USA

Critically Insufficient4°C+
World
Commitments with this rating fall well outside the fair share range and are not at all consistent with holding warming to below 2°C let alone with the Paris Agreement’s stronger 1.5°C limit. If all government targets were in this range, warming would exceed 4°C.
Highly insufficient< 4°C
World
Commitments with this rating fall outside the fair share range and are not at all consistent with holding warming to below 2°C let alone with the Paris Agreement’s stronger 1.5°C limit. If all government targets were in this range, warming would reach between 3°C and 4°C.
Insufficient< 3°C
World
Commitments with this rating are in the least stringent part of their fair share range and not consistent with holding warming below 2°C let alone with the Paris Agreement’s stronger 1.5°C limit. If all government targets were in this range, warming would reach over 2°C and up to 3°C.
2°C Compatible< 2°C
World
Commitments with this rating are consistent with the 2009 Copenhagen 2°C goal and therefore fall within the country’s fair share range, but are not fully consistent with the Paris Agreement. If all government targets were in this range, warming could be held below, but not well below, 2°C and still be too high to be consistent with the Paris Agreement 1.5°C limit.
1.5°C Paris Agreement Compatible< 1.5°C
World
This rating indicates that a government’s efforts are in the most stringent part of its fair share range: it is consistent with the Paris Agreement’s 1.5°C limit.
Role model<< 1.5°C
World
This rating indicates that a government’s efforts are more ambitious than what is considered a fair contribution: it is more than consistent with the Paris Agreement’s 1.5°C limit.

Summary table

*based on CAT calculations

Paris Agreement targets

The US NDC set a target of reducing its emissions by 26%–28% below 2005 levels by 2025, including land-use, land-use change and forestry (LULUCF). Although the Trump Administration has formally communicated its intent to withdraw from the Paris Agreement and stop implementing its NDC (U.S. Department of State, 2019; United Nations, 2019), the target legally remains in place until 4 November 2020, one day after the 2020 US Presidential Elections. This notification goes against a May 2019 resolution of the US House of Representatives to keep the US in the Paris Agreement, the first major legislation on climate change in nearly ten years to win congressional approval (U.S. Congress, 2019); however the resolution was not adopted in the Senate.

The CAT estimates that the 26–28% reduction target in emissions including LULUCF is likely to result in a range of 22–28% reduction in GHG emissions below 2005 levels excluding LULUCF, depending on whether the sink from LULUCF is at the high or low end of the projections.

2020 pledges

The United States is not a Party to the Kyoto Protocol. While a target of a 7% reduction below 1990 levels from 2008–2012 was originally negotiated and agreed, the US never ratified the Protocol and therefore, the target never came into force.

Under the Copenhagen Accord, the US announced an emissions reduction target of 17% below 2005 levels by 2020 (U.S. Department of State, 2010), which would be around 0 to 5% below 1990 levels excl. LULUCF. The US is within striking distance of this target: projected emissions for 2020 are anticipated to be 2–3% above the upper end of the target range excluding LULUCF.

Long-term goal

As part of the Paris Agreement (Article 4), all parties should develop and communicate long-term low greenhouse gas development strategies. On 16 November 2016, the Obama Administration submitted such a strategy entitled “Mid-Century Strategy for Deep Decarbonization” (The White House, 2016). The strategy sets an emissions reduction target of 80% or more below 2005 levels in 2050, incl. LULUCF. This target is equivalent to 69–76% below 2005 levels (64–73% below 1990), excl. LULUCF; the range depending on the magnitude of the LULUCF sinks. The government has now removed the mid-century strategy from all its websites. Once the US withdraws from the Paris Agreement, it would no longer be required to formulate such a strategy.

Latest publications

Stay informed

Subscribe to our newsletter