Luke Kemp of the Fenner School of Environment and Society at the Australian National University wrote in a commentary for Nature that “withdrawal is unlikely to change U.S. emissions” because “U.S. greenhouse gas emissions are separate from international legal obligations.” However, he added that it could hamper climate action efforts if the U.S. stops contributing to the Green Climate Fund. Kemp said the effect of a U.S. exit could be good or bad for the Paris Agreement, because “a rogue U.S. can do more harm inside the agreement than outside the agreement.” Finally, “a withdrawal could also turn the US into climate pluralism and provide China and the EU with 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 a belief that China is unable to take control of the climate regime, but should instead “help rebuild joint global leadership by replacing the Sino-US G2 partnership with a Climate 5 (C5) partnership that includes China, the EU, India, Brazil and South Africa.”  Although the United States played an important role in drafting the climate agreement, it will be the only one of the nearly 200 parties to leave the pact. This is not the first time the United States has failed to distinguish an international climate agreement. == Has not ratified the 1997 Kyoto Protocol, although it was instrumental in its creation.
In this case, the United States became a signatory to the agreement, but almost immediately signaled that it did not intend to fulfill its responsibilities. Nearly 200 countries signed the agreement in 2015 and pledged to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. Each country has set its own goals, and many rich countries, including the United States, have also agreed to help the poorest countries pay the costs associated with climate change. These transparency and accountability provisions are similar to those in other international agreements. While the system does not include financial sanctions, the requirements are intended to easily track each nation`s progress and foster a sense of global peer pressure, which discourages any hesitation between countries that might consider doing so. If the U.S. stays out of the deal, it could still have a voice in the U.K. climate negotiations. That`s because it would still be a member of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change, the body that created the Paris Agreement. However, America would be reduced to observer status, meaning its negotiators would be allowed to attend meetings and work with other countries to shape outcomes, but not to vote on decisions.
Specific outcomes of the increased focus on adaptation financing in Paris include the announcement by G7 countries that they will provide $420 million for climate risk insurance and the launch of a Climate Risk and Early Warning Systems (CREWS) initiative.  In 2016, the Obama administration awarded a $500 million grant to the Green Climate Fund as “the first part of a $3 billion commitment made at the Paris climate negotiations.”    So far, the Green Climate Fund has received more than $10 billion in pledges. Remarkably, the commitments come from industrialized countries such as France, the United States and Japan, but also from developing countries such as Mexico, Indonesia and Vietnam.  “These agreements are not as good as each country`s commitments,” Light says. .