Saturday, June 3, 2017

North Korea Missile Tests: Wary Japan Refuses to Panic - NBC News

NEWS JUN 3 2017, 4:34 AM ET
North Korea Missile Tests: Wary Japan Refuses to Panic
by ARATA YAMAMOTO and EOGHAN MACGUIRE
TOKYO — The latest ballistic missile fired by Kim Jong Un's regime plunged into the Sea of Japan earlier this week.
Japanese Prime Minister Shinzo Abe has described such North Korean launches as a "grave threat to our country" and "absolutely not acceptable."
But such warnings appear to be causing little concern on the streets of Tokyo.
"I don't feel any threat, nor has it affected my daily life," said Ryoji Nakajima, a 36-year-old office worker. It was a sentiment shared by several others approached by NBC News in the city's Ginza district.
While Kim's stated aim is to develop a nuclear-tipped intercontinental ballistic missile capable of striking the U.S. mainland, Japan is also home to some 54,000 U.S. military personnel. And North Korea has said it has military units positioned to strike
North Korea can already strike anywhere in Japan with its missiles. 
In March, Japan held its first civilian evacuation drill for a missile attack amid wariness over the military threat potentially posed by the hermit kingdom. 
But Shunji Hiraiwa, an expert in North Korean diplomacy at Nanzan University in Nagoya City, said while many people in Japan "do feel a sense of danger ... I don't think they feel that a war is imminent." 
That view was echoed by Narushige Michishita, a professor at the National Graduate Institute for Policy Studies in Tokyo. 
"Fortunately, right now it's not as if there's a clear and present danger that is sending people into panic," Michishita said. 
However, he added that "people have started to understand that it might be possible for North Korea to obtain these capabilities." 
Pyongyang has launched a series of missiles as well as carrying out two nuclear tests since the beginning of 2016. 
On Thursday, the Pentagon sent aircraft carriers the USS Carl Vinson and USS Ronald Reagan to the Sea of Japan for a three-day drill alongside Tokyo's navy and air force. It involved Japanese Air Self Defence Force F-15s taking part in simulated combat with U.S. Navy F-18 fighters as part of what was characterized by Tokyo as a "major exercise." 
Secretary of State Rex Tillerson has declared America's era of strategic patience with North Korea over. He has also refused to take possibility of military action off the table.
North Korea has repeatedly rejected calls to curtail its nuclear and missile programs, calling them legitimate self-defense.
Michishita believes North Korea's actions can be viewed as a broad strategy to secure its own future.
"It's not very clear why North Korea has been conducting these missile tests in rapid succession. But one possibility is that it's trying to gain the attention of the United States and to improve their bargaining position in the event of bringing the U.S. to the negotiating table," Michishita said. "If you take a step back and look at the larger picture, the reason for this is that they're trying to establish a deterrence in order to avoid a preventive attack from the United States."
Hiraiwa agreed. "The main objective is to negotiate with the United States by having them accept their present status and build a relationship based on that," he said.
Image: TV screen showing North Korean missile launch
170602-tokyo-1250_3927e4bb0f7e44d7254d2a1fcc67e376.nbcnews-ux-600-700.jpg
A pedestrian looks at a TV screen broadcasting news of a North Korean missile launch while walking down a street in Tokyo, Japan, on Monday. FRANCK ROBICHON / EPA
Even if that is the case, however, the North Korea issue has raised questions about Japan's strictly defensive national security policy which has been in place since the end of the Second World War.
The Japan Times reported that Abe described Pyongyang's growing military capabilities as presenting "a new level of threat" after three other North Korean missiles landed in the Sea of Japan in March.
Hiraiwa says he thinks Abe's choice of words show he believes that "North Korea's threat level is starting to rise faster than the pace of Japan's defense capabilities."
But on the streets of Tokyo, one woman seemed more concerned about how Monday's launch might impact on her looming vacation.
Tsuyuko Tanaka, 69, said she was planning to go on a cruise that would pass through the area where the latest missile landed — which was in international waters but within Japan's exclusive economic zone.
"The best would be to resolve through dialogue, but I worry whether the North Koreans would listen," Tanaka said.

Arata Yamamoto reported from Tokyo. Eoghan Macguire reported from London. 

U.S. Unemployment Rate Hits 16-Year Low Despite Slower Job Growth - TIME Business

Posted: 02 Jun 2017 06:25 AM PDT

(WASHINGTON) — U.S. employers pulled back on hiring in May by adding only 138,000 jobs. Hiring was still enough to help keep pushing unemployment lower.
The Labor Department said Friday that the unemployment rate fell to 4.3 percent from 4.4 percent.
Hiring in the months of April and March were revised downward by a combined 66,000. Job gains have averaged 121,000 over the past three months, a deceleration from an average of 181,000 over the past 12 months.
Average hourly earnings have risen a middling 2.5 percent over the past year.
Restaurants and health care firms posted solid job gains. Food services added 30,300 workers, while health care contributed 24,300 jobs. Construction added 11,000 jobs.

But manufacturers, retailers and governments shed workers last month.
Despite the slowdown in job growth last month, the U.S. economy is running neither too hot nor too cold, with growth holding at a tepid but far from recessionary 2 percent annual rate. Few economists foresee another downturn looming, in part because the recovery from the recession has been steady but grinding, with little sign of the sort of overheated pressures that normally trigger a recession.
The government’s monthly jobs report produces a net gain by estimating how many jobs were created and comparing that figure with how many it estimates were lost. If hiring maintains its current pace, it would exceed population growth, and the unemployment rate should eventually fall even further below its current 4.3 percent, a level associated with a healthy economy.
Still, the jobs report produces several different measures of unemployment. The broadest gauge includes not only the officially unemployed but also part-time workers who would prefer full-time jobs and people who want a job but aren’t actively looking for one and so aren’t counted as unemployed.
Known as the “U-6” rate, this measure is one of the favorite metrics for Trump administration officials. The U-6 has declined since January, an encouraging sign that jobless people who had given up hope of working are now being hired. The falling U-6 points to a strengthening economy despite weak growth during the first three months of the year.
But the influx of job seekers can also inflict a drag on pay growth. As more people start seeking jobs, employers begin to have less incentive to raise pay. It’s only when employers face a shallow pool of job applicants that they tend to feel compelled to raise pay in hopes of hiring people who fit their needs.
Annual growth in average hourly earnings has been so-so in recent months. And whatever meaningful pay raises that exist are going disproportionately to managers and supervisors.
Many of the jobs that have been added over the past year are in the generally lower-paying leisure and hospitality industry — hotels, restaurants and amusement parks.
The Trump administration has designated the pace of hiring for good-paying skilled jobs in construction, manufacturing and mining as among the categories it monitors for economic health. Hiring in those three sectors has been comparatively sluggish over the past year.

Friday, June 2, 2017

Could Trump use executive privilege to block Comey testimony? - Reuters

Fri Jun 2, 2017 | 11:58 AM EDT
Factbox: Could Trump use executive privilege to block Comey testimony?
By Jan Wolfe
Former Federal Bureau of Investigation Director James Comey will testify on June 8 before a congressional committee investigating Russia's alleged meddling in the 2016 U.S. presidential election.
Comey is expected to tell the Senate Intelligence Committee that President Donald Trump asked him to drop an investigation into former White House national security adviser Michael Flynn's ties to Russia. Trump fired Comey on May 9. 
Legal experts say that Trump could invoke a doctrine called executive privilege to try to stop Comey from testifying. But such a maneuver would draw a backlash and could be challenged in court, they said.
The following describes how executive privilege works and why it could backfire on Trump if he invokes it.

What is executive privilege?
Executive privilege is a legal doctrine that allows the president to withhold information from other government branches.
The U.S. Supreme Court ruled in 1974 in U.S. v Nixon that executive privilege can only be used in limited circumstances, such as protecting national security or preserving the confidentiality of sensitive communications within the executive branch.

How would Trump invoke the privilege to block Comey's testimony?
By Jan Wolfe
Former Federal Bureau of Investigation Director James Comey will testify on June 8 before a congressional committee investigating Russia's alleged meddling in the 2016 U.S. presidential election.
Comey is expected to tell the Senate Intelligence Committee that President Donald Trump asked him to drop an investigation into former White House national security adviser Michael Flynn's ties to Russia. Trump fired Comey on May 9.
Legal experts say that Trump could invoke a doctrine called executive privilege to try to stop Comey from testifying. But such a maneuver would draw a backlash and could be challenged in court, they said.
The following describes how executive privilege works and why it could backfire on Trump if he invokes it.

What is executive privilege?
Executive privilege is a legal doctrine that allows the president to withhold information from other government branches.
The U.S. Supreme Court ruled in 1974 in U.S. v Nixon that executive privilege can only be used in limited circumstances, such as protecting national security or preserving the confidentiality of sensitive communications within the executive branch.

How would Trump invoke the privilege to block Comey's testimony?
Before invoking executive privilege, the president typically obtains a written memorandum justifying the decision from the Office of Legal Counsel, a division of the Department of Justice. The White House counsel is often informally involved in the decision.
After invoking the privilege, the president can direct current and former government officials to not divulge information.

Have presidents invoked executive privilege in the past?

The term was not coined until the 1950s, but most presidents have invoked some version of it, said Mark Rozell, a professor of government at George Mason University. President Barack Obama asserted the privilege in 2012 to block Congress from seeing documents relating to an investigation into Fast and Furious, a botched gunrunning operation conducted by the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives.

What are the odds that Trump would legally succeed in blocking Comey's testimony?

Legal experts said Trump would face an uphill climb if he asserted executive privilege to stop Comey from testifying before the congressional committee.
Trump likely would argue that Comey's testimony involves confidential conversations or matters of national security. But that claim would be undercut by the fact that the president has publicly discussed and tweeted about his conversations with Comey, said Rozell.
Trump faces another hurdle if he tries to block Comey's testimony. If Trump pressured Comey to drop the Flynn investigation, as Comey is expected to testify, then Trump may have engaged in obstruction of justice, according to some lawyers. Executive privilege cannot be used to "cover up government misconduct," said Andrew Wright, a professor at Savannah Law School.
ALSO IN POLITICS

If Trump invoked the privilege, could Comey disregard it?

Typically a president uses executive privilege to prevent government employees from releasing information. Comey is now a private citizen who does not have to worry about losing his job if he does not comply. Rozell said he knows of no legal sanction for ignoring an assertion of executive privilege, but that it would be "unprecedented" for an assertion of the privilege to be ignored.

Could Trump be challenged in court if he asserts executive privilege?

The president and Congress typically hammer out a compromise when they disagree about whether privilege can be asserted, said Rozell.
But there are instances of executive privilege being challenged in court. When Obama cited the privilege to block the release of documents relating to Fast and Furious, Congress sued and asked a judge to direct then-Attorney General Eric Holder to comply with its subpoena. A judge ruled last year that the Justice Department's public disclosures about the controversy undercut the president's executive privilege claim, saying that the Justice Department had already publicly revealed much of the information it said should be kept private.
It would be procedurally complicated to challenge a decision by Trump to block Comey's testimony. First, Congress would have to issue a subpoena requiring Comey to testify. Then Congress would have to find Comey in contempt if he refused. Congress could then ask a federal judge to force Comey to comply with its subpoena. That litigation would lead to a ruling on whether Trump lawfully invoked executive privilege. "There is a path to judicial review, but a lot of things would have to take place," Wright said.

What are the political risks if Trump tries to assert privilege?

Trump would surely face public criticism if he tries to stop Comey's testimony, Rozell said. Critics could claim Trump is using privilege to thwart questions about potential ties between Russia and Flynn and Russia's alleged influence on the election. "That's the rub with executive privilege: It makes it look like you have something to hide," Rozell said.

Reuters 

Obama, Musk, Other World and Industry Leaders Call Paris Climate Deal Withdrawal a Mistake - NBC News

POLITICS JUN 2 2017, 2:32 AM ET
Obama, Musk, Other World and Industry Leaders Call Paris Climate Deal Withdrawal a Mistake
by PHIL HELSEL  and LEIGH ANN CALDWELL
Former President Barack Obama said on Thursday that the cities and businesses of the United States should step up to reduce greenhouse gases after President Donald Trump announced that America would withdraw from the Paris climate change accord.
The mayor of Pittsburgh, pushing back on Trump's statement that he was elected to represent the citizens of that former steel-making giant rather than those of Paris, condemned the withdrawal.
Tech entrepreneur Elon Musk immediately announced he will quit presidential advisory councils. Disney CEO Bob Iger said he was out, too. General Electric Chairman and CEO Jeff Immelt said "Climate change is real. Industry must now lead and not depend on government."

zDo-gAo0_bigger.jpg
Am departing presidential councils. Climate change is real. Leaving Paris is not good for America or the world.
"The United States joins Syria, Nicaragua & Russia in deciding not to participate with world's Paris Agreement. It's now up to cities to lead," Pittsburgh Mayor Bill Peduto, a Democrat, said on Twitter.
Trump said at an announcement at the Rose Garden on Thursday that the United States would withdraw from the international agreement negotiated under Obama, citing a desire to protect American jobs and fuel what he has claimed would be three percent economic growth.
Because Obama didn't ask the Senate for approval of the Paris accord, Trump can act unilaterally without the consent of Congress. Democrats, however, could slow down any action on the floor in retaliation of the decision and tie any pending nominations to the issue, actions that won't change the outcome but frustrate Republicans and the White House.
Obama said in a statement that a withdrawal means an abdication of American leadership. 
"The nations that remain in the Paris Agreement will be the nations that reap the benefits in jobs and industries created. I believe the United States of America should be at the front of the pack," Obama said in the statement. 
"But even in the absence of American leadership; even as this Administration joins a small handful of nations that reject the future; I'm confident that our states, cities, and businesses will step up and do even more to lead the way, and help protect for future generations the one planet we've got," Obama said. 
Reaction on Capitol Hill was mostly partisan, with Republicans standing by the president's decision, praising the U.S.'s withdrawal as good for the economy. "President Trump has once again put families and jobs ahead of left-wing ideology and should be commended for his action," Republican Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell said.
But some Republicans in Congress opposed Trump's move. Sen. Susan Collins of Maine said on Twitter: "Climate change requires a global approach. I'm disappointed in the President's decision to withdraw from the Paris Agreement."
Republican Rep. Carlos Curbelo of Florida, who is expected to have a tough re-election in his swing district in south Florida, lobbed a series of tweets in opposition.

2371cfd160d154cedea4bd701d1b3bce_bigger.jpeg
Something's not right when @POTUS is putting our country on a list with bad hombres Bashar al Assad of Syria & Daniel Ortega of Nicaragua
Trump had pledged on the campaign trail to withdraw from the 2015 Paris climate accord, which is a non-binding agreement that asks that all signing countries — rich and poor — take concrete steps to reduce their carbon emissions in the face of climate change.
The Obama administration pledged a 26 to 28 percent cut in U.S. emissions, which Republicans have criticized for potentially having a negative impact on the American economy and its energy sector.
Former Sectary of State John Kerry said on MSNBC that the move to withdraw from the Paris deal was "an extraordinary abdication of American leadership."
He noted that the program was voluntary, and the United States was not forced to do anything under the accord.
"It was a voluntary program. We designed the program," Kerry said. "The president was not truthful with the American people today, and the president who talked about putting 'America first' has now put America last."
Withdrawing from the climate deal could take three years, European Commission President Jean-Claude Juncker said this week.
And French President Emmanuel Macron, German Chancellor Angela Merkel and Italian Premier Paolo Gentiloni said in a joint statement Thursday that they take note "with regret" the U.S. decision to pull out of the 2015 agreement.
The three leaders say they regard the accord as "a cornerstone in the cooperation between our countries, for effectively and timely tackling climate change."
They added that the course charted by the accord is "irreversible and we firmly believe that the Paris Agreement cannot be renegotiated."
Macron, Merkel and Gentiloni say they remain committed to the deal and will "step up efforts" to support the poorest and most threatened nations.

ebce94fb34c055f3dc238627a576d251_bigger.jpeg
Decision to withdraw from the #ParisAgreeement was wrong for our planet. Apple is committed to fight climate change and we will never waver.
U.N. spokesman Stephane Dujarric called Trump's decision a "major disappointment for global efforts to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and promote global security."
Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau said on Thursday "We are deeply disappointed that the United States federal government has decided to withdraw from the Paris Agreement" and said Canada is committed to fighting climate change.
Trump on Thursday left open the possibility of renegotiating what he called a better deal that would put American taxpayers first, and suggested the climate deal was a ruse that put the United States at a competitive disadvantage.
"The agreement is a massive redistribution of United States wealth to other countries," Trump said.
Former President Bill Clinton said on Twitter: "Walking away from Paris treaty is a mistake. Climate change is real. We owe our children more. Protecting our future also creates more jobs."
And Goldman Sachs CEO Lloyd Blankfein said in his first tweet from a verified account that "Today's decision is a setback for the environment and for the U.S.'s leadership position in the world," adding the hashtag #ParisAgreement.

klSohkDK_bigger.jpg
Today's decision is a setback for the environment and for the U.S.'s leadership position in the world. #ParisAgreement
The governors of New York, California, and Washington state said in a statement that they would form a "United States Climate Alliance" which they called "a coalition that will convene U.S. states committed to upholding the Paris Climate Agreement and taking aggressive action on climate change."
A speaker at a protest near the White House called the move "treason" and the crowd chanted "lock him up," a play off of Trump supporters' chants targeting Hillary Clinton during the presidential campaign.

Trump's announced withdrawal from the climate deal was not unexpected. On Wednesday in a tweet in which Trump said he would announce his decision on Thursday, the president ended with his signature phrase: "Make America great again." 

Trump's withdrawal from Paris Climate Accord branded worst policy blunder - Independent


Donald Trump's decision to withdraw the US from the Paris climate deal has been labelled an “international disgrace” by world leaders, US politicians and environmental groups, who all lined-up to decry the President's announcement. 
The President’s decision to pull the US out of the accord aligns the country with Syria and Nicaragua, the only two nations that did not sign up for the 195-nation deal reached in Paris in 2015.
Mr Trump called German Chancellor Angela Merkel, French President Emmanuel Macron, Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau and British Prime Minister Theresa May after his speech announcing his decision – but that did not stop his allies from voicing their displeasure.
Ms May told Mr Trump that she was disappointed and stressed that the UK remained committed to the agreement.
Italy, France and Germany issued a joint statement saying they regretted Mr Trump's decision to withdraw, and dismissed his suggestion that the global pact could be revised. The US President said he is seeking a “fairer deal” that would protect American workers. 
“We deem the momentum generated in Paris in December 2015 irreversible and we firmly believe that the Paris agreement cannot be renegotiated since it is a vital instrument for our planet, societies and economies,” the leaders of the three countries said.
The unusual French-Italian-German statement, released barely an hour after Mr Trump announced his decision, underscored the disappointment of the Eurozone's three largest economies and their resolve to plough ahead without Washington's support.
Ms Merkel said that she would continue to work to “save the Earth” while Mr Macron said there was “no plan B because there is no planet B”. Aping Mr Trump's 'Make America Great Again' slog, Mr Macron urged nations to “make our planet great again”.
Back in the US, former President Barack Obama – who helped shape the Paris accord – said Mr Trump's administration was joining “a small handful of nations that reject the future”.
Bernie Sanders, the Vermont Senator, called the US’s withdrawal an “abdication of American leadership”.  
“At this moment, when climate change is already causing devastating harm around the world, we do not have the moral right to turn our backs on efforts to preserve this planet for future generations,” Mr Sanders said.
Democratic senator Sheldon Whitehouse, co-chair of the US Senate’s Climate Action Task Force said, “ignoring reality and leaving the Paris agreement could go down as one of the worst foreign policy blunders in our nation's history.”
Democratic congresswoman Norma Torres, a member of the House’s natural resources committee, noted that the agreement was a “landmark achievement that saw unprecedented cooperation between 175 nations and all sectors of the economy.”
“To say this was a diplomatic victory for the United States would be an understatement,” Ms Torres said. “However, once again, we're seeing President Trump cede US global leadership to suit his personal political agenda.” 
Tanya Steele, chief executive of the World Wildlife Fund, said the US’s withdrawal “would make it harder for the world, to reach a safer and more prosperous future.”
“Most people in the UK want the Prime Minister to convince President Trump to stay true to what was agreed in Paris and we urge the next UK Government to press for the USA to urgently re-join the Agreement,” Ms Steele said. 
She added: “The Paris Agreement is more important than just one country and with over 196 signatories it will continue to work towards a low carbon, sustainable future. The Trump administration must not only back the agreement but be a driving force in tackling climate change.”

Anne Hidalgo, the mayor of Paris and Chair of the C40 Cities Climate Leadership Group, urged Mr Trump to reconsider his “short-sighted” decision.

Thursday, June 1, 2017

How will the Paris Climate Accord work without USA ? - New York Times

How will the Paris climate Accord work without USA ?

President Trump is said to be considering withdrawing the United States from the Paris climate agreement, a landmark accord reached in 2015 between 195 countries that seeks to avoid some of the worst effects of climate change by curbing global greenhouse gas emissions.

The White House says it has not yet reached a final decision on Paris, and hundreds of corporations and world leaders are lobbying the United States to stay in the pact. Within the administration, some senior officials, including Secretary of State Rex W. Tillerson, have warned the president that the diplomatic repercussions from leaving could be severe.

An American withdrawal would not scuttle the Paris accord, but it could seriously weaken global efforts to avoid drastic climate change. Here’s a primer on how the Paris agreement works — and what could happen if the United States leaves.

What does the Paris climate deal actually do?

Under the Paris agreement, every country submitted an individual plan to tackle its greenhouse gas emissions and then agreed to meet regularly to review their progress and prod one another to ratchet up their efforts as the years went by.

Continue reading the main story
Unlike its predecessor treaty, the Kyoto Protocol, the Paris deal was intended to be nonbinding, so that countries could tailor their climate plans to their domestic situations and alter them as circumstances changed. There are no penalties for falling short of declared targets. The hope was that, through peer pressure and diplomacy, these policies would be strengthened over time.

Newsletter Sign UpContinue reading the main story
Interested in Climate Change?
Sign up to receive our in-depth journalism about climate change around the world.

Under the deal, the Obama administration pledged to cut domestic greenhouse gas emissions 26 to 28 percent below 2005 levels by 2025 as well as to commit up to $3 billion in aid for poorer countries by 2020. (The United States has delivered $1 billion to date.) China vowed that its emissions would peak around 2030 and that it would get about 20 percent of its electricity from carbon-free sources by then. India would continue to reduce its carbon intensity, or CO2 output per unit of economic activity, in line with historical levels.

While the current pledges would not prevent global temperatures from rising more than 2 degrees Celsius above preindustrial levels, the threshold deemed unacceptably risky, there is some evidence that the Paris deal’s “soft diplomacy” is nudging countries toward greater action. A recent study from the Grantham Research Institute found that the mere existence of the accord had prodded dozens of countries to enact new clean-energy laws.

How would the United States withdraw from Paris?

Because the deal is nonbinding, there are no penalties if the United States pulls out.

The Trump administration can invoke the accord’s formal withdrawal mechanism, which takes four years — though American officials could stop participating in any future climate talks immediately. A future administration could, if it chose, rejoin.

More radically, the Trump administration could withdraw from the underlying United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change, signaling a withdrawal from all United Nations-sponsored climate discussions. It is not yet clear which option the Trump administration would choose, if it decides to leave.

If the United States does leave, it will join Syria and Nicaragua as the only two countries not participating in the accord.

The United States could also face serious diplomatic repercussions for leaving. Europe, China and other countries may threaten to withhold cooperation on issues the Trump administration cares about. In a more extreme case, other countries could decide to impose carbon tariffs on the United States.

What would withdrawal mean for American climate efforts?

Whether or not the United States leaves Paris, the Trump administration will keep trying to dismantle the Obama administration’s domestic climate policies, including the Clean Power Plan to curtail emissions from power plants, and various regulations on methane leaks from oil and gas operations. Those rollbacks are still far from assured, however, and environmentalists plan to challenge them in court.

Pulling out of Paris would not mean the end of all domestic efforts to reduce emissions. States like California and New York plan to keep pursuing their own programs to clean up power plants and vehicles. And the private sector is already shifting toward cleaner energy: Cheap natural gas and renewables will continue to drive the retirement of coal plants.

But the United States would be doing far less about global warming than it otherwise might have done. A recent analysis by the Rhodium Group estimated that, under Mr. Trump’s policies, United States emissions will now most likely fall 15 to 19 percent below 2005 levels by 2025, rather than the 26 to 28 percent that the Obama administration pledged.

How would other nations react?

Withdrawal by the United States could seriously undermine global efforts to tackle global warming — but much will depend on how other countries react.

Leaders in Europe, China and India have insisted that they would carry on tackling global warming without the United States. But the precise shape of future climate talks remains an open question.

One possibility is that, with the world’s second-largest emitter pulling out, other countries might feel inclined to relax their own plans to curb greenhouse gases. “Even in places like Europe, you have industry groups worried about competitiveness,” said David G. Victor, a professor of international relations at the University of California, San Diego. An American withdrawal, he notes, “makes the politics in other countries that much harder.”

Developing countries like India, Indonesia and the Philippines might be more reluctant to tackle their emissions if the United States pulled back on promised aid to help them adjust to the worst effects of climate change.

Not everyone is so pessimistic, however. Luke Kemp, a climate policy expert at Australian National University, suggests that other countries might choose to redouble their pursuit of cleaner energy in the face of recalcitrance from the Trump administration. “In the short term you could see a galvanizing effect,” he said.

China, the world’s largest emitter, is poised to assume a dominant role in future talks. The country is investing heavily in wind, solar and nuclear power in an attempt to level off its once-insatiable coal consumption. But it is unclear how far China’s leaders will go in pressuring other countries to raise their ambitions. In the past, China has argued against rigorous transparency standards to review nations’ progress.

But the rest of the world will have a lot of heavy lifting ahead of it: Current pledges, when added up, put the planet on pace to warm 3 degrees Celsius or more above preindustrial levels, an outcome with a far greater risk of destabilizing ice sheets in Greenland and Antarctica, higher levels of sea-level rise, more destructive heat waves and droughts, and the loss of vital ecosystems like coral reefs.

One final variable: A future American administration could always change course on climate policy — and even try to rejoin the agreement once Mr. Trump is out of office.

“Other countries are constantly judging each other’s positions in the world,” Mr. Victor said. “If it looks like this administration is only going to last for four years, you might see other countries continue to push along on climate and not give up on the U.S. just yet.”