Climate, Human Rights, and the Limits of Power

The United States’ withdrawal from key United Nations bodies—most notably the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC)—marks a troubling escalation in its retreat from multilateralism. Taken together, these decisions are not isolated acts of political posturing; they represent a broader rejection of global cooperation, scientific accountability, and human rights norms at a moment when the world can least afford it.

This moment demands more than outrage. It demands clarity about what these withdrawals mean, what they do not mean, and why accountability remains unavoidable.

Withdrawal from the UN: A Signal, Not an Escape

The United Nations system—despite its limitations—exists to coordinate global responses to shared threats: climate change, conflict, displacement, and human rights violations. U.S. disengagement from UN mechanisms signals a desire to evade scrutiny and weaken collective guardrails designed to constrain harm.

But withdrawal does not equal immunity.

International norms, legal obligations, and moral responsibility are not voluntary in the way memberships are. The U.S. has helped shape the very frameworks it is now stepping away from—and it remains bound by the consequences of its actions within them.

Nowhere is this contradiction more visible than in climate change.

The IPCC: Withdrawing from Science in a Climate Emergency

The IPCC is a cornerstone of the UN system’s climate architecture. It does not set policy or enforce action; it synthesizes the best available science so governments can understand climate risks, impacts, and pathways forward.

U.S. participation has historically strengthened the IPCC’s rigor, transparency, and global credibility. Its withdrawal therefore represents a retreat not just from international cooperation, but from evidence-based decision-making itself.

This matters because climate change is not an abstract future threat. It is a present-day human rights crisis—driving food insecurity, displacement, health inequities, and loss of life, particularly in communities that have contributed least to the problem.

Historical Responsibility Cannot Be Withdrawn From

The United States is the world’s largest historical emitter of greenhouse gases. Its economic and energy systems have generated immense wealth domestically while exporting environmental harm globally.

Withdrawal from the UN or the IPCC does not change this reality.

The atmosphere does not recognize political boundaries. Climate impacts do not pause because a government disengages from science or diplomacy. And the communities already experiencing climate devastation do not experience less harm because accountability has become politically inconvenient.

Historical responsibility is not optional—and it is not erasable.

Human Rights, Climate Harm, and International Law

Climate change is increasingly recognized as a human rights issue, not just an environmental one. Access to clean water, food, housing, health, and self-determination are all undermined by climate disruption.

Recent developments at the International Court of Justice (ICJ) reinforce a critical principle: states have obligations to prevent environmental harm and protect human rights in the context of climate change, regardless of their participation in specific UN bodies.

In other words, opting out of the room does not mean opting out of responsibility.

The U.S. may withdraw from the IPCC or other UN mechanisms, but it cannot withdraw from:

• The transboundary impacts of its emissions

• The growing body of international climate and human rights law

• The moral claim of communities harmed by its actions

What This Means for the Global Climate and Human Rights Movements

These withdrawals are meant to weaken collective resolve—to suggest that international cooperation is fragile, reversible, or irrelevant. History tells a different story.

When governments retreat, civil society, scientists, subnational leaders, and transnational networks step forward. The legitimacy of climate science does not depend on the U.S. government’s participation. Nor does the demand for justice.

This moment calls for renewed commitment to:

• Defending science from political interference

• Strengthening global cooperation beyond federal leadership

• Advancing accountability through law, organizing, and solidarity.

  
  

A Final Reflection

The United States may withdraw from the United Nations. It may withdraw from the IPCC. But it cannot withdraw from the climate crisis it helped create, nor from the human rights impacts now unfolding across the globe.

Science persists. Harm persists. Responsibility persists.

And so must our insistence on accountability—grounded in justice, evidence, and collective action.

Cover image photo credit: Trust "Tru" Katsande on Unsplash