Stratego

US withdrawal from the UNFCCC and IPCC misreads the value of these institutions (it's not about climate at all)

With Trump’s announcements that the US has withdrawn from a number of UN activities regarding climate change, I’m reorganizing the order of a few post.

Last week, President Trump signed an Executive Order withdrawing the US from a many multilateral institutions including the UNFCCC and the IPCC.

If it is true, and I believe that it is, that, as Secretary of State Marco Rubio writes, these institutions are

captured by the interests of actors advancing their own agendas contrary to our own, or a threat to our nation’s sovereignty, freedoms, and general prosperity.

then it is important for the US to not turn away from them. Turning away from the IPCC will not make it go away. Instead, the US government should clearly articulate how capture occurred, where science became distorted, and monitor the institutions closely.

There are many indications to suggest that what goes on under the heading of “climate change” is a far larger strategic economic and influence game than it is anything about pragmatic policy design.

It’s not that the United States needs to stay involved in the UNFCCC and IPCC to pursue a “solution” to climate change. That’s silly and many know it.

The US needs to stay involved in these institutions as a matter of soft power, national security, and to maintain full awareness of technological geopolitics.

---

The IPCC is a particular consideration.

The institution’s reports are important references that hold weight in official decision making processes, researcher orientation, and classrooms. The reports are used and misused by a wide range of international actors in pursuit of energy, economic, and information agendas.

Moreover, it’s quite clear that the current assessment cycle will have a focus on extreme event attribution and, if the Working Group I co-chair from China is any indication, there will also be an emphasis on aerosols. The latter topic is shaping up as a hot area of interest for its implications in stratospheric aerosol injection.

The advocacy takeover of IPCC practices has undermined scientific integrity and constructive public debate around the world. However, rejecting the process outright without a counterargument widely seen as legitimate leaves the United States relying solely on brute force. A ‘red team’ US NCA will not be sufficient to appease the global masses.

If nothing else, for the US to serve as a formidable presence in the IPCC serves as an valuable source of soft power which the White House has declared as a national security goal:

We want to maintain the United States’ unrivaled “soft power” through which we exercise positive influence throughout the world that furthers our interests.

---

Advocacy influence in climate climate change research is a substantial concern. Though individual researchers can spur their own advocacy research projects they have been assisted, organized, and given high profile visibility through philanthropically funded networks.

In 2022, independent analyst Filip Jirouš writing for the Jamestown Foundation, an organization often cited for its analyses of activities under China’s united front influence activities¹, suggested that Trump’s withdrawal from international climate change frameworks under his first term inadvertently supports China’s efforts to present itself as the environmentally responsible global leader.

China has had significant success in climate influence serving to confuse its manufacture of renewable energy technologies with its own energy production practices at home.

Jirouš/Jamestown points to the extensive interaction between notable environmental NGOs and China’s front work activities:

These activities are somewhat reminiscent of the USSR’s exploitation of the world peace movement during the Cold War, through which Moscow sought to demilitarize its enemies by encouraging them to pursue a generally, worthy goal. While their methods are similar, the focus of the CCP’s “green cooption” efforts appear to be mainly to support its propaganda and political goals.

Yet, giving consideration to the extent to which the climate movement overlaps and aligns with China’s political ideology has been viewed as conspiracy thinking and too right-wing. Ignoring it is a failure of imagination, however.

Analysts in the United States and elsewhere have long been wary about the intention and practices of the China’s Belt and Road Initiative (BRI). In a 2023 primer about political warfare, the Congressional Research Service asks,

Are infrastructure investments underwritten by China as part of its “Belt and Road” Initiative (BRI) about improving Chinese access to foreign markets, or is it a de facto way to establish a global presence that could be used for security and defense purposes—or both?

Environmental NGOs and researchers are actively engaged in the initiative. In 2024, the Rockefeller Brothers Fund sent $7 million to 24 organizations in China.² Of this,

• $450k went to the Belt and Road Initiative International Green Development Coalition (BRIIGDC)

• $350k went to the China Council for International Cooperation on Environment and Development (CCICED)

The RBF grant database shows this is a long standing and ongoing funding relationship.

The first two groups stand out for their known or suspected use in China’s influence efforts. Both BRIIGCD and CCICED engage high ranking CCP officials suggesting their use of front work organizations.

Jirouš/Jamestown explains,

The presence of these individuals suggests that CCICED also serves influence purposes, exploiting foreign government officials and NGO heads (including the Canadian minister of environment) — who are given what appear to be mere token positions on the council — for green-washing propaganda while receiving money from the foreign states and organizations that the councilors represent.

Moreover,

The overall goal of Xi’s focus on security is to the consolidate power of the CCP at home and promote its model abroad in order to alter the global governance system. Ecological security is embedded within the 2020 CCICED-produced policy document-Green BRI and 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development, and is generally part of the Green BRI’s concepts and ideas

Another, more recent, China-centric international body also involves influence work cadres, but additionally a PRC intelligence agency is the [BRIIGDC]….PRC partners comprise China Daily, the party external propaganda outlet, as well as [China Institutes of Contemporary International Relations], the 11th bureau of the Ministry of State Security. CICIR is also part of the BRIIGDC’s green big data platform project. As with CCICED, the Coalition’s activities are financially sponsored by Western green foundations.

Below shows the two organizations with select members (not all US based). Many if not all of these organizations are involved in sprawling advocacy, legal, and research campaigns targeting energy development and financial policies. Some have been involved in writing the 5th US National Climate Assessment, initiating projects at the National Academy of Science, and have close relationships with the governance of emission scenarios for IPCC reports.

Meanwhile, the NGOs maintain proximity and collaboration with China’s influence operations. It begs the question, how involved is China in influencing the direction of the NGO’s collective advocacy efforts?

Select members

I agree that the COP events are a waste of resources and the fanfare is grotesque, but each one, at least in recent years, appears to be a type of maneuver.

Last year’s COP 30 took place in Brazil, where advocates have worked to expand environmental/climate litigation under the Brazilian Resolution no. 433/2021. This perhaps explains the onslaught of influencer marketing with imagery of indigenous Brazilians.

This year COP 31 will take place in Turkey, the locus of power over the Middle Corridor. Turkey and China are close trading partners and Turkey is viewed as a strategic partner in the BRI and both countries are working towards better access, if not power over, European markets.

Anthropogenic influence on the climate system is real and worth monitoring. It’s also not apocalyptic. For a long time, the institutions and narratives developed around “climate change” hasn’t really been about climate; it’s been about money and influence. The US should play the game better than the rest, not pretend like taking their toys and going home will end the game.

1. For background see, here from Jamestown Foundation and here from US-China Economic and Security Review Commission

2. Also worth a mention but doesn’t really fit my flow above is RBF’s $700k to Institute of Public and Environmental Affairs (IPE) and RBF plans another $1.4 million for 2025. The IPE is founded and run by Ma Jun. While Jun worked for the People’s Bank of China he helped advance NGFS nature-related financial risks into the central banking practices. Aside from also being involved in the above discussed RBF funded entities, among other philanthropies, Jirouš/Jamestown writes,

Ma Jun (马骏), the PRC chair of the UK-China Green Finance Centre (launched by the City of London Corporation and China Green Finance Committee) concurrently serves as a deputy head of an expert committee at the All-China Federation of Returned Overseas Chinese, a key united front organ targeting the Overseas Chinese