Widespread condemnation of US withdrawal from 66 international entities

BATHINDA: A number of former diplomats, UN entities, and climate experts have regretted the US decision to withdraw from 66 international entities including the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC), the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), the International Solar Alliance (ISA), the International Renewable Energy Agency (IRENA), Green Climate Fund (GCF). UN secretary-general António Guterres has regretted the announcement by the United States’ decision to withdraw from 66 international entities including 31 United Nations entities. His spokesperson has pointed to the legal obligation under the UN Charter for all Member States, including the United States to provide contributions to the United Nations regular budget and peacekeeping budget. The spokesperson has said they had not received an official notification from the White House beyond the memorandum. Simon Stiell, executive secretary of the UN framework convention on climate change, said, “While all other nations are stepping forward together, this latest step back from global leadership, climate cooperation and science can only harm the US economy, jobs and living standards, as wildfires, floods, mega-storms and droughts get rapidly worse. It is a colossal own goal which will leave the US less secure and less prosperous.”John Kerry, 68th US secretary of state and former special presidential envoy for climate, said, “Nothing is surprising about their attitude about the climate crisis or the value of institutions. This is par for the course. But it doesn’t change the fact that it’s a gift to China and a get out of jail free card to countries and polluters who want to avoid responsibility.”Rachel Cleetus, policy director and lead economist for the climate and energy program at the union of concerned scientists (UCS), Frances Colón, senior fellow for international climate policy at the center for American progress, David Waskow, Director, International Climate Initiative, WRI, have regretted the decision. The IPCC and Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services (IPBES) have reiterated that the success of these multilateral scientific bodies does not rise and fall on one member state alone.Jim Skea, IPCC Chair, said “The preparation of the scientific reports agreed by the member governments for this assessment cycle is underway. The Panel continues to make decisions by consensus among its member governments at its regular Plenary sessions. Our attention remains firmly on the delivery of these reports.”David Oboura, Chair of IPBES stated “While it is clearly the prerogative of Governments to withdraw from global processes, like those of IPBES, it is important to remember that this does not change the science or the relevance of that science to the lives and livelihoods of people in every community, in every part of the world.”Pamela McElwee, Rutgers Professor, who participated in both IPCC and IPBES processes, said “The idea that these organizations, many providing impartial science advice to governments, are 'contrary to US interests' couldn't be more wrong: working globally to identify solutions to collective public goods problems is crucial to US prosperity. Pollution, climate change, & biodiversity loss know no borders! If the US hadn't worked with other governments on [the] Montreal Protocol to fight ozone loss, we would be facing billions more yearly in healthcare costs from skin cancers. Instead, US companies innovated new technologies and reaped new markets to replace CFCs. We could be doing the same on clean energy for climate.” The US academic alliance for the IPCC (USAA-IPCC) has said that with their support, more than 70 US citizens and US-based experts who are currently serving the IPCC as coordinating lead authors, lead authors, review editors and committee members will continue to play these roles. It has been stated that if a government wants to see its national priorities and interests taken into consideration along with all other countries party to any multilateral process - which includes the IPCC and IPBES - they have to be a member state. Leaving these processes would also remove the US’ ability to take part in IPCC and IPBES negotiations. That means for example, that the future IPCC AR7 (Seventh Assessment cycle reports) will not have input from US state departments or negotiators.