senate in 1992.

    In 1997 the international community negotiated the Kyoto Protocol as a subsidiary agreement to the UNFCCC, establishing legally binding targets for GHG reductions for 37 high-income nations and the European Union. However, it exempted "developing" nations — including China and India — from having to address GHG emissions. While the U.S. signed the Kyoto Protocol it did not ratify the accord, partly because the accord did not cover developing nations.

Obama Climate Plan

    In June 2013, President Barack Obama announced a "Climate Action Plan" to address the issues of climate change. The plan set a goal of reducing U.S. greenhouse gas emissions to 17% below 2005 levels by 2020 if all other major economies agreed to limit their emissions as well, and in 2014 Obama announced a new goal of reducing such emissions by 26% to 28% below 2005 levels by 2025. (In 2012, gross U.S. greenhouse gas emissions were already about 10% below 2005 levels.)

    Obama's plan outlined specific steps his administration would take to cut U.S. carbon pollution, prepare the nation for the impact of climate change and lead international efforts to reduce climate change worldwide. Included in the plan were proposals to increase the permitting of renewable energy projects on federal lands, enhance energy efficiency standards for appliances and federal buildings, raise fuel economy standards for automobiles, and establish carbon pollution standards for both new and existing power plants (the Clean Power Plan).

    President Obama also called for a comprehensive international climate accord that would involve all nations in helping to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.

Paris Agreement

    In 2015, 195 governments negotiating in Paris adopted a new subsidiary agreement to UNFCCC that outlined goals and a structure for international cooperation among all countries, both developed and developing nations, to address the causes of climate change and its impacts over decades to come. (Of the top 20 nations that emit greenhouse gases, only Iran, Russia and Turkey are not parties to the agreement, according to CRS.)

    In what became known as the "Paris Agreement," the accord creates a structure for nations to pledge to abate their GHG emissions, adapt to climate change, and cooperate toward these ends, including through financial and other support. While intended to be legally binding, it does not impose specific emission reduction targets or methods for nations. Instead, it establishes a long-term objective of holding GHG-induced increases in global average temperature to under 2 degrees Celsius more than "pre-industrial" levels and to pursue efforts to limit the temperature increase to 1.5 degrees Celsius — with individual nations (both developed and developing) to set their own targets for GHG reduction and mitigation every five years (through "Nationally Determined Contributions," or NDCs) until that long-term goal is met.

    In 2016, President Obama accepted the Paris Agreement without requesting the Senate's advice and consent after the State Department determined that the agreement contained no substantive, legal obligations for the United States beyond those already required by the UNFCCC.

    Under the United States' NDC, the U.S. said it would reduce GHG emissions by 26-28% below 2005 levels in 2025, including by doing many of the activities Obama proposed in 2013. The U.S. NDC also proposed establishing improved energy efficiency codes for commercial and residential buildings; approving alternatives to, and reducing the use of, hydrofluorocarbons; and establishing standards to reduce methane emissions oil and gas operations as well as from landfills.

    The European Union, meanwhile, agreed to reduce GHG emissions by at least 40% compared to 1990 levels, while China committed to leveling off its carbon emissions around 2030 (the agreement allows them to continue growing until then) but reducing its CO2 emissions per unit of gross domestic product by 60-65% below 2005 levels while increasing to about 20% the nation's non-fossil fuel share of primary generated energy.

Trump Proposal to Withdraw from Agreement

    Critics have argued that the Obama administration's plan is unrealistic and unworkable, and would put the United States at an economic disadvantage versus nations such as China, which would be allowed to see its emissions continue to grow. They say the Paris Agreement does not provide parity of effort across countries, especially among competitive nations, and that the costs of achieving the U.S. target may harm the U.S. economy. And in a theme picked up by then-candidate Donald Trump, they said Obama administration efforts amounted to a "war on coal."

    Since President Trump took office, the Foreign Affairs Committee report notes that the Trump administration has taken actions "to repeal the Clean Power Plan, roll back vehicle emission standards, rescind methane-flaring rules, weaken emission standards for brick and tile manufacturers, withdraw a proposed rule reducing air pollutants at sewage treatment plants, reverse a policy that limits hazardous pollution from industrial sources, disband the Particulate Matter Review Panel, end NASA’s carbon monitoring system."

    On June 1, 2017, President Trump announced that he intended to withdraw the United States from the Paris Agreement, saying that he would seek to reopen negotiations on the agreement or enter into a new "transaction" on terms that are fair to U.S. interests. Under procedural requirements of the Paris Agreement, the U.S. can't formally announce its withdrawal until Nov. 4, 2019, with the actual withdrawal to occur one year later on Nov. 4, 2020. In the meantime, the United States remains obligated to maintain certain commitments under the agreement, such as continuing to report its emissions to the United Nations.

Member Concerns

    Supporters of the bill, primarily Democrats, say the United States must remain in the Paris agreement and show global leadership on climate change because the cost of inaction in addressing rising global temperature will otherwise lead to significant economic and other damages in coming decades. The Paris Agreement keeps the United States and the world on track to make the emissions reductions needed to avoid catastrophic climate change, they say, and for the first time holds large, growing emitters such as China and India accountable for GHG reductions. It also includes critical flexibility by providing for adaptive requirements so the world can keep global temperatures from rising more than 1.5 °C, staving off ever more serious effects of global warming. They argue that a U.S. withdrawal from the Paris Agreement would be catastrophic given that time for constructive action is short — with recent scientific analyses indicating the window for meaningful climate action is shrinking faster than previously expected.

    Opponents of the bill, primarily Republicans, say President Trump is right to scrap the Paris Agreement because it would seriously harm the U.S. economy and undermine U.S. international competitiveness. They note that the Paris Agreement was never ratified by the Senate and say it is one-sided and singles out the United States for major greenhouse gas reductions while allowing emissions to continue to grow in China, India and the rest of the developing world — which they say will impose additional costs on the United States and make the U.S. uncompetitive versus those nations. They say the reduction policies proposed by the Obama administration would severely damage the U.S. energy industry, in particular the fossil fuel industry, and drive out of U.S. markets major sources of affordable energy, thereby increasing Americans' utility bills. President Trump, they say, should be allowed to negotiate a better international deal to reduce greenhouse gases that will better protect U.S. interests while also helping solve the problem.

CBO Cost Estimate

    The Congressional Budget Office (CBO) estimates that the bill's language prohibiting the use of funds to withdraw from the Paris Agreement would have no significant effect on the federal budget because the costs to implement the withdrawal would be negligible.

    CBO separately estimates the cost to develop a plan to reduce emissions could vary significantly depending on the level of effort federal agencies devote to prepare the plan. CBO notes that agencies could adapt previously developed plans, such as those previously produced by the State Department or EPA in recent years, or could produce new plans that provide specific actions, policy recommendations, and regulatory and legislative proposals. Based on information from the administration, CBO estimates that agencies would expend minimal efforts to prepare the required plan at a cost of $1 million over the 2019–2024 period subject to the availability of appropriated funds.