Trump has announced the withdrawal of the United States from 66 international organisations, including those dealing with climate and the environment.
The decision by the United States to withdraw from 66 international organisations, 31 of which are linked to the United Nations, represents a seismic shift in the fight against the climate crisis. Not only in terms of the effectiveness of greenhouse gas emissions reduction policies, but also with regard to the very structure of international negotiations. And this applies in both (potentially) positive and (certainly) negative terms.
Let us start with the facts: among the organisations from which far-right president Donald Trump has ordered withdrawal are several pillars of climate and environmental diplomacy. We are talking about the International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN) and the International Renewable Energy Agency (Irena). But above all the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (Unfccc, the body that, among other things, organises the Cops, the World Climate Conferences) and the most authoritative scientific body on the subject, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (Ipcc).
The Cops themselves, in fact, represent the only "place" in which the entire international community gathers, once a year, to discuss global warming: how to slow the rise in average global temperature, how to respond to the impacts of the climate crisis through adaptation policies, and how to make the ecological transition more equitable and just.
It was indeed during Cop3, in Japan, that in 1997 the Kyoto Protocol was adopted — the first international agreement on the subject in history. And it was at Cop21 in France that the Paris Agreement on climate was reached, which today stands as the sole document through which governments around the world have "incorporated" the guidance of science. It is this agreement that sets out the need to limit the rise in average global temperature to a maximum of 2 degrees Celsius by the end of the century relative to pre-industrial levels, while remaining as close as possible to 1.5 degrees.
The United States had already withdrawn from the Paris Agreement once before, during Trump's first term. They then rejoined under the Biden administration, before initiating the withdrawal process once again a year ago (which will take effect from 20 January), when the American billionaire returned to the White House.
There is a difference, however, between withdrawing from a specific treaty and abandoning altogether the organisation under whose auspices it was reached. It is the difference between not adhering to a specific European Union policy and leaving it entirely, as the United Kingdom did, for example, with Brexit. It means renouncing participation in international negotiations tout court. It means choosing total diplomatic isolationism. It means sending the message that the Unfccc is a useless body.
This "will hurt the economy, jobs and living standards in the United States, as it will be less safe and less prosperous", stressed Unfccc Executive Secretary Simon Stiell, who highlighted how mega-fires, floods, heatwaves and droughts are already hitting the North American country in a catastrophic manner.
The reality, however, is that the results we have achieved so far on the climate front are precisely the product of the United Nations Framework Convention. Certainly, these are insufficient advances. But without the Unfccc the world would undoubtedly be even further behind.
The point, however, is that even these results — judged as inadequate by near-unanimous consensus within the global scientific community — are too much for Trump. In the executive order directing withdrawal from the 66 organisations in question, the Washington administration states plainly that they "no longer protect American interests". On the contrary, they "promote radical climate policies". And furthermore they "act against the security, economic prosperity and sovereignty of the United States".
The anti-scientific ignorance, populist and short-sighted, of the Washington government has been well known for some time. The only doubt from a technical standpoint is the one raised by Jean Su, a lawyer and director of the energy justice programme at the think tank Climate and Community Institute, who as quoted by the AFP agency explained: "We believe a unilateral withdrawal from the UNFCCC is illegal, as it would require a two-thirds vote in favour from Senate members."
It remains to be seen whether Trump's executive order will be challenged and in what manner at a legal level. What can be done very little about is American disengagement. And it is precisely here that two factors emerge — one potentially positive and one negative — that were alluded to earlier.
No longer having to deal with delegations sent by the United States could indeed make negotiations more streamlined at future Cops. There will be one fewer voice putting the brakes on climate policies. Admittedly, the usual suspects will remain (from the Gulf states to India, to name a few) attempting to throw a spanner in the works. But the negative political weight of the current United States is not comparable to that of any other diplomatic actor.
On the other hand, however, not negotiating with the US means "losing" approximately 13 per cent of global greenhouse gas emissions. The concrete risk, moreover, is that other economies such as China and India may react to American disengagement by arguing that they too cannot adopt overly stringent climate standards, as they would be unable to compete with American goods, which would instead be free from "red tape" (in perfect keeping with ultra-liberal doctrine).
The truth that must never be lost sight of is that the United States, India and China alone account for roughly half of global emissions. Resolving the climate issue therefore cannot be separated from the concrete commitment of these three nations. If such commitment were to come through the UNFCCC, it would be excellent, as it would include the entire world and strengthen multilateralism. But if it were to come instead through a trilateral agreement, it would be equally effective from a purely climate perspective. The real point, of course, is that there is no intention whatsoever of committing on the part of Washington. Neither under the UN umbrella nor in a hypothetical G3. And that is what will condemn us.
