AMERICAN President Donald Trump’s decision to withdraw from the UNFCCC has created a crisis for global multilateralism and international climate governance. The challenge is paradoxical: protecting relations with the US without abandoning multilateralism and climate commitments. This dilemma will reshape Pakistan’s domestic and international climate architecture. What opportunities can emerge for Pakistan from this crisis? How can Pakistan benefit from a new redistribution of power and resources? Can it navigate this shift to diversify partnerships, secure climate finance and advance economic and strategic interests amid global realignment?
Global fallout: The US is the only nation to completely withdraw from international climate efforts. The UNFCCC is a bedrock treaty that underpins every climate negotiation, emissions commitment and dollar of climate finance that flows from the developed to the developing world. The decision extends to the IPCC that has provided the authoritative voice on climate science for decades. This will diminish the quality and comprehensiveness of future assessments, particularly in complex areas of importance like agricultural emissions and land-use change.
The withdrawal undermines the principle of common but differentiated responsibilities that has been the moral foundation of Pakistan’s climate negotiations since Rio in 1992. The US as the largest historical contributor to greenhouse gases bears a unique responsibility for the warming that threatens billions of lives and livelihoods. By walking away, Washington sends an unmistakable message: the world’s most powerful economy will prioritise short-term political expediency over planetary survival.
Europe has responded with a mixture of moral indignation and pragmatic determination, making it clear that European climate ambition will continue unabated. The European Green Deal, the Carbon Border Adjustment Mechanism (CBAM) and continental commitments to net-zero by 2050 proceed regardless of US participation. In effect, Europe is preparing to lead a climate coalition without its traditional transatlantic partner.
Perhaps the most significant geopolitical consequence is the vacuum created for China, which has already positioned itself as a champion of multilateralism and international cooperation. The US exit hands China an unprecedented opportunity to claim leadership on the defining challenge of the 21st century. Former climate envoy John Kerry rightly called Trump’s decision “a gift to China”.
America’s withdrawal from the UN climate treaty must be treated as an opportunity.
China dominates the supply chains for solar panels, wind turbines and electric vehicle batteries. It leads in renewable energy (RE) deployment and clean technology innovation. By maintaining its commitment to the UNFCCC while Washington retreats, China can leverage green diplomacy, based on its experience with Pakistan, to strengthen ties with developing nations, present itself as a responsible global power, and capture the economic benefits of the estimated $23 trillion clean technology market.
This presents a delicate challenge for Pakistan that has carefully balanced its ties between Washington and Beijing. The US exit tilts that balance. If climate cooperation increasingly flows through Chinese channels through initiatives like Panda or Dim Sum Bonds, CPEC, and the BRI or bilateral agreements, Pakistan might be drawn further into Beijing’s orbit, with all the economic and strategic dependencies that it entails.
Pakistan’s moment: For Pakistan, these developments arrive at a moment of vulnerability. The catastrophic 2022 floods offered a glimpse of our climate future: one-third of the country underwater, 33 million people affected, economic losses exceeding $30bn. Our updated NDCs require an estimated $565bn by 2035, the vast majority of which must come from international sources. What, then, should Pakistan do in the face of the US exit? We must pursue a strategy grounded in diplomatic diversification, domestic mobilisation and regional cooperation.
First, we must diversify our climate partnerships. The EU and UK have recommitted to climate action and international cooperation, despite budgetary pressures. They should become our primary partners for technical assistance, technology transfer and climate finance. We should aggressively leverage our green taxonomy to attract European capital while advancing our own emissions reduction goals. The CBAM, rather than being feared as a trade barrier, should be seen as an incentive to accelerate our own decarbonisation.
Second, we must recognise that America’s exit makes China an even more critical partner. The CPEC already includes RE projects, but we should push for cutting-edge, greening investments. We should insist on offshore solar and wind parks, mass transit systems and hydroelectric projects that enhance our energy sovereignty while meeting our climate commitments. This requires difficult conversations with Beijing, but our leverage lies in framing climate action as economic modernisation rather than environmental virtue.
Third, we must accelerate domestic resource mobilisation, instead of waiting for international finance to materialise. Simultaneously, we should work towards aligning with China’s domestic emissions trading market as we develop our own local ecosystem for carbon trading. This will build institutional readiness and encourage cleaner industrial practices. Finally, we must expand our Panda Bond portfolio to reach $5bn by 2030 to support such projects as the Living Indus Initiative and climate-resilient agriculture.
Fourth, we should revitalise regional cooperation in South, Central and Southwest Asia through platforms like SCO. Regardless of US participation, we share common threats that demand common responses. Regional trading systems and resuming the Indus Waters Treaty can still proceed with Washington’s blessing.
Finally, we must recalibrate our diplomatic approach to the US itself. The Trump administration clearly favours bilateral deals over multilateral commitments and frames issues through the lens of national security. When engaging with Washington, we should present our climate needs as infrastructure, job creation and security projects that advance mutual interests, rather than as environmental obligations.
The longer view: The US exit from the UNFCCC won’t last forever. When the US rejoins, nations that maintained commitments will be remembered. Pakistan should be among them. This crisis creates an opportunity: international climate architecture including UNFCCC, IPCC and the Paris Agreement will survive, but power and resources will be redistributed. Pakistan must navigate this shift strategically, not passively, to advance development and avoid becoming collateral damage.
The writer is a climate change and sustainable development expert.
Published in Dawn, January 15th, 2026
