ETVT global environmental governance has been effective Flashcards
structure
- tragedy of commons vs sustainable development
- effectiveness of UNFCCC and int. agreements
- efforts to commit developed states to support developing states
LOA
ineffective
- tragedy of commons
Many argue global environmental governance is ineffective due to the tragedy of the commons — a theory suggesting that when resources are shared (like air, oceans, biodiversity), individual states act in their self-interest, overusing resources for short-term gain, even if it harms the collective long-term future.
💡 Examples:
Despite global agreements like the Kyoto Protocol (1997) and the Paris Agreement (2015), greenhouse gas emissions continue to rise.
The IPCC warned in 2018 that warming must stay below 2°C to avoid catastrophic climate effects — yet as of 2025, global policies still track towards a 2.5°C–2.9°C rise by 2100.
Fossil fuel-dependent states like Russia, Saudi Arabia, and the UAE resisted stronger carbon emission cuts at COP28 (2023) and COP29 (2024), prioritising oil and gas exports.
Industrialised nations such as Australia failed to meet prior reduction targets, with emissions rising above 2005 levels in recent years, due to coal reliance and slow renewable investment.
Deep Green Ecologists (e.g. Greta Thunberg, XR activists) argue that without replacing capitalism and shifting the global economy away from growth-at-all-costs, international cooperation will remain limited and ineffective.
- overcome tragedy thru sustainable development
Global environmental governance has shown effectiveness by promoting sustainable development — the idea that economic growth and environmental protection can reinforce each other, not conflict.
🌱 Shallow-Green Ecology supports this, arguing that market-based solutions (like emissions trading, green technology, and pollution controls) enable progress without abandoning capitalism.
💡 Examples:
International agreements like the Kyoto Protocol (1997) introduced carbon trading, allowing countries to meet targets by funding emissions-reduction projects abroad.
The Paris Agreement (2015) lets countries set their own Nationally Determined Contributions (NDCs), aligning environmental action with their economies.
The European Green Deal aims for net-zero emissions by 2050 and a 55% cut by 2030, enforced by the European Climate Law and the Carbon Border Adjustment Mechanism (carbon tariffs on imports).
Global renewable energy use has boomed: by 2025, renewables (solar, wind, hydro) are expected to cover around 35–37% of global electricity (up from 29% in 2020).
Costa Rica remains a leader: in 2024, it generated 99% of electricity from renewables and grew its eco-tourism industry, showing economic growth can coexist with environmental protection.
- against effectiveness of UNFCCC and int agreements
The IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change) produces scientific Assessment Reports every ~6 years, informing both public understanding and government policies.
The UNFCCC (United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change) hosts annual COP conferences to negotiate global agreements.
💡 Examples:
The IPCC’s Sixth Report (2021-22) stressed limiting warming to 1.5°C, shaping national policies and pushing global frameworks like the Paris Agreement.
The UK Climate Change Act (2008) was directly influenced by IPCC data, setting legally binding emissions targets.
The UNFCCC established major agreements:
– Kyoto Protocol (1997): first binding GHG reduction targets; many countries (EU, Russia, Japan) exceeded their goals.
– Paris Agreement (2015): 194 countries pledged to limit warming “well below 2°C” and aim for 1.5°C; includes five-year Global Stocktakes to monitor progress.
– COP26 Glasgow (2021): 190 countries agreed to phase down coal and 130 pledged to end deforestation by 2030.
- for sovereignty has prevented egg from being effective
🌍 State sovereignty allows countries to control their own decisions, so international climate agreements depend on voluntary commitments rather than enforceable rules. This often leads to weak or delayed climate action when national economic or political interests conflict with global goals.
💡 Key Examples:
Kyoto Protocol (1997) — the first agreement with binding targets, but:
— Japan failed to meet its targets after the 2011 Fukushima disaster, shifting back to fossil fuels.
— The U.S. Senate refused to ratify the deal, fearing economic harm and unfair exemptions for developing nations.
Copenhagen Accord (2009) — relied on self-set targets, but many states failed.
— Australia aimed for a 5% cut by 2020 but missed it due to its continued coal and gas dependency, remaining a top emitter per capita.
Paris Agreement (2015) — despite global participation, targets are non-binding.
— As of 2025, current policies place the world on track for a 2.7–3.1°C rise, far above the 1.5°C goal.
— China continues building coal plants despite pledging carbon neutrality by 2060.
— The U.S. has shown unstable leadership on climate: after rejoining under Biden in 2021, the reelection of Trump (2024) threatens to reverse progress and exit the deal again.
- for divisions between developed and developing states over reponsibility
🌍 Developed countries — responsible for most historical emissions — have often failed to offer enough financial and practical support to developing nations, limiting global cooperation on climate change.
💡 Key Facts:
From 1850–2019, the U.S. & EU were responsible for ~50% of CO₂ emissions, while Africa and South Asia contributed only 7% combined.
Developing nations argue they shouldn’t sacrifice growth (needed for poverty reduction) for a crisis they did not cause.
💰 The Green Climate Fund (GCF):
In 2010, developed nations pledged $100 billion per year by 2020 to help developing countries adapt and mitigate.
Missed Target: By 2019, only $79.6 billion was raised, a $20 billion gap (OECD data).
Even when funding is provided, it is often too small or poorly distributed for the scale of climate adaptation needs.
📢 Global Criticism:
At COP26 (2021), Barbados PM Mia Mottley argued $100 billion was far too little and demanded greater financial commitments from rich nations to support developing countries’ climate efforts.
- against developed states have committed
🌱 Common but Differentiated Responsibilities (CBDR) — a core principle in climate agreements — ensures developed nations take the lead in reducing emissions and providing financial aid, acknowledging their historical role in causing climate change.
💡 Key Examples:
Kyoto Protocol (1997): Only developed nations were assigned binding emissions targets, exempting developing states to protect their right to economic growth.
Paris Agreement (2015):
→ Allows flexibility for developing countries through Nationally Determined Contributions (NDCs).
→ Example: India’s NDC permits emissions to rise until its peak (by 2030) to balance climate action with poverty reduction.
💰 Climate Finance:
Developed countries pledged $100 billion annually to assist developing nations.
Though delayed, the target was met in 2022 with $115.9 billion mobilised.
The Green Climate Fund (GCF) has backed major projects, including:
→ Morocco’s Noor Ouarzazate solar complex — one of the world’s largest solar plants.
⚡ Loss and Damage Fund:
Agreed at COP27 (2022) to compensate developing countries for the unavoidable harms of climate change, especially extreme weather damage.
What does the ‘Tragedy of the Commons’ theory suggest about the limits of global environmental governance?
It argues that shared resources like air and oceans are overused, as individual actors prioritize short-term self-interest, preventing effective cooperation on climate change.
Despite the Paris Agreement’s 1.5°C target, what temperature rise is the world currently on track for?
Between 2.7°C and 3.1°C by the end of the century, according to the IPCC.
Why has Australia been criticized for failing to meet its climate targets?
Despite pledging a 5% reduction below 2000 levels by 2020 under the Copenhagen Accord, emissions increased due to its continued reliance on coal.
What does the deep-green ecology perspective argue is necessary to tackle climate change?
A fundamental shift away from capitalism, as economic self-interest leads to environmental destruction.
What is the shallow-green ecology perspective’s view on economic growth and environmental protection?
It argues they can coexist through market solutions like emissions trading and investment in green technology.
How has the EU’s Green Deal shown global environmental governance in action?
The EU committed to net-zero emissions by 2050 and at least a 55% emissions cut by 2030, supported by legally binding initiatives like the European Climate Law.
How has Costa Rica balanced economic growth and environmental protection?
It generates over 98% of its electricity from renewables and uses eco-tourism to boost its economy while preserving nature.
How has the IPCC influenced international climate action?
Its reports informed policies like the UK’s 2008 Climate Change Act and shaped targets in the Paris Agreement.
What role does the UNFCCC play in climate governance?
It hosts the COP conferences, which produced key agreements like Kyoto (1997), Copenhagen (2009), and Paris (2015).
Why was the Kyoto Protocol a landmark agreement for climate governance?
It was the first treaty with binding emissions reduction targets for industrialized countries.
What was a major achievement of COP26 in Glasgow (2021)?
190 countries agreed to phase down coal and 130 pledged to halt deforestation by 2030.
How does state sovereignty limit global environmental governance?
States can ignore or withdraw from international agreements if commitments conflict with national interests.
Why did Japan fail to meet its Kyoto Protocol targets?
After the Fukushima nuclear disaster in 2011, Japan shifted back to fossil fuels, increasing its emissions.
How did Australia’s energy choices undermine its Copenhagen Accord pledge?
Despite committing to a 5% reduction, Australia’s coal and gas reliance led to emissions increasing by 20% from 2000 levels.
Why has China’s commitment under the Paris Agreement been questioned?
Despite pledging to peak emissions by 2030 and reach neutrality by 2060, China continues approving new coal power plants.
How has U.S. climate policy shown the limits of global governance?
The U.S. left the Paris Agreement under Trump and, even after rejoining, its targets remain vulnerable to political shifts.
