Impact On How The World Treats Climate Change (Essay Sample)

The article titled ‘Why Have Climate Negotiations Proved So Disappointing?’ written by Scott Barrett reflects the relevance of international relations (IR) regarding the sustainability of Earth. Barrett reflects on both the environmental and social importance of making climate change a critical piece of IR. The primary thesis of this article is to show how IR has an immediate and lasting impact on how the world treats climate change; he does this by showing how the consequences of IR decisions will shape the health of the world and the people responsible for it. This article contains three main points which include: the need to establish worldwide thresholds and goals relating to world climate health, unifying nations to effectively achieve these goals for the good of people and the world, and the importance of establishing finite science-based parameters which all nations are willing to accept. These three points are frequently reflected on throughout the article and are often explained using historical and modern context. Ultimately, Barrett starts a conversation with the reader about modern solutions for climate change by enveloping an IR point of view. The author proves how the relevance of this topic should resonate with all nations by stating that the future of our world relies on the sustainability of people.  More than ever, climate changes should be considered ahigh priority in order to preserve the survivability of our Earth.

Most of the evidence the author uses to support these points refer to historical attempts to solve the problem: for example, Barrett refers to the failures of the Kyoto Protocol due to a lack of incentive. The Kyoto protocol was essentially a worldwide treaty which established common goals regarding the reduction of greenhouse gases. He explains how even though the protocol intended to save the planet, reduce crisis, and unify nations it failed due to a lack of incentive and high cost for sovereign nations. Alternatively, the Montreal Protocol is generally regarded as a success because it encouraged nations to work together on the same climate goals by putting international trade at stake for each nation. Barrett includes prospective about IR theories, Liberalism and Realism, by showing how they came into play during these climate change solutions. He shows while even though these organizations would work most effectively if the countries could cooperate, it is essential for there to be both consequences for leaving the treaty and inceptives to remain an affiliate. Overall, he explains how even though liberalism would be more effective at solving the problem, it is critical to have economic stimulus to encourage cooperation among all nations. 

Barrett mainly refers to all these climate change solution in the scope of an international system. He does this by explaining how even though there are players in this climate change game, it is most effective to view nations as a collective group. He shows that mutual effort not only accelerates the progress but also help to further work toward healthy IR. For this reason, Barrett does not really consider state or individual analysis. 

While I do personally agree with the perspective of the author, I do not find it convincing that the problem could be solved this way. There are many undeveloped nations which hardy rely on trade, they would not be convinced by treaties where all nations are given the same penalty or incentive, additionally there are radical countries which are willing to isolate themselves from trade for their own sovereign rule. For these reasons alone, I think that finding common ground on such a monumental decision can include most nations but never all of them. The author reflects on these points by showing how realism and liberalism play a significant role in both how these decisions are made on an international scale and how the tendencies of these theories can have distinct consequences. In addition to this, even though there is consensus about climate change in the scientific community, the need and value of constant reassessment would make it difficult for any single treaty or climate threshold to remain relevant for too long. An example of this is when the author frequently refers to the important of a universal threshold, although even if every nation collectively worked on this goal, there would still need to be a reconsideration of the progress toward a healthier climate. 

Barrett often refers to 2 degrees Celsius of the worldwide average temperature to be a unifying parameter, although as conditions of the world change and as progress is made, this threshold should change. Which means for every year progress is made, each nation would need to be re-convinced to continue their efforts into global health. For these reasons, I think that even though, there could be a treaty which generally allows nations to work together on a common climate goal, establishing definite parameters which the entire world is willing to partake does not seem like a feasible solution. So, even though I agree with the goal of the author, I think he fails to recognize some of these realities in designing an effective protocol.