The impacts of climate change can only be solved by international cooperation. To what extent do you agree?

https://pixabay.com/illustrations/ earth-appointment-meeting-1996138/

Rajarshi 9J2

Climate change has been described to be an “international responsibility” because climate change affects the atmosphere, which is not owned by one country, but shared over the entire world making it an “international resource”, a necessity for life. If a nation continues to pollute, it will not only inflict harm upon themselves but damage the entire world. Therefore, it is only logical to argue that the international community must collectively address climate change and attempt to mitigate this worldwide crisis. However, to limit oneself to “only” focusing on international approval and agreement may prove to be dangerous and ineffective due to the nature of international relations.

Firstly, international agreements,

such as the Paris Agreement, provide accountability and transparency to the public and track progress towards targets. For example, Russia, one of the greatest polluters, has made very little progress in limiting their emissions, and are holding warming above 4OC, critically insufficient compared to the goal of 1.5OC. Therefore, the public is aware of who is not doing their fair share and pressure can be put on nations who are not abiding by international agreements. However, this has done little to deter less democratic countries, such as Russia, for they tend to be more powerful, not only militaristically, but politically. The U.S., China, and Russia are part of the “Big 5” countries in the United Nations and are stronger in terms of diplomacy, as they are often crucial for the world’s economic and financial systems or are a major hub for some industry, such as manufacturing. Thus, one may argue that international agreements, simply place restrictions and constraints on less economically developed countries and are empty promises from more economically developed countries. On the other hand, international agreements provide a voice for those less developed countries, especially as collectives, so many nations in similar circumstances can push their concerns. For example, Tuvalu, an average of a mere two metres above sea level, would be greatly affected by climate change and rising sea levels. Tuvalu, themselves are a very progressive country in terms of renewable energy with all their electricity sourced from renewable sources, therefore, Tuvalu formed the Alliance of Small Island States (AOSIS), along with other Pacific islands, such as Vanuatu, and has been able to voice their concerns in international agreements. Therefore, international agreements allow smaller, developing countries to act. However, these institutions and organisations become less significant and hold less meaning when countries become uncooperative and can easily withdraw from an agreement. For example,

the United States, under the Trump administration, withdrew from the Paris Agreement.

This means other countries will be less inclined to do their fair share and exacerbates the withdrawal of other countries, thereby making international agreements very insecure and unreliable. On the other hand, international law makers and diplomats could put in place a policy that compensation would be owed to other countries, should one withdraw. Therefore, the fault does not lie within the international agreements themselves, but in their execution and policies.

However, there is little incentive or reward for countries which reach their established target. Countries that reach their goal tend to be developing and less industrialised and hence will burn fewer fossil fuels. For example, Tuvalu has constantly and reliably met their target for the Paris Agreement, however, has not been rewarded or at the very least, developed countries have not been doing their fair share, which will ultimately impact Tuvalu. Moreover, it is commonly argued by developed countries that it is a worldwide responsibility to mitigate climate change, thus there are no rewards for meeting goals, as it is our moral obligation, however it is not just a moral obligation for developing countries, but a threat to life. Furthermore, many developed countries are not following this “moral obligation”, and “moral obligations” do not make a country stay in an agreement. Therefore, international agreements are fundamentally flawed in the fact that they do not incentivise countries to do their fair share and act. In addition, international agreements remove the human side from the mitigation of climate change, as they ignore regional and local efforts to reduce climate change. For example, a nationwide campaign to reduce climate change and become greener may work in comparatively “small” countries, e.g. the UK or Tuvalu but will not work in larger countries such as the US or China which encompass people from a variety of backgrounds. Thus, one may argue more funds and focus needs to be placed on local and regional commitments within a country. For example, in Japan, Kamikatsu Village is a “no-waste” village. Household waste is separated into 45 categories, and almost all waste is recycled or taken to a collection centre and reused by the village inhabitants. This would be much more difficult in a larger city such as Tokyo or Kyoto, as authorities

Photo by Cassie Matias on Unsplash

would struggle to enforce it. Therefore, instead of looking at faceless nations, more focus needs to be placed upon people to effectively mitigate impacts of climate change. On the other hand, one may argue that international agreements ultimately raise awareness and result in local and regional efforts, especially since world news and international information travels much faster in our modern world. Therefore, these local impacts may be attributed to international agreements, as they allow these local and regional efforts to be theorised and gain traction, which may have struggled beforehand. Moreover, international agreements help regulate international or shared responsibilities, as well as mediate between rival countries. For example, the Antarctic Treaty regulates the activities performed within Antarctica, such as no nuclear nor reactive waste may be disposed of within Antarctica, as well as the prohibition of oil-drilling. Otherwise, regions such as Antarctica would be under great threat. Therefore, international agreements are especially important with respect to international relations. In conclusion, international agreements and cooperation are important in the mitigation of climate change but they are certainly not the only method of reducing climate change and environmental destruction, and it is dangerous to only focus on politics and international relations between faceless nations, and far more important to focus on a local scale.