Global Environmental Politics Essay Example

among nations to create multilateral agreements. The United Nations and its affiliated agencies are notable examples of these organizations. Multilateral agreements are crucial in addressing environmental damage caused by gas emissions because they provide a common framework and objectives for coordinating each nation's environmental commitments and legislation.

These agreements compel national governments to act in the broader collective interest rather than solely pursuing their own agendas. Additionally, international norms enable impartial observers to monitor and report on nations' progress, identify areas of success, as well as highlight any overlooked or neglected areas.

Overall, multilateral agreements are important in various areas as they allow states to assist each other in implementation efforts and provide assurance on progress made.The international regime has the benefit of promoting the sharing of best practices and mutual learning, preventing more powerful nations from making agreements that would harm weaker states. If all countries agree to a framework, any bilateral agreement favoring the most industrialized nations would contradict this international system. Multilateralism is preferred in reducing environmental damage because it makes sense to use a multilateral agreement as a tool for decreasing emissions, considering that greenhouse gases cross national borders and neighboring countries must align with the same principles. The United Nations acknowledged the importance of economic development with minimal environmental impact and established UNEP in 1972 after prioritizing peace, security, and human rights when signing the UN Charter in 1945. The "Earth Summit," also known as UNCED, took place in June 1992 in Rio de Janeiro with the objective of addressing environmental damage caused by countries and supporting developing nations in implementing eco-friendly policies and practices. During this summit, negotiations were organized by

the United Nations for a multilateral treaty on climate change called UNFCC. The goal of UNFCC was to establish a legal framework for implementing protocols that would enforce binding limits on greenhouse gas emissions for each country.All nations were invited to sign the protocols, and a majority of countries worldwide, including the European Union, signed one of these protocols called the Kyoto Protocol which focused on energy goals. The signatory countries were categorized into Annexes I, II, and Developing Countries. Annex 1 consisted of industrialized nations and those transitioning to industrialization. Brussels represented the European Union and committed to adopting a collective approach with these countries. As part of their commitment, Annex 1 countries agreed to keep their greenhouse gas emissions below 1990 levels. If they exceeded these levels, governments had to purchase emission allowances or renegotiate with the UNFCC.

Annex II was a subset of Annex I and included developed countries from the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD). These countries agreed to cover expenses for developing countries in meeting their targets. This group comprised twenty-four countries plus the European Union.Developing countries were not obliged to reduce emissions unless an Annex II country provided funding and technology for low-carbon investments in order not to hinder economic development. These countries were allowed to trade emissions credits with other nations.

The effectiveness of climate change agreements like the Kyoto Protocol has been questioned.The Kyoto Protocol was agreed upon in 1997 and took effect on January 16th, 2005The Kyoto Protocol established emission limits and a measurement period from 2005 to 2012. If countries exceeded their emission quota, they would need to make payments. Assessing the effectiveness of the

protocol is challenging due to the gradual nature of global warming. However, Gupta et al (2007) criticized both the UNFCC's documentation and the Kyoto Protocol itself, pointing out various flaws. Their analysis exposed weaknesses in defined goals and roles of participating nations. One significant criticism was the absence of an explicit long-term objective, which hindered signatory countries from aligning national policies with international guidelines. Cofree-Morlot and Hohne (2003), scientists, also emphasized the need for politicians' interpretation regarding Article 2 of the Kyoto Protocol. Other criticisms included insufficient targets for greenhouse gas emissions as stated by den Elzen and Meinshauen (2005), along with a lack of strong compliance provisions highlighted by Aldy et al (2003). Additionally, politics play a role in determining the effectiveness of the Kyoto Protocol, exemplified by the United States' refusal to sign despite being one of the largest emitters of greenhouse gases. In 2011, Canada withdrew from the agreement due to high costs associated with meeting its obligations. Some argue that addressing these issues requires establishing a new protocol.Despite the difficulty in reaching consensus among governments for a well-defined treaty with specific objectives and measures, as exemplified by the United States' refusal to participate, progress is hindered. Even when agreements are reached, they are often compromised. The expansion of the European Union has contributed to a decrease in this type of agreement due to legislation adoption. It is important to acknowledge that addressing climate change involves various stakeholders beyond the Kyoto Protocol. The complexity surrounding this issue creates a fragmented scenario where cooperation between countries, companies, and interests becomes extremely challenging. This aligns with Raustiala and Victor's (2004) definition of a regime

complex - a collection of partially overlapping and non-hierarchical institutions governing an issue area.The United Nations collaborates with organizations such as UNDP and UNEP while working alongside partners like the World Bank in managing funding mechanisms like the Global Environmental Facility. Additionally, the UN plays a role in climate change analysis and reporting through its International Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). Overseeing organizations like the World Meteorological Organisation and the Food and Agriculture Organisation further allows them to monitor climate change and provide positions on control measures.The Montreal Protocol, established in 1987, is an international treaty that aims to protect the ozone layer by phasing out substances that deplete it. Various organizations within and outside of the UN produce reports on climate change, including national expert bodies similar to those of IPCC. In groups like G8, certain countries make agreements on trade and factors affecting it, such as climate change. Emissions issues are also addressed through bilateral agreements between countries and unilateral agreements set by national, regional, or industry bodies. The World Bank funds investments in emission-reducing technology or techniques. Other entities like the World Trade Organization (WTO), groups of nuclear powers, financial market regulators, investment regulators, and non-governmental organizations (NGOs) like Greenpeace and WWF actively monitor governmental and corporate practices related to environmental issues. Due to the complexity of environmental science, experts engage in intense debates regarding records and their interpretations. Politicians find it challenging to negotiate and prioritize proposed reductions due to the scientific complexity involved in environmental issues. The responsibility for environmental damage is a topic of debate among politiciansMany governments, including the Canadian Environment Minister and the United States, have been

accused by each other of not fulfilling their obligations under environmental agreements. The US is exempt from buying emissions credits or paying fines under the Kyoto Protocol since it did not sign this agreement. Criticism has been directed towards multi-nation environmental agreements for lacking effective enforcement mechanisms. Without strong oversight, achieving compliance becomes difficult, and there are gaps in regulation at both international and national levels when implementing these agreements. Blaming only these agreements for the failure to reduce harmful emissions oversimplifies the issue as there are also varying regulations at the national level and different attitudes towards environmental matters among countries like Sweden and Germany. These countries have implemented regulations supervised by the European Commission at both national and local levels. Convincing India to prioritize alternative energy sources faces challenges due to electricity accessibility issues in rural areas. Furthermore, during globalization, corporations advocated for reduced regulation in world trade which hindered environmental agreements.The absence of restrictions had an impact not only on financial markets but also on environmental issues, as fossil-fuel providers resisted regulation. Additionally, the Earth Summit occurred shortly after the end of the cold war, making it difficult to predict future political dynamics and requiring nations to navigate new partnerships and rivalries. In today's world, China's rapid industrialization is causing a shift in influence and presenting new challenges as it catches up to the United States. In response to these challenges, minilateral agreements have been proposed as a solution due to multilateralism's shortcomings in the current global context. Minilateralism involves involving only a small number of countries necessary to effectively address specific problems. The goal is to overcome obstacles and inspire other

nations to follow suit instead of solely benefiting those directly involved (Naim, 2009). The final agreement is expected to be stronger with fewer countries involved as it will be less diluted. According to Olson (1965), cooperation becomes more challenging as the number of parties increases.However, in order to influence countries that are not involved in negotiations, a certain number of countries still need to be involved - this is referred to as the "Magic number" by Naim. Implementing minilateralism presents challenges in coordinating various UN agencies and international bodies responsible for environmental agreements (Kanie, 2007). Unlike post-war financial and commercial regimes with clear norms and rules within formal institutions, environmental governance has evolved gradually over the past 35 years. To simplify responsibilities and accountability, it is important to establish an umbrella organization, even though this may create another bureaucratic structure. This organization would ensure coherence by requiring UNEP and UNDP to agree on approaches or data interpretation when presenting an action plan. Moreover, this organization would monitor and enforce international agreements in signatory states by imposing fines for non-compliance with emission quotas. Similar to the World Bank, International Monetary Fund (IMF), and GATT (later WTO), the European Commission's Competition Directorate General plays a similar role in monitoring state aid granted by European governments to companies. These institutions were established at the Bretton Woods Conference in 1944 as a platform for managing the global economy.
The WTO, while its intended roles have changed over time, now plays a significant role in negotiating international trade deals and resolving disputes between nations. Despite criticisms of its selection process, the WTO is valuable for resolving trade disputes and promoting reform.

However, there is a need for an organization within environmental agreements to negotiate emissions quotas and settle disputes. This organization should be able to impose fines on countries that do not meet their obligations. It must be independent from the WTO, which focuses solely on trade negotiations. To effectively exercise its powers, this institution must have a strong legal framework established through a basic law or constitution. Incorporating environmental protection into the UN Charter is crucial because this institution falls under the jurisdiction of the United Nations.

One notable difference between environmental protection and trade is that unexpected accidents can occur, like the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear disaster in 2011. While different organizations helped minimize the impact of incidents like the Danube floods in Europe in 2006, relief efforts faced criticism. To address this issue, it is suggested that a centralized UN environmental institution be established to coordinate disaster prevention and relief operations more effectively.The current approach to negotiating environmental agreements, which is done through multilateral methods, has flaws. This is because it often leads to the world's largest polluter only signing a fraction of these agreements. Additionally, large-scale negotiations are not sufficient in reducing emissions and addressing global warming effectively. On the other hand, bilateral and unilateral environmental agreements have limited impact on the overall problem.

To improve this situation, it is proposed that minilateral agreements involving major polluters should be established. These agreements would require these countries to commit to significant objectives, potentially exerting pressure on other nations to follow suit. To ensure enforceability, it is crucial to consolidate UN agencies and international organizations as they would facilitate efficient data collection, demonstrate non-compliance, and take action

against those who refuse to comply.

Therefore, an amendment should be made to include provisions for addressing environmental damage within the United Nations Charter. This amendment would establish an Environmental Protection Commission that comprises various departments such as research, monitoring, dispute settlement, enforcement, and security/disaster relief. The enforcement division would be responsible for enforcing orders issued by the dispute settlement division against countries that fail to fulfill their obligations.If appropriate establishments and legal assistance are established, minilateralism could provide a possible resolution by enabling accused countries to make appeals to an International Environment Court comprising judges from various nationalities.