In a dramatic break from US policy, President Donald Trump has done the deed and withdrawn the US from the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC). The move, announced on Wednesday in a statement by Secretary of State Mike Pompeo, takes effect in 30 days and is the latest action to undo policies aimed at combating climate change that were put into place by the Obama administration. The White House also severed ties with 65 other international organisations, such as those that concentrated on clean energy, gender equality and global security.
The administration called such groups a “waste of taxpayer dollars promoting foreign agendas” rather than American interests, they said. In departing from these organisations, the U.S. is also stepping back from the main table where world rules on pollution, trade and human rights are set. Critics say this could lead to the United States becoming isolated, while supporters say it’s necessary to protect American sovereignty and save money.
Ending the “Globalist” Climate Agenda
The White House says the decision came after an extensive review of every international body that the U.S. participates in. Many of those bodies advance “radical” policies that stymie American businesses and energy strength, the President’s team said. By withdrawing from the UNFCCC and the IPCC (the world’s premier organisation for climate science), the U.S. will end payments of billions of dollars to international climate funds.
This is far beyond simply leaving the Paris Agreement. If the United States leaves the overall UNFCCC treaty, then it would lose a formal vote on global climate negotiations. This is turning American scientists away from conducting large studies on the rapidly rising temperatures, which could mean crucial reports that governments need to plan for the future will be delayed, say scientists.
Effect on World Trade and Security
The list of withdrawals also includes non-UN groups, such as the International Solar Alliance and the Global Counter-Terrorism Forum. The administration says they attack American policies while taking American money. By withdrawing, the U.S. is seeking to reprioritise its resources in favour of “America First” pursuits and do away with obligations it dislikes even if others want to keep them in place.
European leaders have already condemned the move, describing it as a blow to global peace and cooperation. They caution that when the U.S. turns its back on these groups, it cedes its leverage over trillions of dollars in global investments and trade. For now, it won’t be until a year later that the United States can make its exit from the climate treaty official, although already here at home, the U.S. has ceased participating in most of these groups’ day-to-day work anyway.
Legal Battles and Future Ties
Legal scholars are now discussing whether the President does have the authority to withdraw from a treaty that was originally ratified by the Senate. Despite plans by some activists to contest the decision in court, the White House is confident in its powers. They contend that the Constitution is vague on how to exit a treaty and it empowers the President to make any decision he or she deems fit in the national interest.
If these decisions stand, it would be close to impossible for a future president to just “jump back in.” In one of the ways international law intersects with domestic politics, rejoining a major treaty like the UNFCCC might take a new two-thirds vote of the Senate (and votes on things can be tricky). Meanwhile, as the U.S. withdraws from world leadership, other countries, including China, are likely to fill the vacuum over global climate and trade initiatives.
For more recent news follow Inspirepreneur Magazine.
