Why in the News?

The USA formally exited the UNFCCC framework and associated climate institutions following Donald Trump’s return to the presidency, completing a process initiated during his first term. This move reverses post-2021 re-engagement. This creates a quantified emissions gap toward 2030 targets, and transfers leadership space to China. Furthermore, this makes it a significant departure from prior multilateral climate engagement.

Why is the US withdrawal from the climate regime significant despite its mixed record?

1. Institutional Influence: The US shaped global climate action through bodies such as the IPCC, International Solar Alliance, and International Renewable Energy Agency, enabling coordination, research, and monitoring.
2. Scientific Capacity: Ensured global access to climate modelling, emissions tracking, and data-collection networks critical for mitigation planning.
3. Policy Signalling: Anchored climate ambition through participation rather than absolute emissions outcomes.

How does this decision disrupt global emissions reduction efforts?

1. Mitigation Gap: US withdrawal contributes to a shortfall that pushes global emissions beyond pathways needed to meet 2030 targets.
2. Burden Redistribution: Places disproportionate pressure on developing countries to compensate for reduced ambition.
3. Credibility Deficit: Weakens enforcement norms within the Paris Agreement framework.

What are the consequences for India’s decarbonisation pathway?

1. External Pressure: Increases international expectations on India to deliver faster emissions reductions.
2. Technology Access: Affects collaboration on clean energy research and innovation platforms.
3. Investment Climate: Risks slowing capital inflows for renewable infrastructure dependent on global policy certainty.

How does US disengagement alter global climate leadership dynamics?

1. Strategic Vacuum: Creates space for China to dominate renewable manufacturing, supply chains, and deployment.
2. Economic Leverage: Strengthens China’s position in equipment, infrastructure, and financing ecosystems.
3. Geopolitical Shift: Transfers normative leadership in climate governance away from Western institutions.

What does the withdrawal mean for climate finance and multilateral commitments?

1. Finance Gap: Reduces availability of concessional funding for mitigation and adaptation.
2. Institutional Weakening: Undermines credibility of collective responsibility frameworks.
3. Operational Uncertainty: Affects ongoing funding mechanisms for developed and developing countries.

Why is the impact larger than US domestic emissions alone?

1. Systemic Role: The US functioned as a coordinator, funder, and standard-setter.
2. Network Effects: Withdrawal disrupts global research, verification, and compliance systems.
3. Long-Term Costs: Creates structural weaknesses that outlast the current political cycle.

Conclusion

The US climate exit, despite its inconsistent mitigation record, weakens global climate governance by eroding institutional capacity, financing mechanisms, and leadership credibility. For India, the withdrawal raises decarbonisation pressures while simultaneously constraining access to capital and technology, underscoring the fragility of voluntary multilateral climate regimes.

PYQ Relevance

[UPSC 2019] “Too little cash, too much politics, leaves UNESCO fighting for life’. Discuss the statement in the light of US’ withdrawal and its accusation of the cultural body as being ‘ anti- Israel bias’.

Linkage: The UNESCO PYQ illustrates how US withdrawal and politicisation weaken multilateral institutions through funding gaps and credibility loss. Similarly, the US exit from the climate regime undermines UNFCCC effectiveness, shifts leadership space to China, and increases the burden on developing countries like India.

Get an IAS/IPS ranker as your 1: 1 personal mentor for UPSC 2024

Attend Now