Earlier this month, the United States announced its exit from over 60 major international organizations and agreements, claiming they no longer served American interests. High-profile withdrawals included climate-related treaties like the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) and the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC).
President Donald Trump is known for his skepticism about climate action. He labeled climate change a “hoax” and withdrew from the 2015 Paris Agreement shortly after taking office for his second term in January. These recent exits were aligned with his clear disregard for institutions advocating climate action.
Interestingly, the U.S. hasn’t pulled out of all international organizations. It left 31 UN entities but remained in the UN Environment Programme (UNEP), which shapes global climate policy. The U.S. also exited the International Renewable Energy Agency (IRENA) but stayed with the International Energy Agency (IEA). While it departed from the IPCC, it still participates in the World Meteorological Organization (WMO), another key player in climate science.
Remaining in these organizations may not necessarily mean the U.S. is committed to climate action. It could imply that certain treaties still align with American interests. For instance, the UNEP is currently facilitating talks on a Global Plastics Treaty aimed at tackling plastic pollution. The U.S. has expressed concerns about proposals limiting plastic production, which could impact its industries heavily reliant on plastics.
The U.S. is among the top producers of plastics, making its voice crucial in these negotiations. If an unfavorable treaty is established, it could lead to import restrictions impacting American businesses. Other major countries, such as China and India, share similar concerns regarding the proposed production caps.
Similar issues arise in discussions about shipping emissions under the International Maritime Organization (IMO). Leaders are trying to finalize a net-zero emissions framework for 2050, which could include taxation on carbon emissions from ships. Again, U.S. opposition has stalled these talks.
It’s essential to look at why the U.S. continues to engage with certain organizations. For one, it holds significant sway over decision-making in groups like the IEA, which has historically prioritized the security of oil and gas supplies. IRENA, on the other hand, focuses more on renewable energy, which does not align with the Trump administration’s interests.
The World Meteorological Organization is another case where the U.S. retains influence. Although it generates vital climate science, its work depends heavily on data from U.S. agencies like NOAA and NASA.
In essence, the U.S. seems selective about its international engagements, favoring organizations where it can maintain control over policies. While it appears to be stepping back from some multilateral agreements, its intention is likely not to disengage entirely but to redefine its role on its own terms.
Source link
US withdrawal climate treaties, UNFCCC exit impact, Trump climate policy, international agreements US, environmental organisations 2023, climate action funding, Global Plastics Treaty negotiations, renewable energy institutions USA, international climate agreements, US IEA influence, Indian express, express explained
