Busy making contentious headlines in multiple other areas, the US has been pushed down the news agenda in its withdrawal from several key United Nations climate treaties.

Yet the impact of the decisions, seen by some as the final nail in the coffin of US climate and nature collaboration, will likely be long-lasting – though not necessarily profound.

The US has pulled out of the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC), the crucial Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) that seeks to limit global warming, and the Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services (IPBES).

The UNFCCC is more than 30 years old and is the central accord amongst nations that human-caused climate change exists and unilateral action is needed to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. It is the anchor of the Paris Agreement, amongst many other initiatives.

The latest US move is hardly a surprise. But it comes amongst a number of other worrying developments that will test the strength of the majority of other countries that remain committed to UN-led action.

The Washington Post reported that US carbon emissions increased last year, having fallen for many prior years. The Guardian noted that the withdrawal may be illegal. The BBC’s Science Focus magazine ran analysis that showed climate change has reduced US salaries by 12 per cent.

And as Reuters outlined, the US move has drawn widespread criticism from the European Union – which said it “regrets” the decision, while going on to use stronger words. Others called it a “new low” for American foreign relations.

Meanwhile, 2025 was reportedly the third warmest year on record and warming levels have now reached 1.4 degrees, just short of the UN’s ‘limit’, and a new report has claimed that climate change could cost the world economy trillions of dollars by 2050.

The Guardian seemingly summed up the thoughts of many onlookers: “While the political aspect of climate action struggles to gain top-level attention in a world beset by conflict, the economics of the low-carbon transition have taken on a life of their own. That may be where Trump’s actions look increasingly, in the words of the former secretary of state John Kerry, like a “self-inflicted wound”.”

What does it mean for the rest of the world’s nations that primarily remains committed to UN climate and biodiversity aims, and to businesses that share the same broad ambitions? Practically, and in the short-term at least, not a lot.

It will still need to watch its words vis-a-vis current US governmental policy and proclamations to avoid unwanted entanglements. It will still likely continue down a long-term investment path towards a more sustainable economy, though may have stakeholder bumps along the way.

But the question is what detail it will apply to its own plans beyond 2030 – and how quickly investors, policymakers, partners and customers will enable it to transform.