As the world grapples with the impacts of climate change, the Paris Agreement has emerged as a crucial global effort to tackle this crisis. Ever since the US withdrew from the agreement in 2017, the question of whether it should rejoin has been a hot topic. Now, with a new administration in power, this debate has gained renewed momentum. This article aims to explore both sides of the argument and examine why the US should or should not rejoin the Paris Agreement.

Why the US Should Rejoin the Paris Agreement

The Paris Agreement is a historic accord that aims to limit global temperature rise to below 2°C and pursue efforts to limit it to 1.5°C. The US, as one of the world`s largest emitters of greenhouse gases, has a crucial role to play in achieving these goals. By rejoining the agreement, the US can restore its global leadership on climate action and work in concert with other nations to address this global challenge.

Furthermore, rejoining the agreement can have significant economic benefits for the US. By transitioning to a low-carbon economy and investing in clean energy, the US can create millions of jobs and reduce its dependence on fossil fuels. This can also help spur innovation and technological advancements, making the US more competitive in the global market.

Finally, the Paris Agreement is a legally binding agreement that provides a framework for international cooperation on climate action. By rejoining, the US can meet its obligations under the agreement and work collaboratively with other nations to develop and implement effective strategies to reduce emissions.

Why the US Should Not Rejoin the Paris Agreement

One of the arguments against rejoining the Paris Agreement is that it can be costly for the US. Some critics argue that the agreement imposes unfair burdens on developed countries like the US while allowing developing countries to continue emitting greenhouse gases. As a result, they argue that rejoining the agreement would harm the US economy and lead to job losses in industries such as coal and oil.

Another argument against rejoining the Paris Agreement is that it may not be effective in achieving its goals. Despite the agreement being hailed as a historic achievement, some experts argue that its voluntary targets and lack of penalties for non-compliance make it a weak instrument for tackling the climate crisis. Some even argue that the agreement does not go far enough, as its targets are still not sufficient to keep the global temperature rise below 2°C.


In conclusion, the decision to rejoin the Paris Agreement is a complex one that requires careful consideration of its potential benefits and costs. While rejoining can help the US restore its leadership on climate action, create jobs, and meet its international obligations, it can also be costly and may not be an effective tool in addressing climate change. Ultimately, however, the choice to rejoin must be made with a long-term view of the planet`s health and the well-being of future generations.