US out of UNFCCC and IPCC

[John Nissen]

Hi all,

EOS has news that a Trump executive order withdrew the US from UNFCCC and IPCC [1].  This is dreadful for all the US scientists working for these organizations.  But is it a moment to reflect on the effectiveness of the UNFCCC and IPCC, with their focus on emissions reduction?  Might they change strategy without the US?  Might they actually embrace cooling interventions?

However it is certainly a chance to fill the gap with better information than the US climate organisations have given us, especially about the Arctic.

Cheers, John

[1] https://eos.org/research-and-developments/trump-pulls-united-states-out-of-international-climate-treaties-contrary-to-national-interests

[John Nissen]

This is a report on damage from extreme weather events in the US.  Cheers, John

https://www.climatecentral.org/climate-matters/2025-in-review

KEY FACTS

• According to Climate Central, 2025 ranks as the third-highest year (after 2023 and 2024) for billion-dollar weather and climate disasters — with 23 such events costing a total of $115 billion in damages. 

• The January 2025 Los Angeles wildfires were the costliest event of the year as well as the costliest wildfire on record. With $61.2 billion in damages, this devastating event was about twice as costly as the previous record wildfire. 

• Severe weather accounted for a record 21 billion-dollar disasters in 2025 — concentrated in a series of spring and summer tornado outbreaks across the central U.S.

• Since 1980, the U.S. has sustained 426 billion-dollar disasters, with a total cost exceeding $3.1 trillion.

• The frequency of U.S. billion-dollar disasters has increased dramatically since 1980 due to the rise in extreme weather and a growing number of people, homes, and businesses in harm’s way.

• Climate Central plans to expand its U.S. Billion-Dollar Disasters Database in 2026. Sign up here to get notified when new data are available. 

[John Ure]

Despite the good work of the UN FCCC its green finance model is essentially flawed. It is a catalytic model predated upon the probability (which in practice is low) of private capital investing in areas (locations and project types) to combat global warming and that assumes a financial return on that investment. Major efforts are being made to persuade banks and multilateral development agencies to underwrite the risks involved through a variety of mechanisms such as blended finance but there is no likelihood of these efforts making a substantial difference towards closing the financing gap, notably for EMDEs. It is, for that reason that I think an international green bank (IGB) that could for example act as a channel for the $1.5 trillion annually pledged at COP 29 by 3035 may be a effective conduit towards addressing this vital issue. The bank could have many functions, primarily to direct investment into climate mitigation and adaptation projects, and renewable energy projects, in EMDEs, as well as provide a neutral venue for novel ways to address global warming.

Sent from my iPhone

On Jan 17, 2026, at 04:22, John Nissen <johnnis...@gmail.com> wrote:



--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Healthy Planet Action Coalition (HPAC)" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to healthy-planet-action...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/healthy-planet-action-coalition/CACS_Fxon7Hvwz6UX8Y0MryAOip77cYRdNdqRCV1nhHh-nu5J%2Bw%40mail.gmail.com.