Implications of American withdrawal from UNFCCC

President Trump's decision to withdraw the United States from the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) and the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change is not merely a bureaucratic exit from global institutions. It is a political statement with material consequences that shifts burdens from the world's largest historical polluters onto countries least responsible for the crisis.

The UNFCCC was built on a simple but essential principle. Those who contributed most to climate change should do more to address it. As the single largest cumulative emitter of greenhouse gases, the US played a central role in shaping this framework. The Trump administration's UNFCCC withdrawal is being described as an abdication, and a refusal to engage in the very system designed to manage climate consequences which America has done much to cause.

By exiting the UNFCCC, the US relinquishes its formal role in not only shaping emissions rules but also transparency standards and compliance frameworks related to climate finance mechanisms. America is no longer willing to participate in global climate summits, such as the Conference of Parties negotiations. Simultaneously, Washington is also withdrawing from several other international environmental and development bodies, signalising a broader retreat from multilateral accountability.

This American decision hands strategic advantage to other powers. China and the European Union are poised to fill the leadership vacuum shaping carbon markets technology standards and climate finance architecture. As the European Union implements carbon border taxes and China expands green industrial policy, global markets are aligning around low carbon standards. By stepping outside climate governance, the United States risks isolating its firms and surrendering influence over rules that will shape trade and investment for decades.

But the deeper shift is normative. When a major historical emitter walks away from its obligations, this weakens the moral and political foundation for collective climate action. As the US government distances itself from addressing climate change, it also continues to undermine science-based policymaking and the political authority of climate assessments that vulnerable countries rely on to justify finance and adaptation needs.

For the Global South, the consequences of America's climate withdrawal are immediate and severe. Countries that contributed least to global warming are already experiencing its worst effects. Pakistan is emblematic of this injustice. Responsible for under one per cent of global emissions, the country faces intensifying floods, deadly heatwaves, glacial melt and chronic water stress. These unfolding realities are straining scant public resources, displacing marginalised communities and undermining development gains.

Climate change is not only an environmental crisis but a process which is entrenching global inequality. Poorer countries' ability to cope with climate threats depends heavily on international cooperation negotiated under the UNFCCC. The American withdrawal from the UNFCCC will worsen funding gaps, delay vital projects and cause greater uncertainty for countries already grappling with debt and fiscal fragility.

Despite these setbacks, the global energy transition has not halted. Renewable energy deployment is accelerating across Asia and Africa infused by private investments. Yet, market mechanisms privilege profit over protection, and private capital invariably flows toward returns, instead of being compelled by responsibility. The private sector cannot substitute for binding obligations on major emitters.

The bottom line is thus stark. When historical polluters walk away from responsibility, they do not eliminate the costs of climate change. They redistribute them. And the burden of this redistribution weighs most heavily on already vulnerable communities in hotspot states, including Pakistan.