This past week, President Trump announced the removal of the U.S. from the Paris Agreement. This decision proceeded despite broadspread support to remain in the agreement from citizens and politicians in the U.S., across party lines. While this has major implications for counter climate change efforts (the U.S. produces the most carbon emissions), it also has large future implications for the U.S. in international politics.

The U.S. was also one of the largest funders of the agreement, contributing billions of dollars to combating climate change. President Trump has decided the pull the most influential world leader out of an agreement that the rest of the world (besides the other two countries) have gotten on board for. This type of international unity is unheard of, and by not taking part of it, Trump has decided to remove the U.S. from a historical agreement.

Additionally, his decision to remove the U.S. does not have a lot of legitimate logical reasoning, leaving the world questioning why he made this decision. Now, I know a lot of people in the U.S. especially are doubtful of climate change (because why would we trust scientists?). So if climate change doesn’t move you, this decision will have a large impact on the U.S. abroad too, and not in a good way.

Given that there are only three countries not a part of the agreement, and that those remaining leading countries within the agreement are still determined to combat climate change to the best of their ability (France, Canada, UK, China, and others), means that whether President Trump likes it or not, the world market, economy, and politics are in fact shifting towards pro-green methods. That means the U.S. (as a country/government) is now not going to be taking part of the new world market that is counter-climate change technology/innovations.

Instead, if all goes as planned, the U.S. will be going back to fossil fuel markets and efforts to revive the coal industry. Additionally, private companies and individuals who are in the U.S. will take their innovations and technologies elsewhere to be funded (Microsoft, Adobe, Facebook, Google, Apple, to name a few), meaning they will no longer be contributing to the U.S. domestic economy. There will also be a large division within government, as U.S. states and politicians who support remaining in the agreement will also proceed without the backing of the federal government and funding.

What will happen, however, is that the U.S. will decreasingly be able to participate in the world market because there will be no international market in which fossil fuels will be ‘attractive’ given the international shift towards going green. This resulting decline in U.S. international economic presence will mean declining U.S. influence abroad in general. Additionally, since so many policies will now be focused towards going green, the U.S. will be seen as irrelevantly involved, and thus excluded from having a say and influence in these decisions. Instead, another country/state will step into this role of most influential world leader. Which, ironically, results in the exact opposite of what Trump promised to do - make America great again.

The U.S. is so deeply involved and intertwined with other states, it’s illogical to try to change that and keep its title as a world leader. While the future is not set in stone, it is plausible to expect changes like this. What made the U.S. so ‘great’ back in the day was its ability to take advantage of shifting markets and use domestic innovation and creativity to ensure its presence in the world. The world has resoundingly agreed to shift towards green. A ‘great’ U.S. would take this and be involved to ensure the security of its influence (which is important because being a world leader has secured the numerous privileges Americans may take for granted). The world will not wait for the U.S., and if President Trump doesn’t recognize that, he endangers the legacy of this country.