Experts warn US retreat from UN climate frameworks undermines global trust and science, even as extreme weather damages soar, reshaping geopolitics and slowing collective climate action.
The United States’ decision to step back from international climate commitments has raised alarm among climate scientists, economists and former government officials. The country continues to face mounting economic losses from extreme weather linked to climate change.
According to the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), weather and climate disasters have cost the United States more than $2.9 trillion since 1980. In 2023 alone, the country experienced 28 separate disasters, each causing damages exceeding $1 billion, including hurricanes, floods, heatwaves, droughts and wildfires.
Despite these escalating losses, the US administration has announced its withdrawal from international climate reporting and cooperation under the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC), the foundational global climate treaty adopted in 1992.
Climate policy researchers at Yale University’s School of the Environment, which conducts global climate risk and governance analysis, have described the move as deeply contradictory. They note that the country bearing some of the highest financial costs of climate change is withdrawing from mechanisms designed to manage shared global risk.
The withdrawal has implications beyond diplomacy. The United States has historically been one of the largest contributors to international climate science, including financial and technical support to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). The IPCC, chaired by Professor Jim Skea, serves as the United Nations’ authoritative body for assessing climate science, impacts and mitigation pathways.
Former senior US climate officials, including former Secretary of State John Kerry and former Environmental Protection Agency Administrator Gina McCarthy, have warned that disengagement could weaken international trust and slow collective climate action. Kerry described the move as a gift to China while McCarthy called it embarrassing and foolish. EU Climate Commissioner Wopke Hoekstra labelled it regrettable and unfortunate.
Energy policy analysts from the International Energy Agency (IEA), an intergovernmental organization based in Paris, have highlighted geopolitical risks. Reduced US participation in climate frameworks could influence global energy markets, slow clean energy investment and increase dependence on fossil fuels at a time when many countries are accelerating renewable energy transitions for economic stability and national security.
China and the European Union, led by the European Commission’s Directorate-General for Climate Action, are expected to expand their roles in global climate diplomacy. However, climate governance experts caution that no single country or bloc can replace the influence historically exercised by the United States in climate negotiations, finance and scientific leadership.
On January 8, UN Climate Change Executive Secretary Simon Stiell said the doors remain open for US re-engagement. Diplomats, however, note that trust has eroded and any return would likely require firm guarantees after years of unpredictable participation.
Washington continues to engage selectively in multilateral forums, including UN Environment Programme negotiations on a global plastics treaty and International Maritime Organization shipping talks. Climate policy analysts argue the US presence in these venues appears aimed at limiting regulatory ambition rather than advancing new commitments.
As preparations begin for COP31 in Antalya, Turkey, climate diplomats warn that the absence of consistent US leadership risks slowing global progress at a critical moment. With climate damages rising at home and energy insecurity growing abroad, the costs of disengagement are increasingly difficult to ignore.
The withdrawal from science-based institutions has drawn particular concern. The IPCC and the Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services (IPBES) provide the scientific foundation for global climate and biodiversity policy. The International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN) Red List, which assesses over 170,000 species worldwide, is regarded as the most authoritative measure of extinction risk. Conservation groups warn that US disengagement weakens both global environmental governance and America’s international credibility.
Legally, the US may avoid formally exiting UN climate treaties. Under Trump’s Presidential Memoranda, withdrawal can mean ceasing participation or funding to the extent permitted by law, a strategy analysts say could reduce legal barriers to rejoining in the future while keeping current engagement minimal.
At the same time, US energy policy is pivoting sharply toward oil and gas dominance. The National Security Strategy released late last year prioritises fossil fuel expansion and supply control, including moves tied to Venezuela’s oil sector, according to reporting by Bloomberg and the Financial Times. Energy analysts view this as part of a broader effort to secure leverage over global commodity markets.
OPEC member countries account for about 79 percent of the world’s proven crude oil reserves, a concentration that continues to shape global energy politics. For major importing blocs such as the European Union, analysts say this leaves a stark choice between accelerating the clean energy transition or facing growing exposure to fossil fuel geopolitics.
Climate scientists emphasise that physical climate impacts will continue regardless of political decisions. The World Meteorological Organization (WMO), the UN agency responsible for climate and weather monitoring, has warned that rising global temperatures are intensifying sea level rise, storms and extreme heat, with disproportionate impacts on vulnerable regions including South Asia, Africa and small island developing states.
Researchers at the University of Cambridge’s Centre for Climate Repair have stressed that international climate cooperation is essential for disaster preparedness, food security, public health protection and long-term economic stability.
As climate risks accelerate, observers warn that sustained disengagement by major emitters could delay global mitigation and adaptation efforts at a critical moment. While international institutions may adapt, analysts say the absence of US leadership would represent a significant shift in the global response to one of the defining challenges of the 21st century.
