Environmental GG ineffective ? Flashcards
(3 cards)
1-the Tragedy of the Commons vs Sustainable development
For-
The tragedy of the commons suggests that collectively owned resources like the air, oceans, and biodiversity will be overexploited as individual actors lack incentives to limit their use. This dynamic has made effective global climate action difficult, with countries prioritising short-term economic interests over long-term sustainability.
Despite agreements like the Kyoto Protocol and Paris Agreement, global emissions continue to rise. The IPCC warned in 2018 that exceeding 2°C would cause substantial damage, yet current commitments put us on track for a 2.7°C to 3.1°C rise by 2100. Countries like Saudi Arabia and Russia resist reducing emissions due to economic reliance on fossil fuels, while industrialised nations often avoid costly transitions. Australia, for example, failed to meet its 5% emissions reduction target under the Copenhagen Accord, with emissions increasing by 20% due to continued coal use.
Deep-green ecologists, including activists like Greta Thunberg, argue that tackling climate change requires a fundamental shift away from capitalist systems, which inherently prioritise national economic interests over global sustainability.
Against: Global Environmental Governance Has Overcome the Tragedy Through Sustainable Development
However, global governance has fostered cooperation through sustainable development, which seeks to align environmental protection with economic growth. Shallow-green ecology argues that market-based solutions—such as emissions trading, pollution controls, and green technologies—can reconcile growth with climate action.
The Kyoto Protocol introduced carbon trading, while the Paris Agreement’s NDC framework allows states to adopt climate policies compatible with their economic interests. The EU’s Green Deal targets net-zero emissions by 2050 and has legally binding intermediate targets. Progress is evident: renewables generated 29% of global electricity in 2020, and countries like Costa Rica produce over 98% of their electricity from renewables, using eco-tourism to boost their economy.
Judgement
Overall, global environmental governance has driven some progress but remains largely ineffective due to the persistence of the tragedy of the commons. Without systemic economic changes, states remain unwilling to sacrifice national interests, leaving the planet on track for dangerous levels of warming.
Effectiveness of the UNFCCC and International Agreements
Against -
The UNFCCC and the IPCC have helped raise awareness and unify global efforts. The IPCC’s reports, particularly the 4th (2007) and 6th (2021/22), influenced landmark agreements like the Paris Agreement and national policies, such as the UK’s Climate Change Act 2008.
The UNFCCC institutionalises climate talks through annual COP conferences. Agreements like the Kyoto Protocol (binding targets for 37 industrialised states) and Paris Agreement (near-universal participation with flexible NDCs) reflect significant progress. The EU, Japan, and Russia met Kyoto targets, while the Paris Agreement mandates a “Global Stocktake” every five years.
Recent steps include COP26 commitments to phase down coal and halt deforestation by 2030.
For: Sovereignty Has Prevented Global Governance From Being Fully Effective
However, state sovereignty limits enforcement. Kyoto’s binding targets were undermined—Japan backtracked post-Fukushima, and the US Senate refused ratification. Voluntary targets under the Copenhagen Accord and Paris Agreement have proven weak; Australia missed its Copenhagen target, and China continues expanding coal use despite pledging carbon neutrality by 2060.
US climate leadership remains inconsistent, vulnerable to political shifts (e.g. potential US withdrawal under a second Trump administration).
Judgement-
Ultimately, while the UNFCCC has fostered cooperation and raised ambition, sovereignty and national interests limit enforcement and commitment, rendering global governance insufficient to drive the radical changes required.
Developed states supporting developing states -
For- Env GG ineffective bridge gap N/S divide-
Climate justice remains a key challenge. Historically, developed states caused the bulk of emissions (US and EU = ~50%), while Africa and South Asia contributed less than 7%. Developing states argue they should prioritise growth and poverty reduction.
In 2010, developed countries pledged $100bn/year in climate finance by 2020—but this was missed, with only $79.6bn delivered by 2019. Vulnerable regions like Sub-Saharan Africa lack sufficient funds for adaptation. Though the Green Climate Fund (GCF) supports projects (e.g. in Kenya and Bangladesh), assistance remains inadequate. In 2021, Barbados PM Mia Mottley highlighted the urgent need for greater support.
Against: Global Environmental Governance Has Made Progress in Bridging the Gap
Still, there has been some success. The Kyoto Protocol reflected Common but Differentiated Responsibilities (CBDR), exempting developing states from binding targets. The Paris Agreement’s flexible NDC framework allows countries like India to balance development with emissions reductions.
While finance pledges were delayed, developed states eventually met the $100bn target in 2022 ($115.9bn mobilised). The GCF funds impactful projects like Morocco’s Noor Ouarzazate solar complex. COP27 also delivered a breakthrough with the Loss and Damage Fund, recognising the need for compensation to vulnerable countries.
Judgement
Although progress has been made in committing developed states to support developing ones, the scale and pace remain insufficient. Both developed and developing countries still avoid the deep systemic changes required to meaningfully mitigate climate change.
