On January 20, 2025, without wasting time, he began to sign with those who confirmed a lot of what was promised during his electoral campaign, including. That the second country emitter of greenhouse gases to the atmosphere leaves the multilateral tool par excellence to control them, and, therefore, to minimize the negative effects of the global level, it is not in general terms good news for the world. But what about climatic action within the US?
It is not the first time that Trump is president, who takes the US from. So, just as now, the climatic sphere contained breath. Despite all its policies far or directly against the international climate agenda, climate action in the US was less than what the initial forecasts predicted. And one of the explanations is that many cities in the country decided that they took a step forward and were going to meet the objectives of the Paris Agreement in a local way despite their federal government.
Although in the world cities only occupy 3% of surface. That makes them not only a part of the problem, but also a key part of the solution. In addition, because they have more flexibility than state governments when implementing local regulations to reduce emissions and promote the use of renewable energy, they have a greater margin of experimentation and innovation in climate policy. In a world that in 2050 will have 68% of its population living in cities, in terms of climate action by possessing responsibilities in the key areas of public policy, such as urban planning, infrastructure management, regulation of constructions and promotion of the Sustainable mobility. This window of opportunity acquires a strategic dimension especially in the cities of the Global South, where the bulk of the current urbanization process takes place.
In a world that in 2050 will have 68% of its population living in cities, municipal governments can play a transformative role in climate action
When Trump in 2017 announced the decision to withdraw the US from the Paris Agreement – which would culminate with its formal departure on November 4, 2020 -, did it declaring it to have been chosen to represent the citizens of Pittsburg and not those of Paris . The irony, typical of our convulsive times, wanted the then mayor of, Bill Peduto, to repudiate immediately in the name of his city the decision of his federal government ,. It was not the only city to step forward. During that first term, almost 300 counties and American cities, including New York, San Francisco, Los Angeles and Chicago, joined in initiatives such as (“we are still inside”), and promoted their own climate local policies. In some states, companies and municipal governments they maintained their investments in green infrastructure and sustainable transport. Some cities also challenged Trump’s commitment to fossil fuels investing in renewables. In short, US cities maintained climate and international climate leadership in those years, demonstrating that climate action could advance even without the support of the federal government. This allowed the Paris Agreement to quickly in 2021, when Joe Biden assumed the presidency and reinstated environmental policies nationwide.
Returning to the present, shortly after the signing of the executive order by Trump, billionaire Michael R. Bloomberg, special envoy of the UN Secretary General for ambition and climatic solutions, announced through his decision to replace USA and maintain the financing of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (CMNUCC). It is a significant contribution if we consider that the US usually covers 22% of the CMNUCC Secretariat budget. This decision, which also had an antecedent during Trump’s first mandate, also supports the contribution of US cities, states and companies to international climatic objectives. According to a study of the, climate leadership by US non -federal actors could reach 2035 a reduction in greenhouse gas emissions between 54% and 62% compared to 2005 levels.
The growing weight of philanthropic foundations and private sector actors in climatic action is essential, even more in a context of inaction nationwide. However, cities should be supported by other levels of government – national and international – and by government actors with political legitimacy and experience in the field. Before and the questioning of the climate agenda in various countries of the world, cities are models of climatic ambition with an eye on the public interest. Especially in the global south, where cities must simultaneously face the growing impacts of climate change and infrastructure and services deficits. In a context of geopolitical and empty tensions of international leadership, European Union institutions could also take note, discovering essential collaborators in their own cities both in the face of the promotion of the European Green Covenant and in the promotion of cooperation ties with cooperation with Cities of the Global South.
