The USA is out of the UNFCCC. Now what?

The current leadership of the United States opted to leave the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) effective next year, a move that should come as a shock to absolutely no one.

What would be slightly more surprising than that is its choice to leave 66 international organizations at once, with possibly more to come, with the justification that their respective works conflict with what it claims to be the country’s interests. 

This departure by the world’s worst historical polluter is obviously insulting to the most vulnerable countries and communities that not only remain not fully compensated for the losses and damages, but are also still disproportionately experiencing the impacts of the climate crisis. 

Yet the implications of this go deeper through multiple contexts.

The climate context

Contrary to what others might think, the USA’s formal withdrawal should not significantly impact the global climate negotiations. After all, the process has already been slow and inefficient for decades, with or without it; the latter is evidenced by what transpired at COP30 in Brazil. The impacts of this move, however, would likely still slow down global climate action on several fronts. 

One aspect is finance. Developed countries have already been failing to provide the trillions of dollars of climate finance needed by the most vulnerable nations. The USA’s absence from the UNFCCC would make meeting any global finance target, most notably at USD1.3 trillion annually by 2035, even more challenging. This will be reflected in the resources of the likes of the Green Climate Fund, Adaptation Fund, and Fund for Responding to Loss and Damage.

Another is on climate science. Among the dozens of international organizations that the USA will leave is the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), which is currently working on its 7th Assessment Report. It is the latest in its all-out war against science, facts, or anything else that contradicts the ultra-conservative, pro-fossil fuel stance of its ruling party.

Another is on mitigation. A more restrictive environment could make it more difficult for large amounts of capital, which is within USA-based businesses, to flow into renewable energy development programs and accelerate the global transition away from fossil fuels. At a time when exceeding 1.5°C of warming is becoming an annual occurrence, any delays on this front would be costly to the most vulnerable.

Yet the implications of this exit must not be looked at solely through the lens of climate action. 

The broader context

The current USA leadership is setting all kinds of precedents that threaten the well-being of billions of people. Whether it is the exit from the UNFCCC or the invasion of Venezuela for oil interests, these recent actions highlight the challenges in ending the era of fossil fuel dominance. It could also encourage other powerful countries to conduct similar moves that only lead to further conflicts.   

Whatever lens or context is used, the same picture emerges – the most vulnerable countries and communities will continue to endure injustices; other existing multilateral initiatives would be hindered that also adversely affects development in many nations, and strengthening global cooperation at a time when it is needed the most would be even more difficult. 

Make no mistake: the USA is not really isolating itself by leaving the UNFCCC and other organizations. By justifying its aggressive actions through outdated strategies, pollutive systems, and outright falsehoods, its current leadership is choosing to double down on an approach to reshape multilateralism solely through its own terms. This approach would diminish its global competitiveness and leadership, the latter of which will be seen not if, but when the country returns to the same organizations it left. 

It is also an act of negligence of the well-being of its own citizens, who are now experiencing more extreme wildfires, hurricanes, and other manifestations of the climate crisis, a threat its head is too ignorant to recognize. Even businesses would not exactly thrive as much, especially with many of them already or planning to engage in carbon markets that are under the UNFCCC landscape.

While the current USA leadership desperately clings to the past, the rest of the world should and will continue moving towards creating a greener future. 

The Paris Agreement has succeeded in avoiding one degree of global warming that, while still projected to exceed the 1.5°C target, would still prevent something much worse. Renewable energy development continues to progress globally, albeit not in the pace it needs to be to limit further climate change. But at least there is something for the world to build on.

This is part of why addressing a global threat like the climate crisis will still require global cooperation and political will. We need to see the likes of China and the European Union truly step up and show the kind of climate leadership that the USA failed to exemplify. We need to see the leaders of the most vulnerable countries assert themselves even more so in global decision-making, to stand up against fossil fuel interests and be true bastions for climate justice.

These next few years are a chance to reshape climate multilateralism for the better, not because it is an option, but because it is a necessity. No amount of denial or propaganda is ever going to change that.

illuminem Voices is a democratic space presenting the thoughts and opinions of leading Sustainability & Energy writers, their opinions do not necessarily represent those of illuminem.

Track the real‑world impact behind the sustainability headlines. illuminem’s Data Hub™ offers transparent performance data and climate targets of companies driving the transition.