The US withdrawal from the UNFCCC and the IPCC

Guest blog: Janos Pasztor the Former Executive Director of the Carnegie Climate Governance Initiative (C2G), Former UN Assistant Secretary-General on Climate Change

On the 7^th of December the United States government announced through a presidential memorandum from the White House that it would withdraw from over 60 international organizations, including many UN entities, such as the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) and the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). Below are my reflections on the impact of this decision.

In particular:

The United States’ withdrawal from the IPCC and the UNFCCC signals a deliberate abandonment of international climate science, cooperation, and responsibility for its historical emissions, while actively promoting fossil fuels at home—thereby increasing global emissions and the risk of irreversible climate tipping points. This move undermines global climate ambition, shifts unfair burdens onto other countries, weakens multilateral institutions, and accelerates a dangerous trajectory toward climate instability, adaptation limits, and potentially unilateral geoengineering interventions to cool the planet. At this time, it is especially important that all other countries and non-state actors stay the course to the agreed climate objectives, and hopefully also go beyond them.

 1.      Given previous communications of the US government, as well as campaign promises, the withdrawal of the US from the IPCC (the science) and the UNFCCC (policy, implementation and solidarity) was not unexpected, but still a huge development. It does mean, that from the current US government perspective, the concept of Climate Change science and implementation at the international level has been cancelled. This action is equivalent to a clear statement to the rest of the world that whatever happened in the past in terms of historical, and now also current emissions, the US government does not care, and by implications lets the rest of the world deal with the issue. 

2. Over the years, the IPCC has been the source of the science while the UNFCCC the place where countries considered responses to that science. US withdrawal from these institutions at the same time as introducing a series of executive orders domestically that limit renewables and encourage fossil fuels makes it now inevitable that that the US will pump out more CO₂ in the coming years than previous 

analyses have predicted - and this in spite of the success of renewable (low or zero carbon) energy.

These together will have adverse impacts on global emissions increasing the risk of reaching tipping points that change Earth’s climate irreversibly.

3. There are some countries in the UNFCCC process sitting on the fence, and not that enthusiastic about climate action. The US going the way it is, will influence those countries on the fence, and push/pull them in a direction away from climate action. They may not go as far as the US in leaving the UNFCCC, but many might reduce the ambition in their emission reduction plans. Thus, there could be an even bigger slow-down in global emission reductions.

4. How fast the world reaches different tipping points will depend on the sum of actions to reduce emissions across the world, and on the level of greenhouse gas concentrations in the atmosphere. The US government withdrawing from these global processes would be fundamentally “unfair” to everybody else, as the rest of the countries will have to do more to keep existing global climate goals, and they will also have to pay more to keep international institutions funded. The US announcement included withdrawing from organisations like the International Solar Alliance, the International Renewable Energy 

Agency, etc. These are important for promoting low- and zero-emissions energy systems. Lack of US support to these entities will make it harder for them to reach their objectives. And all this at a time when the US government is in fact actively pushing for more fossil fuel consumption.

5.  The implication of all of the above is that at a time when global emissions should be coming down rapidly, at best they will remain at current levels, perhaps going above them. This means continued and increasingly significant and catastrophic climate impacts in the US and elsewhere, highlighting the need for, but as global temperatures increase, also the limits of, adaptation. All this means that the world is heading closer and closer to the dead-end street on climate change, where global cooling, especially through the controversial technique of stratospheric aerosol injection becomes increasingly inevitable. Furthermore, given the challenging geopolitical situation the world is facing at this time, the chances for a potential unilateral move by one country to cool the planet is also increasing.

6.   What is perhaps the biggest negative consequence is the increasing realisation by many that the US government simply doesn’t care about the rest of the world. US interests will always trump international law and norms. This appears to be the case on a range of issues, not just climate change. Yet, being a superpower (economic as well as military) comes with responsibilities. The US is losing a lot of friends in this process - some have said so clearly, and many others who cannot openly say so, but they are waiting for the moment when they can.

7.    This is clearly a moment when the rest of the world has to come together – governments as well as non-state actors - and move forward with our common objectives for sustainable development – despite these actions by the United States of America.