On January 7, U.S. President Donald Trump signed a memorandum to withdraw from 66 international bodies, including the UNFCCC, IPCC, Green Climate Fund (GCF), and the International Renewable Energy Agency (IRENA).
- This marks one of the most far-reaching retreats of the United States from the multilateral system, particularly weakening global climate governance mechanisms.
About Key Climatic Institutions from where the US is exiting
- UNFCCC (United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change): It is the central multilateral platform that administers the Paris Agreement and coordinates global negotiations on climate mitigation, adaptation, and finance.
- IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change): It is the UN’s scientific body that assesses climate research and tracks global temperature trends; U.S. withdrawal reduces access to advanced American scientists, laboratories, and datasets, weakening future assessments.
- Green Climate Fund (GCF): It is the primary global financial mechanism through which developed countries support developing nations in climate adaptation and low-carbon development projects.
- IRENA (International Renewable Energy Agency): It promotes global cooperation in renewable energy deployment, technology sharing, and cost reduction, supporting energy transitions, especially in developing countries.
|
Consequences of US Exit
- Funding Gap in Climate Finance: The U.S. exit from the Green Climate Fund (GCF) creates a major financing shortfall of around $100 billion.
- Europe is unable to compensate for this gap due to fiscal pressures arising from the Russia–Ukraine war.
- Critical adaptation projects, such as cyclone protection infrastructure in Bangladesh, are at risk.
- Loss of Technical Expertise and Cooperation: U.S. withdrawal may slow the diffusion of renewable energy technologies and hinder cost reductions.
Climate Injustice and the Global South
- Unequal Contribution vs Unequal Suffering: Developing countries have contributed less than 20% of historical global emissions. However, they bear the worst impacts, including floods, heatwaves, and cyclones.
- Moral Responsibility of Historical Emitters: The U.S., as the largest historical emitter, is seen as abdicating its responsibility by retreating from climate commitments.
- This deepens the perception of “climate injustice” among Global South nations.
Consequences for India
- Loss of Climate Finance: India was promised about $2.5 billion from the GCF for coastal protection and Himalayan glacier conservation. Withdrawal threatens financing for these adaptation projects.
- India’s National Action Plan on Climate Change (NAPCC) requires nearly US$500 billion in investment, much of which is now at risk due to financing constraints and policy uncertainty.
- IRENA helped India reduce Solar Tariffs by 85% since 2010. Now, that technical support is gone.
- The rupee has depreciated by 7%, and the cost of green loans has increased.
- Risks to India: India ranks at the top of the Climate Risk Index.
- Already, 10 million people (one crore) in India have been forced to leave their homes due to climate disasters.
- Climatic models predict a strong El Niño event in 2026, leading to extreme heat and unpredictable rainfall.
- Technology Transfer Challenges: India’s ambitions in Green Hydrogen and battery storage depend on access to advanced U.S. technologies. Reduced US cooperation may slow progress in these strategic sectors.
- Expansion of Chinese Influence: The vacuum left by the U.S. may be filled by China through the Belt and Road Initiative (BRI). Smaller nations may face risks of debt dependency and reduced policy autonomy.
Way Forward
- Shift Diplomacy: There is a need to shift from trilateral (India-US-EU) to bilateral relations (India-EU).
- Strengthen the International Solar Alliance (ISA): India should leverage the ISA to bridge financing, technology, and capacity-building gaps, especially for countries in the Global South transitioning to low-cost solar energy.
- Deepening BRICS Cooperation on Climate and Energy: Through BRICS, India can push for joint green funds, research collaboration, and alternative development financing via institutions like the New Development Bank (NDB), helping the Global South meet climate goals without relying heavily on Western-led institutions.
- Domestic Capex: India’s $120 billion Green Budget (2026) should support indigenous clean technologies and infrastructure.
- Diplomatic Pressure through G20: India should push the EU and Japan to increase climate finance commitments under the G20 framework.
Conclusion
Political decisions may change, but climate impacts will not pause. A cyclone or heatwave does not respond to diplomatic withdrawals, highlighting the urgency of sustained global cooperation.
10 Jan 2026
.png)
GS Foundation
Optional Course
Combo Courses
Degree Program
