The United Nations Lost the Plot

Why the United States Should Withdraw from the Climate-and-Equity Bureaucracy

The United Nations was created for one primary purpose

In 1945, after two world wars that killed tens of millions of people, nations came together to form an institution designed to prevent another global war. The opening words of the UN Charter say it plainly: to “save succeeding generations from the scourge of war.” The first stated purpose of the organization is to maintain international peace and security.

That mission was narrow, clear, and defensible.

What is no longer defensible is how far the United Nations has drifted from that purpose… and how much of that drift is now funded by U.S. taxpayers.

From peacekeeping to permanent governance

For much of its early history, the UN focused on diplomacy, peacekeeping, and post-conflict coordination. Over time, however, the institution expanded well beyond those boundaries. What began as humanitarian and development assistance gradually morphed into global management of energy systems, economic policy, and social outcomes.

Today, large portions of the UN system are no longer oriented around preventing war. They are oriented around enforcing climate policy, promoting “equity,” and normalizing permanent financial transfers from wealthy nations to poorer ones.

Centralized authority always drifts away from accountability. Large institutions must continually justify their own existence… and the most reliable justification is crisis.

Climate has become that crisis.

Who actually pays for the United Nations?

One of the most misunderstood facts about the UN is who pays the bills.

The United States is assessed at the maximum contribution rate for the UN’s core budgets. This is not voluntary generosity… it is built into the UN’s funding rules.

The figure below shows the assessed contributions for the UN’s two main budgets (regular operations and peacekeeping) for 2025.

Top 10 assessments for the UN’s regular and peacekeeping budgets, 2025 (Pew Research Center, based on UN Secretariat data). Source: https://www.pewresearch.org/short-reads/2025/07/31/how-the-united-nations-is-funded-and-who-pays-the-most/

This figure makes several things immediately clear:

• The United States is the single largest contributor to both the regular UN budget and peacekeeping operations.

• The U.S. pays 22% of the regular budget and more than 26% of the peacekeeping budget… the highest share allowed.

• China pays less than the United States, despite having a much larger population and economy in purchasing-power terms.

• European countries contribute substantial amounts, but those payments are spread across many national governments, diluting accountability and influence.

In practical terms, when the UN expands its scope, creates new agencies, or grows its bureaucracy, American taxpayers automatically shoulder a disproportionate share of the cost.

That alone should prompt serious scrutiny.

Now compare funding to emissions

The imbalance becomes even more striking when UN funding is compared to actual carbon dioxide emissions… the very thing climate institutions claim to be addressing.

The figure below shows annual CO₂ emissions from fossil fuels and industry for major countries over time.

Source: https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/annual-co2-emissions-per-country

China is now the world’s largest emitter by a wide margin, while U.S. emissions have flattened and declined in recent decades.

This figure requires no technical background to understand:

• China’s emissions have surged dramatically, now far exceeding those of any other country.

• The United States, while still a major emitter, has lower emissions than China and has been relatively flat or declining since the early-2000s.

• Many European countries now contribute only a small fraction of global emissions.

Put simply: the country paying the largest share of UN funding is not the country emitting the most CO₂.

If global climate governance were truly about emissions, funding responsibility would roughly track emissions. It does not.

Climate governance is about finance, not physics

To understand why this mismatch persists, it helps to understand what modern UN climate institutions actually do.

The United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) and the Paris Agreement are not scientific documents. They are political agreements. They embed the concept of “equity” directly into their structure… meaning that wealthier nations are expected to provide ongoing financial support to poorer nations.

The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), often described as “the world’s climate authority,” does not run experiments or collect raw climate data. Instead, it summarizes existing studies, many of which rely heavily on computer models.

A climate model is a mathematical simulation of the Earth system. Models can be useful tools, but they are not measurements. They depend on assumptions about clouds, oceans, feedbacks, and future human behavior. When those assumptions are wrong, the projections are wrong.

Yet the institutional incentive remains the same: emphasize certainty, downplay uncertainty, and frame outcomes in ways that justify further policy intervention and further funding. This is confirmation bias baked into bureaucracy, not a scientific conspiracy.

Decades of spending, one persistent outcome

After decades of climate treaties, conferences, and expanding institutions, one basic fact remains unchanged: global CO₂ concentrations continue to rise.

If the system were effective at its stated goal, we would expect to see clear evidence of success by now. Instead, what has grown most reliably is the bureaucracy itself… more agencies, more staff, more conferences, more funds, and more pressure on wealthy nations to pay.

Failure does not lead to reform. It leads to expansion.

A better environmentalism exists

None of this is an argument against caring for the environment.

Real environmental progress comes from practical, measurable actions: clean water, modern sanitation, waste management, air-pollution reduction, and ecosystem restoration where it actually works. These efforts save lives and improve human well-being directly.

They do not require global bureaucracies, perpetual climate summits, or moralized financial obligations.

The case for withdrawal

Withdrawing from these institutions is not isolationism. It is realism.

The United Nations was created to prevent war. It has drifted into global climate, social, and economic governance… funded disproportionately by U.S. taxpayers and justified by a sense of perpetual emergency. But this is not a crisis that the UN has repeatedly failed to solve.

It is a crisis the UN has a structural incentive to maintain.

A genuine solution would reduce urgency, shrink budgets, and narrow authority. Instead, the climate apparatus expands regardless of outcomes. When predictions fail, the answer is not reassessment… it is more funding. When observational data contradicts projections, the response is not humility… it is narrative reinforcement. The “crisis” must persist, because that is what keeps the spigots open.

This is why decades of treaties, assessments, and conferences have not produced measurable success. The system is not designed to conclude. It is designed to continue.

At some point, continuing to fund institutions that grow in influence while remaining insulated from results stops being diplomacy and starts being negligence. A bureaucracy that requires a permanent emergency to justify its existence is not serving the public interest… it is serving itself.

A note to readers

This is a free article… please share it.

And if you want the receipts, the IPCC’s track record, the repeated divergence between model projections and observations, and the institutional incentives that keep the climate-crisis narrative alive even when the data does not support it… you’ll find them at IrrationalFear.com.

Subscribers get access to over 420 unique articles, many of which played a major role in dismantling the climate-crisis narrative in 2025. Thank you for the support.