Low-Energy Fridays: Should we stay in the UN’s Climate Convention?

With the climate change “Conference of the Parties” (COP) occurring this week, it’s worth addressing the debate around whether the United States should remain part of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC), the body that organizes the annual COP where treaties like the Paris Agreement (PA) are negotiated. Given the problems with the PA and the ability of presidents to enter or withdraw at will, some critics of climate treaties believe we should withdraw from the UNFCCC altogether to prevent any future involvement in global climate treaties. While it’s true that the U.N. has deservedly received much more criticism lately, policymakers should bear in mind the risks to withdrawing from the UNFCCC.

It’s important to understand that the U.N. has lost significant credibility in recent years, especially since the global COVID-19 pandemic. The World Health Organization’s terrible handling of the situation and its apparent susceptibility to Chinese influence have made conservatives already predisposed to distrust global institutions especially skeptical of the U.N. Far gone are its days as the forum in which the United States called the Soviet Union out on its lies about nuclear weapons in Cuba.

Even though the criticisms are true, policymakers must still recognize that the United States has a powerful voice in the U.N. and that withdrawing from treaties that stem from it (e.g., the UNFCCC) could create more problems than solutions.

The argument in favor of UNFCCC withdrawal is that Americans will no longer have to worry about which climate treaties may be formed or whether the United States is being pressured into them. This argument became especially salient when President Barack Obama circumvented the normal procedure for participation in the PA to avoid requiring approval from the then-Republican-controlled Senate. This triggered the Spidey senses of PA critics, who believe the only way to keep a future administration from attempting to justify domestic regulations based on non-ratified future climate agreements is to withdraw from the UNFCCC entirely.

But there’s a more compelling argument for remaining within the UNFCCC (in my view, at least): The UNFCCC will continue to pursue broad international climate agreements even if the United States withdraws, and having a voice in those negotiations is too important to give up. While one could argue that the United States is not required to abide by any resulting agreement, it doesn’t mean the country would be unaffected by it.

A looming issue for U.S. firms doing business in Europe is that the European Union is ramping up disclosure and reporting requirements for importers, meaning that U.S. exporters of products like natural gas may have to comply with E.U. emission reporting requirements.

There are similar risks for international climate agreements in that even if the United States doesn’t participate, U.S. firms doing business in nations that do comply with a climate treaty will be exposed to compliance burdens. In this way, UNFCCC withdrawal could pose a significant risk to U.S. companies, who would have no voice to represent their interests while the rest of the world negotiates a climate treaty.

While proponents of withdrawal may be unhappy with the level of representation afforded them by past administrations, even the Obama administration put effort into fighting the worst instincts of foreign negotiators who simply wanted to foist burdens upon the United States. There is still value in having agents who represent U.S. interests poorly as opposed to no representation at all.

Simply put, game theory calculus favors continued participation in the UNFCCC. There is virtually no cost to remaining involved and engaged, but there is risk from withdrawal. The PA challenges stem from executive overreach, not a lack of U.S. influence on the global stage. Critics of how prior administrations have approached treaties emerging from the UNFCCC must focus on getting Congress to do its job and rein in executive power instead of throwing the baby out with the bathwater.

There are times when retrenchment from international forums can be an appropriate response, but only when participation in such bodies does more harm than good. While the U.N. is especially worthy of criticism nowadays, letting the rest of the world shape its functions without us is not the solution.