By Somit Dasgupta, Visiting Professor, ICRIER
After withdrawing from the Paris Agreement (PA) for the second time, the US administration recently dissociated itself from 66 international organisations out of which 31 were linked to the United Nations (UN). The organisations from where the US withdrew are involved in a host of activities, which include climate change bodies such as the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) and the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), and also others like the International Solar Alliance, UN Population Fund, UN Conference to Trade and Development, UN Women, etc.
The US government opined that the functioning of these organisations was contrary to its interest, and constraining its sovereignty apart from wasting taxpayers’ money. The immediate impact of the US move would be a cutback on jobs. And of course, there are larger issues involved since organisations like the UNFCCC and IPCC are affected.
I would like to argue about issues only related to climate change. Before taking a deep dive into the US action, as an eye opener, it would be good to see its role in carbon emissions (see table).
Today, China, the US, and India are the three largest emitters. China is head and shoulders above both—about two and a half times more than the US, and nearly five and a half times more than India. One should, however, add that the US has already peaked its emissions in 2007 (6.12 billion tonnes) and is now on the decline, while China and India are yet to peak. Of course, these are total emissions and if per capita emissions are estimated, the top honours would go to countries like Qatar, Singapore, Bahrain, and Iceland. In cumulative terms, the US is the highest emitter, responsible for 25% of global emissions.
Despite being the highest cumulative emitter, the US has been conceited when it comes to dealing with climate change, almost cocking a snook at the world community. Though the US played a positive role in setting up the UNFCCC and IPCC, it has always resisted laying down targets for reducing carbon emissions. It never ratified the Kyoto Protocol which had laid down targets for developed nations on the grounds that countries like China and India should also be assigned targets. Of course, the US was not the only country to demand this; similar sentiments were aired by many of the western nations.
The US went a step further by trying to confuse the issue when it said that climate change is actually caused by methane emissions, something that China and India does in plenty on account of paddy farming and cattle rearing (Raghunandan). Though the US will not accept any targets for reduction in carbon footprints for itself, it wanted the steps taken by developing countries to be monitored and reviewed. The US, along with its western allies, sought to dilute the concept of common but differentiated responsibilities, which recognised that the developed countries were responsible for climate change.
After pursuing this end for several years, they finally tasted success in the PA (2015) which stipulated that all countries will formulate their nationally determined contributions (NDCs). It kind of made every country responsible for combating climate change. And, in a way, erased the fact that the developed world was primarily responsible for climate change.
While insisting that all countries formulate their NDCs, the US and the other developed nations did concede that the developing nations would require concessional resources to finance both mitigation and adaptation projects. A paltry sum of $100 billion a year was fixed (2009) but virtually nothing was made available. This was raised to $300 billion in 2024 (COP29), and it remains to be seen how much is actually transferred.
The contribution of the US to the Loss and Damage Fund is a mere 17%—a disgrace considering it is the largest cumulative emitter. The US has resisted mandatory contributions to any such fund and has always stressed that they should be voluntary. Further, it categorically stated that any contribution should not be seen as an admission of guilt from the emissions angle.
The US exit from the UNFCCC, IPCC, and also the PA could be disastrous as it may have a demonstration effect on the fence sitters, and emissions may spurt. It could, however, be a blessing in disguise since this will cede space to the developing world to have a say in the future protocols of climate change discussions. The absence of the US in climate discussions may also see less of bullying tactics. There are unconfirmed reports that officials from other nations were threatened with visa bans, etc. during an International Maritime Organisation meeting in October 2025, which was convened to discuss carbon pricing for shipping.
To sum up, insofar as climate change is concerned the role of the US is nothing but chicanery, deceit, and intimidation. This is true of successive US administrations, be it under Obama, Biden, or Trump. It would be very difficult for the next US administration to return to climate change negotiations even if it wanted to, because one would have reached the point of no return by then.