Why the US Exit from the IPCC is an Unmitigated Good

The apple is rotten to the core and no good can be achieved from within

‘It’s better to be at the table than on the menu’ is a commonly used idiom in politics, business, and negotiations, meaning that it is crucial to be actively involved in decision-making processes rather than being the subject of decisions made by others. The idea is simple enough – stay inside a flawed institution to wield influence rather than bolt and shout from the sidelines.

Bjørn Lomborg argued for the case to ‘be at the table’ in a Washington Post op-ed last week, urging the United States to remain in the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) rather than follow through on President Trump’s instincts to withdraw. Lomborg argues that for a mere $1.8 million annually – pocket change in Washington’s bloated budget – the US can leverage its position as the largest donor to push for “honesty, cost-effectiveness and balance” in the IPCC’s work. It’s a pragmatic pitch, one that appeals to those who believe in incremental reform over radical rupture.

But here’s the rub: what if the game is so rigged, so profoundly dysfunctional, that staying in only props up the rot? In such cases, exiting isn’t surrender – it could be a strategic masterstroke, a way to delegitimise the entire charade and force real change from without.

This is precisely the case with the IPCC, an organisation whose apex has long devolved into a pulpit for alarmist prophecies, distorting science in its ‘Summary for Policymakers‘ to serve the Net Zero agendas of European elites. Lomborg’s advice, well-intentioned as it may be, misses the forest for the trees.