Thesis statement
Given the current circumstances and negotiations, it can be argued that the international climate cooperation, which was established to find ways of limiting carbon emissions responsible for global warming, has been unsuccessful in its actions. However, using evidence from some international climate cooperation, the argument is that the collaborative actions aimed at addressing the international environmental issues are far from being attained.
The reverse argument of the collective action theory that the collaborative efforts within a larger group are unlikely to be achieved can be applied to explain the failures of international treaties and actions on climate change (Harris 196). Essentially, despite the few successes and the greater efforts for over three decades to construct an effectual environmental cooperation, it is clear that the elements of accomplishment may be present for the predictable future.
The current international negotiations would just reduce but not reverse the global warming at some point in the relative distant future. The paper endeavors to find out the reasons why the efforts of the international climate regime have not been successful.
Background information
The problem of climate change has not been perceived as a collective responsibility. In order to succeed in a collective agreement, members must have almost an equal share of the problem. In fact, collective action theorists point out that the cooperative sharing principle is critical for the success of the actions of larger group (Harris 197). The principle of collective action is yet to be agreed upon among the members of the international climate cooperation. Everyone agree that the emission of Green Houses Gases (GHG) has been the major cause of global warming and every country is responsible for a particular level of emissions. However, the level at which each country is contributing remains the basis of controversy. In other words, the GHG emissions have not been perceived as a collective problem (Victor 92).
In fact, some countries particularly, from the developing economies, feel that the industrialized countries have been contributing hugely to the emissions of GHG thus, should bear the greatest burden (Johansen 118). The feeling among the developing economies is that they are forced to bear the burden, which they have not created (Victor 92).
Lack of agreement on who is most responsible has undermined the ongoing set of arrangements for progressive control of GHG emissions (Harris 196). Besides, the numbers of countries causing GHG emissions are large and continuously increasing in the recent past (Harris 196). In addition, most of these countries felt that it is not on their immediate interest to bear the cost of reducing GHG emissions (Harris 196). The view is still held by many countries most of whom are the major polluters.
The other important factor is lack of consensus on the magnitude and nature of global warming and climate change (Johansen 119). Scientists in many occasions have disagreed on the magnitude and nature of global warming resulting in the provision of different sets of contradicting data (Johansen 119).
The works of the scientific skeptics to global warming have undermined the efforts made by various organizations to prove without doubt that the current change in climate is caused by carbon emissions present in the atmosphere (Johansen 118).
The climate skeptics have been in existence throughout particularly, from countries that are supposed to bear the greater cost of climate change (Victor 99). The impact of their skeptic view on environmental policy has been greater. Such skeptic view help in advancing the uncertainties surrounding the magnitude and effects of global warming and climate change (Harris 198).
While these issues remain critical undermining factors in the combined GHG emissions mitigation, they have not been extensively examined. In fact, the world is still grappling with effective measures that would ensure a collaborative effort geared towards reducing the GHG emissions (Harris 196).
Therefore this study would be important to the environmental policy makers and in academic circles since it would provide increased information on the issues that has lead to the failure of the global environmental regime in their goals on reducing GHG emissions.
Information sources
Information included in this study will be coming from credible sources primarily from previous studies. Most importantly, there will be keen focus on previous studies published in books, journals, peered reviewed journal articles and credible websites. Some key primary sources of information that will be consulted include environmental management journals, journals of environmental science as well as the environmental and resources economics journals.
Most importantly, critical information will be taken from United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) and the International Panel on Climate Change (IPCC).
In addition significant databases that will be consulted include Environmental Protection Agency (EPA – December 1999 to January 2014), Center for Global Environmental Research (CGER – December 1999 to January 2014), National Climate Data Center (NCDC – December 1999 to January 2014)) and European Environmental Agency (EAA – December 1999 to January 2014).
Expectations
The aim of the study is to examine various factors that have contributed to the failure of the climate regime to limit the carbon emissions responsible for global warming. In fact, one major question the study would answer is whether the failure of the global climate change organization has led to the continued increase in the GHG emissions.
Essentially, the major objective of this study is to exonerate the international climate change regime on the political intrigues that affect its noble cause of reducing the GHG emissions. Generally, my expectations are that this study will clearly provide explanations, through the application of appropriate theoretical framework, why the global climate change regime has failed to attain its main objectives.
Introduction
Causes and reasons for global warming have been extensively studied. Besides, major environmental organizations and institutes have been keeping track of the changes taking place in the earth’s climate. In addition, everyone agree that increased Green House Gases (GHG) emissions into the atmosphere are the major cause of the changes in the world climate. Moreover, there is a considerable consensus on the dangers posed by the climate change.
However, achieving consensus on the collective action aimed at reversing the climate change has proved challenging (Harris 199). In fact, good policies aimed at reducing the GHG emissions have been marred by political contradictions and intrigues, which have prevented their full implementations (Harris 199). Environmental experts argue that reducing the current trends in the carbon emissions need a global concerted effort.
Through various conventions and climate change agreements such as the Kyoto protocol, the environmental experts have tried to bring into action the global corporation on climate change. However, such corporations have not achieved much due to various constraints (Harris 195).
The agreements on how to overcome some of the constraints is far from being achieved. However, such agreements depend on how countries are involved in building a consensus regarding the magnitude and nature of global warming and climate changes, mitigation measures and how to bear the cost (Harris 223).
Works Cited
Harris, Paul G. “Collective Action on Climate Change: the Logic of Regime Failure.” Natural Resources Journal, 47.1 (2007): 195-224.
Johansen, Bruce E. “Global Warming in the 21st Century: Our Evolving Climate Crisis.” World Resources, 16.4 (2006): 118-224.
Victor, David G, “Toward Effective International Cooperation on Climate Change: Numbers, Interests and Institutions.” Global Environmental Politics, 6.3 (2006): 90-103.