In December 2015, the countries party to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change ­overwhelmingly adopted the Paris Agreement (the agreement). Effective on Nov. 4, 2016, the agreement aims to combat global warming by reducing greenhouse gas emissions through nonbinding national efforts and mandatory emissions reporting. The Obama administration strongly supported the agreement.

Withdrawal From the Paris Agreement

What a difference an election makes. On Aug. 4, the U.S. representative to the United Nations delivered a letter to the secretary general stating the intent of the United States to withdraw from the ­agreement. This letter came as no surprise. During the presidential campaign, then-candidate Donald Trump labeled climate change a hoax. In June, the president announced that the United States would withdraw from the agreement, characterizing its emission reduction targets as unfair to U.S. businesses and workers. The Aug. 4 letter reiterated that policies and pledges of the Obama administration to reduce emissions of greenhouse gases will not bind the United States.

The letter did not, however, go as far as the president's campaign statements in questioning whether human activities are changing the climate, nor did it foreclose the possibility that the United States may at some point re-engage in the international process. To the contrary, a State Department press release listed mechanisms by which the United States would seek to secure greenhouse gas reductions, such as ­development of new technologies, cleaner use of fossil fuels and deployment of ­renewable energy sources.

The press release further explained that the United States may re-engage in the agreement if it obtains more favorable terms, and clarified that the United States will continue to participate in international meetings regarding climate change to ­protect its interests. Given these qualifications, the letter seems to advance a ­negotiating position, not to reject absolutely the ­greement or the underlying climate change science. Nevertheless, the letter carries a strong message to the international community that the administration intends to renegotiate existing agreements, will not accede to international demands and places little value in maintaining an ­international leadership role.