Can an international response to climate
change ever work? Discuss. 33 marks
There is a 97% scientific consensus that climate change
is happening and has been exasperated by human
activity. The 1990s saw the CO2 concentration in the
atmosphere exceeding 400 ppm, which hadn’t
happened in 400 million years. Without major
intervention, current trends suggest a 2-degree
temperature increase from 1880 levels could occur by
2070. Climate modelling has shown that this could lead
to severe global consequences including wet-bulb
temperatures, droughts, biome shifts, desertification
and flooding. Some argue that an international
response through mitigation and potential
geoengineering could help solve the crisis. However,
COP conferences have been disappointing, hindered by
the lack of unity, geopolitical tensions and weak
enforcement measures. Although schemes, like the EU
Emissions Trading System show potential, without
cooperation from major emitters (United States of
America, India and China), I believe global climate
action is unlikely to succeed.
Climate finance has been a serious source of contention
which has hindered international responses to climate
change. In 1997 at the Kyoto Protocol, only advanced
countries had to make a 5% reduction in their CO2
emissions. More recently, in 2021, COP 26 saw
countries like India, China and Russia not taking part in
a reduction in methane emissions by 30%. India and
China under the United Nations Framework Convention
on Climate Change (1992) are still considered
developing countries to this day and are therefore not
obligated to pay climate finance or reduce their
, emissions immediately despite being large emitters. In
fact, China is the largest emitter in the world, emitting
27% of the world’s greenhouse gas emissions in 2021
(this is not even including the belt road initiative where
they are contributing to emissions in Africa and Asia)
Geopolitical tensions have arisen where USA has felt
unfairly burdened by the cost of global climate action
whilst other major emitters continue to industrialise
and pollute. This sense of injustice has fuelled President
Trump’s decision to withdraw from the Paris Agreement
in his inauguration (an important agreement to limit
global temperatures to under 1.5 degrees). The lack of
cooperation between these major powers, who’s
countries collectively contribute to 40% of global
emissions every year, severely hinders mitigation
efforts against climate change. It is their reluctance to
take partake in legally binding measures to cut
emissions which limits the idea that an international
response to climate change will ever work.
Additionally, the amount of money that low-income
countries are receiving from climate finance is not
sufficient, hindering their ability to adapt to climate
change. In 2022, COP 27 found that developed
countries fell short on delivering their promised $100
billion per year. This embittered developing countries
who felt they were suffering from the consequences of
developed countries past industrialisation and were
now not being given sufficient tools to adapt to the
climate crisis. This had negative consequences for the
rest of conference in Egypt, where there was a lack of
cohesion across many themes resulting in the failure
for the final text to mention the need to phase out oil
and gas. Furthermore, even though at COP 29 in 2024,
developed countries promised $300 billion annually by
change ever work? Discuss. 33 marks
There is a 97% scientific consensus that climate change
is happening and has been exasperated by human
activity. The 1990s saw the CO2 concentration in the
atmosphere exceeding 400 ppm, which hadn’t
happened in 400 million years. Without major
intervention, current trends suggest a 2-degree
temperature increase from 1880 levels could occur by
2070. Climate modelling has shown that this could lead
to severe global consequences including wet-bulb
temperatures, droughts, biome shifts, desertification
and flooding. Some argue that an international
response through mitigation and potential
geoengineering could help solve the crisis. However,
COP conferences have been disappointing, hindered by
the lack of unity, geopolitical tensions and weak
enforcement measures. Although schemes, like the EU
Emissions Trading System show potential, without
cooperation from major emitters (United States of
America, India and China), I believe global climate
action is unlikely to succeed.
Climate finance has been a serious source of contention
which has hindered international responses to climate
change. In 1997 at the Kyoto Protocol, only advanced
countries had to make a 5% reduction in their CO2
emissions. More recently, in 2021, COP 26 saw
countries like India, China and Russia not taking part in
a reduction in methane emissions by 30%. India and
China under the United Nations Framework Convention
on Climate Change (1992) are still considered
developing countries to this day and are therefore not
obligated to pay climate finance or reduce their
, emissions immediately despite being large emitters. In
fact, China is the largest emitter in the world, emitting
27% of the world’s greenhouse gas emissions in 2021
(this is not even including the belt road initiative where
they are contributing to emissions in Africa and Asia)
Geopolitical tensions have arisen where USA has felt
unfairly burdened by the cost of global climate action
whilst other major emitters continue to industrialise
and pollute. This sense of injustice has fuelled President
Trump’s decision to withdraw from the Paris Agreement
in his inauguration (an important agreement to limit
global temperatures to under 1.5 degrees). The lack of
cooperation between these major powers, who’s
countries collectively contribute to 40% of global
emissions every year, severely hinders mitigation
efforts against climate change. It is their reluctance to
take partake in legally binding measures to cut
emissions which limits the idea that an international
response to climate change will ever work.
Additionally, the amount of money that low-income
countries are receiving from climate finance is not
sufficient, hindering their ability to adapt to climate
change. In 2022, COP 27 found that developed
countries fell short on delivering their promised $100
billion per year. This embittered developing countries
who felt they were suffering from the consequences of
developed countries past industrialisation and were
now not being given sufficient tools to adapt to the
climate crisis. This had negative consequences for the
rest of conference in Egypt, where there was a lack of
cohesion across many themes resulting in the failure
for the final text to mention the need to phase out oil
and gas. Furthermore, even though at COP 29 in 2024,
developed countries promised $300 billion annually by
