Earlier this month, the United States withdrew itself from over 60 major international organisations and agreements saying these no longer served American interests. The most high-profile of these exits related to environment and climate-related treaties and groups like the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC), Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), International Renewable Energy Agency (IRENA), International Solar Alliance (ISA), International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN) and a few others.
US President Donald Trump’s contempt for climate action is well-known. He has described climate change as a ‘hoax’, and pulled his country out of the 2015 Paris Agreement immediately after assuming office for the second time in January last year. The withdrawals from these organisations were, therefore, in sync with his public disdain for institutions or programmes promoting climate action and energy transition.
However, the United States has not exited from all such organisations or agreements. It pulled out of 31 UN entities but not from the UN Environment Programme (UNEP), which has a significant footprint on global climate policy and discussions. It has quit IRENA but not the International Energy Agency (IEA), whose work also influences global energy transitions. Similarly, the US has withdrawn from IPCC, the scientific body that produces periodic assessments of climate science, but not the World Meteorological Organisation (WMO), which too produces climate science and happens to be the host of IPCC. There are quite a few other organisations and agreements related to environment, energy and climate that the US is still a member of.
However, that might not in itself be any indication of the country’s continued interest in climate action and science. The motivations for continuing to remain in these organisations could be very different. Going by the reason provided for leaving the other institutions, it would imply that the environment and climate-related organisations and agreements that the United States is still a part of continue to serve the American interests.
Tailor treaties under discussion
One of those interests could be to ensure that a few important international agreements currently under discussion are aligned with American priorities. For example, since 2022, the UNEP has been facilitating talks on a Global Plastics Treaty, which is to be a legally-binding international instrument to curb plastic pollution, including in the oceans. The treaty was to be finalised last year, but objections by some countries, including the United States, on provisions that called for capping production of plastics, has put the negotiations on hold.
The United States can decide to walk away from the negotiations and not be part of the plastics treaty, but an unfavourable agreement might still hurt its industry, in the form of import restrictions by other countries, for example. The US is one of the largest producers of plastics, which are made from fossil fuels, and it is important for it to ensure that the eventual agreement does not jeopardise its industry. To be sure, the US is not alone in opposing the proposed production caps on plastics. Several other influential nations, including China, Saudi Arabia and India, also have similar positions. But the Trump administration clearly does not see it as profitable to disengage from this conversation at the current stage.
Somewhat similar is the case with discussions on shipping emissions happening under the International Maritime Organization (IMO). One of the goals of the discussion is to finalise a net-zero emissions framework for 2050, which involves, among other things, the imposition of a tax on carbon emissions from ships. This too was supposed to be finalised last year, but ran into trouble due to opposition from the United States and the same set of other players.
Story continues below this ad
On both these issues, the US position has shifted after the Trump administration took over.
Continuing Influence
Another possible reason for the United States not withdrawing itself from some multilateral climate and science related bodies could be that that it has a dominating influence over the policies and decision-making process in these. A good comparison could be that between IRENA, from which the US has withdrawn, and IEA, from which it has not.
Both are energy-related institutions, and seek to promote energy access, availability, and fair and equitable energy policies. But IRENA’s core objective is to push the deployment of renewable energy. It does not align with the priorities of the Trump administration, which wants to use more oil and gas. The IEA was formed in 1974 to ensure the security of oil supplies. Though it has also been promoting sustainable energy in recent years, it is not ideologically inclined towards renewable or clean energy. Also, its decision-making is still governed by a group of 30-odd, primarily OECD, countries, including the United States. IRENA, which came into being in 2009, has more than 170 countries as members, where the United States holds no structural advantage. The US has withdrawn from some other little known renewable focused organisations like Renewable Energy Policy Network for the 21st Century, 24/7 Carbon-Free Energy Compact, and International Energy Forum.
Story continues below this ad
The case of the World Meteorological Organization, a UN agency, is somewhat similar. WMO produces a lot of climate science, but its main job is global weather forecasting, ocean and atmospheric monitoring, disaster early warning, and weather data and analysis. For its work, WMO is heavily dependent on the work of US agencies like NOAA, NASA and their observational satellite systems. The US does have a big influence on the functioning of the WMO, unlike at IPCC, where decision-making is much more dispersed.
The United States does not seem to be running away from multilateralism. It just doesn’t seem to like the multilateral institutions where it is not in a position to call the shots.
