A proposal by BNP Paribas Asset Management secured a 53% majority at Chevron – it asked the oil giant to ensure that its climate lobby is in line with the goals of the Paris Agreement. The official goal of the agreement is to prevent the world from becoming 2C hotter than before industrialization. But its goal is to limit warming to 1.5°C, a best-case scenario that scientists see out of reach. No country was able to denounce its withdrawal from the agreement before the expiry of a period of three years from the date of ratification. The fate of US participation in the Paris Agreement now depends on the outcome of the presidential election. Luke Kemp, of the Fenner School of Environment and Society at the Australian National University, wrote in a commentary for Nature that “the withdrawal is unlikely to change U.S. emissions,” because “U.S. greenhouse gas emissions are separate from international legal obligations.” However, he added that if the U.S. stopped contributing to the Green Climate Fund, it could hamper climate change mitigation efforts.
Kemp said the impact of a U.S. withdrawal could be either good or bad for the Paris agreement, as “the rogue U.S. can cause more damage within the agreement than outside the agreement.” Finally, “a withdrawal could also make the US a climate pariah and offer China and the EU a unique opportunity to take control of the climate regime and significantly boost their international reputation and soft power.”  On the other hand, there is the belief that China is not capable of taking control of the climate regime, but rather should “help rebuild common global leadership by replacing the Sino-American . . .