Worldwide emissions from human activity have increased by 35 percent since 1990 (UNEP). This has resulted in a global trend of climate change, causing a wide range of effects on our society. A seemingly small rise of two degrees Celsius would have large effects on freshwater supplies, food and agriculture, coastal areas, ecosystems, and human health. Some of these effects include limited water supply and increased disease related deaths. The cost of adaptation to these emissions is projected to be anywhere between 140 to 300 billion dollars per year by 2030. But, only 100 billion dollars had been pledged per year in the now failing Paris Climate Accord. The United Nations Environment Program (UNEP) reports that adaptation costs are already 2/3 higher than international public funding set aside for adaptation. Measures taken to adapt can have large economic effects on GDP, consumption, and employment. But if nothing is done now to reduce emissions, the overall costs and risks of global warming could increase by at least five percent. In order to stop this pattern of global climate change, all developed countries must take more drastic measures to form one cohesive climate change policy, as opposed to our current individualized approach to creating climate policies. Government tools have the power to change energy usage, limit emissions, and better allocate funds. We must use these tools to protect our environment and future generations. 

Some of the causes of climate change are natural, like changes in the Earth’s orbit, energy coming from the sun, ocean changes, and volcanic eruptions. But, scientists have concluded that “most of the warming since the mid-1900s is due to the burning of coal, oil and gas” (Dunbar), meaning they are man-made causes. The burning of fossil fuels adds heat-trapping gasses into the atmosphere, where they absorb radiation and sunlight. This causes the planet to get warmer and is known as the Greenhouse Effect. Impacts of global warming are already occurring, while some effects will not be seen until the future, if warming continues at this rate. Today, we are seeing sea levels rising, a decrease in snow and ice cover, changes in rainfall patterns and a change in growing seasons. Further glacial melting, sea-level rising, flooding, droughts and heat-waves are all possible in the future. Also, an increase in extreme weather is likely if the global temperature continues to rise.  Global warming is a serious problem that we are facing today, and it needs an urgent and effective global response.

Climate change has become an extremely politicized issue since the late 1990’s. On one hand, some think climate change is a fraud or a naturally occurring phenomenon. Others believe global warming is very serious, and worse than what scientists say. This “spiral of mutual distrust [between the public and scientists] has led to an increased polarization of views” (Verheggen 665) between those who believe in climate change and those who do not. Although there is overwhelming evidence that climate change is apparent in our environment today, the main reason for this disagreement is the difference in political, ideological, and ethical beliefs of people all around the world. While some think it is a cause worth fighting, others believe it is a burden to the global economy. It is true that the Earth is warming, “predominantly because of human-induced emissions of GHG, with carbon dioxide (CO2) chiefly among them” (Verheggen 664), but the debate lies in how we should respond to this. 

There has been a 20-fold increase in the number of climate change laws since 1997 (Evans), yet global emissions are still rising. The issue is not within the amount of laws created, but within the strength of these laws. In 1979 the first World Climate Conference occurred when the World Meteorological Organization (WMO) expressed concern about the warming of our planet. Concerns grew in the 1980s and in 1988 when “North America faced an intense heat wave and drought, [these scientific concerns] spilled over into political concerns” (Brief History of Climate Change Policy). The International Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) was then established to investigate and report on scientific evidence on climate change and possible international responses to climate change. The IPCC lead to the creation of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change, or UNFCCC, which was signed by 166 nations and put into effect in 1994. The problem with this first piece of legislation was that it did not set limits for emissions, just established key principles. 

Although UNFCCC was not effective in curbing emissions, it did lead to further legislation. In 1997, a Conference of Parties was held in Kyoto, Japan, and the Kyoto Protocol was established. This was a set of emission goals for developed countries from 2008-2012 that also gave tools to meet these goals. The Kyoto Protocol would allow “international trade in emission allowances, developed country signatories’ emission credits for investing in emissions savings in developing countries, and emission saving investments in other industrial countries to be credited to signatory developed countries” (Brief History of Climate Change Policy) to make it the most cost-effective emission saving method. Although this policy did not exactly fail, many countries refused to sign on because they believed developing countries should share the cost. So, many of the more developed countries with larger emissions were not officially part of the Kyoto Protocol. The policy was renewed for a period until this year, but emission reductions were only required for nations that signed on, and the major emitters like the United States, Russia, Japan, and China are not legally bound to the Kyoto Protocol.

The most recent attempt to create an international climate change agreement was the Paris Climate Accord. The 195 countries that signed onto the agreement committed to keeping global temperature rise below two degrees Celsius, “the point past which experts warn warming could be very dangerous” (Washington Post Editorial Board). The key points of the agreement include “limiting the amount of greenhouse gases emitted by human activity to the same levels that trees, soil and oceans can absorb naturally” and “reviewing each country’s contribution to cutting emission every five years” (Briggs). Also, richer countries have agreed to climate finance terms- helping poorer nations adapt to climate change and switch energy sources. But, only certain terms of the agreement are binding, and pledges to reduce emissions are optional. Also, many countries like the United States have considered getting out of the Paris Accord. Donald Trump proclaimed in June that the US would be withdrawing from the agreement as soon as possible. His administration believes it to be “a humiliating defeat for American workers that unfairly advantages foreign countries” (Liptak and Acosta). The first step in creating effective policy is world leaders admitting to the graveness of climate change. 

A large problem in establishing a climate policy is disagreement on the terms, especially apparent in the formation of the Paris Agreement. For example, many countries do not want to pay for increased energy costs and new technology. There is also concern that more rich countries with higher emissions will face large economic and social costs if they attempt to reduce emissions. Many believe that poor countries will also suffer from reducing emissions, as the development of a poor country is often associated with increasing emissions. As a result of this, the poorer countries often must look to developed countries to help finance the necessary measure needed to adapt to climate change. 

The countries that are producing the most emissions are the large, developed countries. They are the major producers of greenhouse gases that cause global warming, and they continue to benefit from and defend high levels of emissions. These countries are least vulnerable to the effects of these emissions, but under-developed countries are suffering as a result of the actions of these developed nations. Developed nations are resistant to commit because of economic issues. But, many economists have worked to perform cost-benefit analysis, a tool attempting to monetize costs and benefits of a proposed action. Projected damages on economy from climate change range from 2% to 10% depending on the model used. But, meeting emission limits set in the Paris Climate Agreement would only cost 1.5% of world income. It is also predicted that the result of meeting these limits could cost 4% of Gross Domestic Product, GDP, or in the best-case scenario could cause a 3.9% increase in GDP. If climate change continues at the rate it is currently at, the estimates of damages rise to 20% of GDP (Harris et al.). So, in the long run, it is more beneficial to the economy for developed countries to commit to a climate change policy and avoid future costs than it would be to ignore the issue.

Some argue that an international policy is not effective or beneficial to anyone. Some countries, states, and nations have implemented some of their own limitations on emissions. In the United States “31 firms have imposed their own modest emission cuts” and “nine states in the northeast are far advanced in designing a scheme that would cap CO2 emissions from power plants” (Victor). Those who believe in this “bottom-up” approach think that “global institutions are too weak to monitor and enforce” (Victor), making an international approach seem slow and ineffective. Opponents of a global response argue that terms for international policies can only be mildly binding and not extreme because so many countries must agree. The “bottom-up” approach includes leaders setting individual goals, but no legally binding global agreements. Each country/state/territory has their own goal, and is responsible for meeting or not meeting their own goal. Progress is fragmented and multi-speed. Proponents of an individualized approach believe “a system that originates from the top takes the speed of its least ambitious nation” (Victor). 

It is true that in a global policy terms tend to be milder and progress is slower. But, slower progress is better than no progress. In a bottom-up system, the “goals” set are completely optional. Each party is responsible for its own progress, and there are no legally binding terms to assist in meeting the goal. No country is required to control emissions, provide funding, or even create a climate change policy. When given this option, especially in a country where a leader does not believe in the seriousness of global warming, many would opt out of having to spend the money and carry the economic burden. While a less extreme but binding policy might be slower moving, a non-binding system is only effective in countries where the environment is a top concern. When compared to other political issues like human rights, equality, education, and national debt our climate change problem does not seem as relevant, or as worthy of, spending the required money on. So, if there are no ultimatums or obligatory rules, creating climate policy is not a priority for most nations. In the long run a slow-paced international policy is more beneficial to everyone than an only half-effective, rapid individualized policy. 

Recently the United Kingdom voted to leave the European Union. Brexit, the UK’s decision to leave the EU, will be official on March 29, 2019. Britain has been a leading country on fighting climate change, but “closer analysis shows that much of the reduction in emissions over the coming decades would flow from EU policies” (Hepburn and Teytelboym). The policies that the UK was following under the European Union must be replaced with their own policies. While this does give the UK the chance to start new and create more efficient climate policy, it also leaves all the responsibility up to their own government. The chief of staff, Nick Timothy, for the current prime minister is openly against the Climate Change Act; and the prime minister herself “swiftly abolished the Department of Energy and Climate Change and absorbed it into the Department of Business” (Hepburn and Teytelboym). When the option to give funding to business or protecting the environment, it is more likely that the UK government would choose business. Britain’s withdrawal from an international climate change policy gives the UK this option. 

Climate change is a global phenomenon that requires a global response. So, where do we start? The actions of few will affect many, meaning it is important that all countries work together to solve the problem. For example, emissions from developed countries like the United States and Canada will have an effect on the global climate, that if not stopped, will eventually strongly effect poor and developing countries. This also leads into the problem of providing resources for developing countries, while limiting the effect these resources have on the environment. The coordination of many nations in one cohesive policy will lead to efficient outcomes for all. Our world leaders must accept the scientific evidence that our planet is warming, and take responsibility for their emission-producing actions. 

As a globe, we need stricter legislation and more binding international policies if we want to slow down our rate of global warming. The complexity from the international approach comes from the problem of free riders. There is no one international government that can enforce the rules and regulations of a climate policy, so many countries sign on and do not follow through with their commitments. Although it would be extremely difficult and unrealistic to create an international government, we can create an international climate organization responsible for the enforcement of legally binding policy terms. Countries that do not meet their emissions reductions or use effective strategies to reduce emissions should face consequences like fines or emission tax increases. Countries that do put in the effort to stop climate change and meet the international goal should be rewarded with emission tax cuts. A coordinated, global response is the necessary action needed to save our planet.

Climate change is an economic, societal, scientific, and governance issue that is ultimately affecting everyone on our globe, whether the effects are noticeable or not. The risks of climate change are often outweighed by economic fluctuations, human rights, security threats, and geopolitical beliefs (Introduction to Global Climate Change Policy). But, just a rise in two degrees Celsius can have devastating effects on our environment and society. Under our current policies, emissions are still rapidly rising, despite efforts to curb them. It is important that developed nations with the resources to create effective policies work together to create effective outcomes. We need to take the problem of global warming seriously and take responsibility for the man-made damages to our planet. A localized, “bottom-up” approach cannot be successful for such a large, global issue that has consequences for every country, every state, every person. We need to establish an international climate change policy with strong, enforced terms if we want to prevent further damages. Global climate change is not an issue that can be shoved aside and saved for later. If it is not dealt with now, the consequences will only get worse with time. An urgent, global response is needed if we to become a more green, sustainable planet. 
