Analysis Of U.S.Policy On The Paris Agreement Based On The Two-Level Game Theory

Since taking office,the U.S.President Barack Obama had been publicly active in tackling climate change,and reached the Paris Agreement in his second term,which is also seen as a major climate legacy of his administration.However,the successor President Trump reversed the U.S.climate policy and announced to dump this agreement within half a year of taking office.This exit successfully unraveled the international climate achievement of the Obama administration,demonstrating the fragility of the Obama administration's climate legacy.This paper focuses on the following question:how did nternational and domestic factors contribute to the acceptance of the Paris Agreement under the Obama administration and the withdrawal from it under the Trump administration?This paper tries to use two-level game theory to explain these two different decisions on this agreement and analyze the international and domestic bargains of the U.S in the two periods.This paper draws the conclusion that the two-level game theory demonstrates strong explanatory power for these two decisions,and domestic factors,international factors and the chief negotiators play roles in different degrees in two cases.The two-level game theory shows strong explanatory power for President Obama's decision to join the Paris Deal,and international factors,domestic factors and the chief negotiators all play important roles in the government decision-making process.At the international level,the Obama administration sought to restore the U.S.leadership in global climate governance,and sent positive signals to the international community by reaching the historic joint announcement with China and committing $3 billion to the Green Climate Fund.expanding the possibility of reaching agreements with other major participants such as the European Union and developing countries.At the domestic level,the Obama administration proposed the Clean Power Plan,echoing its international climate action,and the support from the high-tech industry,the clean energy industry and environmental groups also pushed the progress of the U.S.international climate efforts.However.the Republican-controlled Congress and the traditional energy industries were opposed to the U.S involvement in the Paris Agreement.Facing domestic resistance,as the chief negotiator.President Obama adopted the strategy of "issue redefinition" and "synergistic issue linkage" to expand domestic win-sets.However,domestic win-sets were still not large enough to win the ratification from the Congress.forcing the Obama administration tojoin this agreement by executive order without submitting it to the Senate for approval.This decision also simplified the exit process and increased the vulnerability of this outcome.Moreover,after the opposing efforts turned in vain,the traditional energy industries switched to the Republican candidates in the 2016 presidential election,adding the uncertainty of the future of this agreement.Moreover,the two-level game theory also shows strong explanatory power for President Trump's repudiation of the deal.In this case,international factors play a minor role in the decision-making process,while domestic factors and the chief negotiators play important roles in contributing to the decision.At the international level,the Trump administration believed that the Paris agreement is flawed in essence and performed passively in international climate talks.Subsequent climate talks in Marrakesh,Bonn and the G7 summit have made the Trump administration realize that the fundamental flaws in the agreement are hard to change and that renegotiation is highly unlikely.This decision reflects more of a domestic game.The Trump administration,which has a cabinet of mostly climate skeptics,has reversed the previous administration's climate policies in an effort to shore up support among grassroots voters and revive the U.S.economy and employment.The mainstream voices in Congress have also urged the Trump administration to pull out of the deal.Yet,supportive interest groups standing on the "staying" side had the upper hand In order to maintain the negotiating power in global energy matrix,the oil and gas industry and coal industry giants reversed their attitudes and joined the high-tech industry.clean energy industry and environmental groups,calling for the government to remain in the Paris Agreement.However,the chief negotiator,namely President Tump,adopted the strategy of"issue redefinition" to reduce domestic win-sets and eventually used the veto power to dump the agreement with the consideration of political interests.This withdrawal is not the first time for the U.S.government to renege on international climate commitments,and its actions and decisions in future international climate negotiations can be thrown into doubt.This paper analyzes two government decisions on the Paris agreement with two-level game theory and digs out complicated game and political considerations,rather than put all blame for this exit on the "unpredictability" of President Trump.This paper hopes to make some contribution to the climate policy study of the U.S government on the Paris Agreement and offer reference for the future U.S.international climate action.