to the editor: The Trump administration's recent decisions to withdraw the United States from several international climate and environmental bodies (including key UN agencies and, more consequently, the Commission for Environmental Cooperation) mark a significant retreat from collaborative environmental governance at a time when cooperation is most needed (“Trump withdraws the United States from 66 international organizations and treaties, including major climate groups” January 7). These measures indicate that Washington is moving away from the same institutions designed to manage shared risks, even as climate impacts intensify across borders.
The Commission for Environmental Cooperation has long provided a practical forum for transparency, data sharing and joint problem solving on issues ranging from air emissions to water quality and transboundary pollution. Its value lies not in enforcement, but in prevention: resolving disputes before they become commercial or diplomatic conflicts. The withdrawal of the United States weakens that safety valve.
At the same time, the United States continues to rely on enforceable environmental provisions included in trade agreements. This creates a worrying imbalance: cooperative institutions are abandoned, while punitive tools remain. For Mexico and Canada, this asymmetry increases the risk that environmental issues (energy, emissions, water use or transboundary wastewater flows) will be resolved through sanctions rather than collaboration. Historically, American leadership has been strongest when engaged from within institutions.
Withdrawing from cooperative climate and environmental bodies may create short-term flexibility, but it risks long-term isolation, leaving the United States outside the rules that will govern trade, climate and competitiveness for decades to come.
Richard Kiy, La Jolla
This writer is president and CEO of the Americas Institute, a nonprofit public policy organization.
