To what extent can international cooperation be strengthened to effectively address climate change?

Climate change is recognized as a global issue, defined as the result of “long term shifts in temperature and weather patterns” caused by a range of factors (United Nations). Climate change primarily worsens due to human activities, mainly including burning fossil fuels and constant rapid release of greenhouse gases. In the last two centuries, factories and several human inventions have relied on nonrenewable resources, producing vast amounts of waste material. For decades, global powers have collaborated to try and eliminate effects of climate change. While this cooperation has caused much change in certain areas, at other times, international relations have run into conflict. Smaller, lower-income nations are constantly faced with negative environmental factors; the GDP (gross domestic product) of these nations is taken up by these natural disasters (International Monetary Fund). Smaller global powers are reliant on support from more stable economies, supporting international cooperation. In contrast, certain countries hesitate to diminish the effects of climate change, claiming financial loss if they partook in taking action. The debate is constant on whether global climate actions produce viable results. This poses the question of what extent international cooperation should be strengthened to effectively address the issue of climate change. 

One argument supporting international cooperation discusses effective efficiency of resolving climate change with many nations working together. Climate change is a transboundary issue, requiring coordinated efforts on a global scale. According to the IEA (International Energy Agency), in accordance with the IRENA (International Renewable Energy Agency) and the UN Climate Change High-Level Champions, current climate efforts are not providing promising results reaching international climate goals. Their report claims that current efforts are inefficient, describing how high emissions in sectors such as steel, hydrogen, and agriculture are not decreasing as needed. In response, governments are being called on to strengthen their cooperation in key areas, such as financial contributions to boost positive change regarding climate efforts. The IEA is considered a reliable source as it is an independent global authority that provides unbiased data on energy statistics and policy recommendations. Taking all of this into consideration, conclusions made through these reports have strong validity when claiming certain sectors require increased global political commitment in order to reach climate change goals. From the National Library of Medicine, “Carbon Dioxide emissions are high because of the BRICS nations' rapid economic expansion, expanding populations, and generally stable political systems” (Liu, Paan). Brazil, Russia, India, China, and South Africa (BRICS) are the five newest industrialized nations, and they are dramatically contributing to climate change. It is necessary to take these nations into consideration when determining climate change mitigation methods. 

Furthermore, there have been several instances where international agreements have resulted in valuable change. According to the University of Oxford, Saïd Business School, a credible source due to its expertise in sustainable business strategy, policy, and management, the international Montreal Protocol treaty effectively protected the ozone layer by “phasing out chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs)”. To continue, the Paris Climate Agreement arose from collective efforts of the United Nations to reduce global warming. The United Nations Development Programme (UNDP), a valid source directly tied to the United Nations, further highlights the goals and importance of the Paris Agreement. According to the UNDP, the ambition of the agreement is to cap global rising temperatures to below 2℃ prior to the industrial era. The goal is to “limit the increase to 1.5 C”, so vulnerable areas will be less susceptible to drastic changes. However, to reach that goal, greenhouse gas emissions need to decrease by 45 percent before 2030 and “achieve net-zero emissions by mid-century”(UNDP). In order for global emissions to decrease by such a large amount, this plan would need to be implemented effectively.

To continue, the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC), emphasizes that wealthier countries are more obligated to mitigate effects of climate change. When discussing reparative actions, high-income countries are urged to contribute financially. Readdressing Oxford University, the UNFCCC is a “critical global framework” fostering international cooperation when addressing climate change. The role of the UNFCCC is especially vital as it pushes cohesive action from all nations. Additionally, developed nations should hold more financial responsibility concerning emission reductions and crisis mitigation. President and CEO of the global partnership forum, Amir Dossal, emphasizes that high income nations should focus on utilizing low-carbon development pathways and joint innovations to reach mitigation objectives (Dossal). This approach suggests climate change requires focus on shared innovation and integration into economic development. According to the Council on Foreign Relations, a nonpartisan highly reliable source on foreign policy, China emits around 30% of global emissions, which is more than twice of North America’s and three times Europe’s annual emissions. Following China, the United Kingdom, India, and Canada are recorded as the world’s largest polluters, demonstrating how no one country is a singular source. Wealthier countries are shown to be major causes of worsening climate change while impoverished countries, like small Pacific islands, are at risk of disappearing due to rising sea levels. The Paris Agreement was founded on December 12, 2015, being the first to require all nations signing to participate in efforts reducing emissions. This agreement caused many high income countries to strengthen their climate commitments. Due to many similar policies, the world went from being on track of 4℃ of global warming, to 2.7℃ (CFR Education). 

Some argue international cooperation in regards to addressing climate change produces little or negative change. The article “Climate Change and International Cooperation”, published by Harvard Advanced Leadership Initiative Social Impact Review, states international cooperation has obtained modest minimal results (Climate Change and International Cooperation). Global temperatures and emissions continue to rise despite continuous negotiations amongst nations addressing reducing greenhouse gases. A recent study conducted by Scott Barrett of Columbia University School, and Astric Dannenberg of University of Kassel/Gothenburg, suggests the Paris Agreement has minimal effect on actually reducing emissions. The study aimed to reveal whether similar countries make comparable pledges, whether those pledges reach their global goals, and whether the contribution made by countries amount to the promised pledge or exceed the pledge. The results show that instead of simply implementing the Paris Agreement, negotiators should discuss other approaches including agreements designed differently than the one in Paris (Barrett, Dannenberg). This study is reliable as it was conducted by prestigious researchers from well-known respective institutions and the method and data collection was thoroughly described. To cite another reference, a specific study published in Environmental Science and Policy in 2024 by researchers, examined the Visegrad (V4) countries. This includes Poland, Czech Republic, Slovakia, and Hungary. This study describes how international climate mitigation efforts have failed in regards to the V4 countries by using factual, relevant information obtained through data collection and research. According to the study, "the main reasons for the situation are: (1) putting the national economic interests and energy security first, (2) lack of social will, and (3) the shortcomings of climate governance” (Marzenna Błaszczuk-Zawiła, 71). 

Similarly, international cooperation on climate policy can prove to be challenging due to prioritization of a country's own interests instead of collective global action. Developing nations make claims that industrialized countries, which historically have emitted more greenhouse gases, play a greater role when it comes to providing financial and technological support. However, industrialized nations assert current rapid growth in carbon emission due to emerging economies. According to a study published by the National Library of Medicine, more than half of the Iranian population is not in favor of the Paris Climate Agreement due to the fact that they prioritize profit through fossil fuels as a developing nation. (Atefina, Mirnezami). Returning to the article “Climate Change and International Cooperation”, written by Pedro Mariani, in addition to economic disparities, the free rider problem is another issue emerging from global cooperation as greenhouse gases mix in the atmosphere, so damage can not be attributed to a single place. The text above says, “Conversely, expenditures to reduce emissions may not benefit the country that is incurring them but another unrelated set of countries -- the free riders –...” This means certain nations could benefit off of others efforts, without any significant investments. Because of free riding, many countries decide to invest in minimizing climate change effects within their own borders (Mariani). 

Similarly, domestic issues may have an impact when it comes to a country's decision on climate change strategies. Both arguments of “which countries should reduce more of their emissions faster than others” and “who should pay for climate damage already done” are two big reasons making it hard for international agreements to be made on climate change. According to CFR Education, when international agreements are made, “...they do not always wield equal power as not every individual country ratifies each international agreement into law” (How Are International Agreements Helping Fight Global Warming?). Even if agreements are ratified, countries can have difficulty when it comes to enforcing these commitments. In 2020, President Donald Trump withdrew from the Paris Agreement, refusing to pay billions of dollars in support as promised, and other countries did not make many efforts to enforce the shared agreement. Although emissions are declining, experts can agree they are not decreasing fast enough. According to the Climate Action Tracker, not a single country’s policies are compatible with the 1.5℃ Paris Agreement target, and large emitters’ efforts are insufficient. According to the Climate Change Performance Index (CCPI), Russia, the U.S., and Saudi Arabia are the G20’s worst performing countries. The G20 bears responsibility for climate mitigation, as those who classify account for over 75% of global greenhouse gas emissions. While these countries are significantly responsible for climate change, they have shown insufficient action and increased emissions which hinders climate goals. This contributes to why international cooperation has not produced desired results as the nations who need to decrease their carbon footprint do the exact opposite. The CCPI has high validity as it combines quantitative data from over 450 national experts. It is a highly reliable monitoring tool that evaluates climate change efforts from over 60 countries and the European Union. 

Both perspectives’ arguments on whether international cooperation is significant to reducing climate change are backed up with credible sources and research. International cooperation being strengthened to address climate change includes aspects of international agreements and how joint efforts have ultimately benefited nations globally. Conversely, International cooperation causing minimal or negative change in regards to climate change presents evidence of how current and past international treaties have failed to reach climate change goals not being enforced properly. Countries consistently run into domestic disputes on who should be primarily responsible for negative impacts on climate change. International cooperation does work to combat climate change, but current efforts are not reaching necessary goals. We can then assume international cooperation is a method that can successfully address climate change, and that current mitigation measures being taken are not enough to reach the 1.5℃ needed to globally reduce climate change, so more proactive methods would need to be enforced. 

Before my research, I felt I was notably educated on this topic, and while this was true, I was unaware of why nations would be unwilling to participate in climate change efforts. I overlooked economic aspects and tensions possibly arising  between nations due to the breaking of these climate change agreements. My perspective on the negative impacts of international cooperation has significantly matured. I have concluded in order for climate change goals to be achieved, nations need to take different legal approaches assuring each country plays a role in decreasing global warming. 

Given the opportunity to conduct further research, I would pinpoint my focus on further reasons as to why international cooperation has failed to be useful in regards to climate change in today’s modern world. I would research how historically, international cooperation concerning climate change has differed from each nation in how effective efforts have proved to be. This research would determine the extent to which international efforts benefit and harm the nations involved, and whether wealthier nations decline economically.