Global Environment As Agendas

Early Environmental Milestones

The modern environmental movement gained momentum in the late 1960s and early 1970s with major international conferences and reports that brought global attention to environmental issues.

In 1968, the UN General Assembly convened the UN Conference on the Human Environment in Stockholm, Sweden. This marked the first major international gathering focused on environmental issues. Out of this conference came a declaration that served as an “action plan” for global environmental governance and led to the creation of the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP). UNEP became the first UN agency focused solely on the environment.

The 1972 UN Conference on the Human Environment, also known as the Stockholm Conference, built on the momentum of the 1968 gathering. At this conference, 113 countries adopted the Stockholm Declaration, which included 26 principles concerning the environment and development. This declaration put environmental issues on the global agenda.

In 1987, the concept of sustainable development was formalized with the publication of the Brundtland Report, named after Chairman Gro Harlem Brundtland. Officially titled “Our Common Future,” this report defined sustainable development as “development that meets the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs.” The Brundtland Report brought major attention to the idea of balancing environmental protection and economic development.

Through these milestones, environmental issues transitioned from national to global concerns. This set the stage for the creation of international institutions and agreements to address worldwide environmental problems.

Creation of Environmental Institutions

A key outcome of the 1968 UN Conference on the Human Environment was the creation of the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) in 1972. Headquartered in Nairobi, Kenya, UNEP coordinates the UN’s environmental activities and implements environmental programs.

The conference also spurred many national governments to establish their own environmental agencies and departments. For example, the United States formed the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) in 1970, while the UK founded the Department of the Environment in 1971. These new agencies were tasked with researching environmental issues, monitoring pollution levels, and developing and enforcing environmental regulations at the domestic level.

Another vital institution that emerged was the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), established in 1988 by UNEP and the World Meteorological Organization. The IPCC assesses the scientific literature on climate change and provides reports synthesizing the latest evidence and projections. These authoritative reports have played a key role in building consensus on the reality and risks of human-caused climate change. The IPCC and former Vice President Al Gore were awarded the Nobel Peace Prize in 2007 for their efforts to expand knowledge of manmade climate change and laying the foundations for action to counteract it.

Emergence of Sustainable Development

In the 1980s, the concept of sustainable development emerged as a holistic approach to economic growth without environmental degradation. This built on the growing awareness of the interconnectedness between the economy, society, and the environment.

A key milestone was the 1987 Brundtland Report, published by the United Nations World Commission on Environment and Development. It defined sustainable development as “development that meets the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs.” This recognized the need to balance economic and social progress with environmental protection.

The 1992 Earth Summit in Rio de Janeiro brought sustainable development to the forefront internationally. It produced the Rio Declaration on Environment and Development, Agenda 21, the Forest Principles, and led to the creation of the Commission on Sustainable Development. This cemented sustainable development as a guiding principle for policymaking and called for integrated decision-making across economic, social, and environmental realms.

The Earth Summit was a landmark event, rallying the international community around sustainable development and catalyzing action across governments, businesses, and civil society. It signaled that environmental issues could no longer be separated from development policies and required coordinated global responses. The summit’s outcomes provided a blueprint for achieving economic progress while conserving natural resources and ecosystems for future generations.

Global Environmental Governance

International cooperation has established governance regimes to regulate transboundary environmental problems and sustain the global commons. Over the last three decades, the development of international environmental law and associated norms has been rapid. International environmental law refers to the principles and norms governing the international management of environmental resources. This body of law has grown extensively since the 1972 Stockholm Conference on the Human Environment. Milestone agreements include the Convention on Biological Diversity, the Basel Convention on hazardous waste, and the Vienna Convention and Montreal Protocol on ozone layer protection.

Capacity building has become a major goal of these conventions, with extensive funding and programs aimed at improving scientific, regulatory, and policy expertise in developing countries. The Global Environment Facility, headquartered at the World Bank, manages billions in funds to support capacity building and knowledge sharing. However, capacity constraints persist in monitoring compliance, mobilizing domestic implementation, and participating in complex negotiations.

Governing the global commons presents distinct challenges, with enforcement of compliance being particularly difficult. International environmental agreements rely on self-enforcement, given the lack of coercive power over sovereign states. This creates incentives for free-riding on regime agreements, as nations seek to avoid the costs of domestic implementation while benefiting from others’ actions. Expanding transparency, review mechanisms, and sanctions for non-compliance can strengthen enforcement. But ultimately, effective global environmental governance requires enhancing mutual trust and shared interests among nations.

Climate Change Governance

By the late 1980s, consensus to stimulate action on climate change had emerged. To address this growing concern, the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) was adopted in 1992. The UNFCCC’s key objective is the “stabilization of greenhouse gas concentrations in the atmosphere at a level that would prevent dangerous anthropogenic interference with the climate system.”

The UNFCCC established a framework for action aimed at stabilizing atmospheric concentrations of greenhouse gases to avoid “dangerous anthropogenic interference” with the climate system. The UNFCCC set non-binding limits on greenhouse gas emissions for individual countries and contains no enforcement mechanisms. Instead, the treaty provides for updates, called “protocols,” that would set mandatory emission limits.

The principal update to the UNFCCC is the Kyoto Protocol, which was adopted in 1997. The Kyoto Protocol legally binds developed country Parties to emission reduction targets. It also promotes emissions trading in order to harness market forces and help reduce the costs of meeting emissions targets. The Kyoto Protocol entered into force in 2005 and has been ratified by 192 countries.

The UNFCCC requires Parties to convene annually at a Conference of Parties (COP) to assess progress in dealing with climate change. The COP adopts decisions and resolutions, published in annual reports, to promote the effective implementation of the UNFCCC. The COP reviews the implementation of the UNFCCC and any related legal instruments and coordinates with the Conference of Parties serving as the Meeting of Parties to the Kyoto Protocol (CMP) to ensure consistency between the UNFCCC requirements and the Kyoto Protocol provisions.

Theories Explaining Cooperation

Regime Theory

Regime theory has become a useful framework for understanding how international cooperation can emerge to address environmental issues. Regimes are sets of implicit or explicit principles, norms, rules and decision-making procedures that actors’ expectations converge around in a given issue area.

Regimes help explain how collective action is possible, even when states have incentives to free-ride and act in their own self-interest. They facilitate cooperation by creating long-term reciprocal expectations, establishing monitoring systems, reducing transaction costs, and building trust.

In the environmental realm, regimes have proven critical for addressing issues like ozone depletion, biodiversity loss, and climate change. The creation of governance frameworks like the Montreal Protocol and Paris Agreement demonstrate how regimes can enable mutually beneficial cooperation between states to manage global commons issues.

Epistemic Communities

Epistemic communities also contribute to regime formation around environmental issues. These are networks of experts with recognized knowledge and competence in a particular domain. Epistemic communities can elucidate complex problems and help states identify their interests.

In issues like climate change, epistemic communities have been pivotal in aggregating and synthesizing scientific knowledge, framing environmental problems as solvable international issues, and developing policy options. Their expert consensus and advocacy helps shape states’ perceptions and political responses.

Epistemic communities demonstrate how transnational expertise facilitates the emergence of cooperation around environmental issues. Their authority strengthens the creation of robust governance regimes to manage global challenges.

Common but Differentiated Responsibilities: The Complexity of Assigning Responsibility for Climate Change

Although all nations must accept responsibility for the changing climate, developed nations must take immediate action due to historical benefits gained through industrialization. However, finding a reasonable and acceptable sharing of emission reductions between developed and developing countries is challenging. Factors such as historical emissions, varying per capita emissions, and the transfer of production of goods from developed to developing countries, all play a role in determining responsibility.

Developed countries like the United States, United Kingdom, Germany and others industrialized and emitted high levels of greenhouse gases since the Industrial Revolution. Their early growth and development was powered by coal and oil, which pumped large quantities of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere over decades. Developing countries argue that this historical legacy means industrialized nations have already used more than their fair share of the carbon budget.

However, today some developing countries like China and India have surpassed developed nations in total annual emissions, even though their per capita emissions remain lower. The transfer of manufacturing from the West to China and other emerging markets also complicates accounting. When a developed country imports goods whose production caused emissions in a developing country, which nation should take responsibility?

With developed countries hesitant to commit to targets unless major developing emitters also act, finding consensus on “common but differentiated responsibilities” has been challenging. New climate pathways are needed to move beyond simple divisions between developed and developing worlds, and instead pursue pragmatic solutions with broad participation.

Obstacles to Climate Agreement

Reaching a binding international agreement on climate change has faced several obstacles. A major challenge is the incentive for nations to free ride on the efforts of others. Since the benefits of mitigating climate change are global public goods, countries can enjoy the benefits even if they do not contribute significantly to emission reductions. This makes nations reluctant to take on costly mitigation burdens if other countries will not follow suit.

Related to this is the problem of energy security concerns. Nations want to ensure reliable and affordable energy access to support economic growth and development. Transitioning away from fossil fuels is seen as potentially threatening energy security in some countries. There is a fear that climate policies could lead to higher energy prices or strained supplies. Countries with large fossil fuel reserves and industries have an interest in preserving those assets.

There are also equity concerns, with developing nations arguing that developed countries should shoulder more of the burden. Developing nations prioritize poverty reduction and improving standards of living. They contend that developed nations benefited economically from unfettered use of fossil fuels during industrialization. Developing countries argue that climate efforts should not restrain their development or force onerous costs. These tensions between developed and developing nations have hindered agreement.

Overcoming the free rider problem, addressing energy security concerns, and finding an equitable distribution of effort continue to pose challenges. Creative solutions and compromises on these issues will likely be needed to achieve an effective global climate agreement.

New Climate Pathways

The Paris Agreement in 2015 established a new framework for global climate action. Unlike the Kyoto Protocol, which only included binding emission reduction targets for developed countries, the Paris Agreement requires action from all countries.

The central aim is to limit global temperature rise to well below 2°C above pre-industrial levels, and pursue efforts to limit it to 1.5°C. To achieve this, countries submit Intended Nationally Determined Contributions (INDCs) detailing their emission reduction pledges and climate actions. INDCs are updated every 5 years, with the expectation that ambition will increase over time.

By November 2021, 192 countries had submitted their first NDCs under the Paris Agreement. While many countries have put forward increased ambition, analysis indicates the NDCs are still insufficient to achieve the 1.5°C goal. Therefore, further action is urgently required.

A key development has been the proliferation of net zero pledges. As of November 2021, 127 countries responsible for over 63% of global emissions have pledged to reach net zero emissions by around mid-century. Cities, regions and companies have also made net zero commitments. While questions remain about deliverability, these long-term pledges send an important signal for decarbonization.

Carbon pricing is another emerging policy approach, which attaches a cost to greenhouse gas emissions to incentivize reductions. Emissions trading schemes are the most common form of carbon pricing. As of 2021, mandatory carbon pricing instruments were in place or scheduled for implementation in 70 jurisdictions, covering 21.5% of global emissions. The private sector is also increasingly applying internal carbon prices to guide investments. Further expansion of carbon pricing could help drive emission reductions going forward.

Overall, the post-Paris landscape provides reasons for optimism about the world’s climate response. However, the 1.5°C limit is rapidly slipping out of reach, so accelerated action across all fronts is essential in this decisive decade.

The Road Ahead

Despite strong scientific consensus on the urgency of climate action, practical implementation remains challenging. Sustained international cooperation and innovative thinking are required.

A key obstacle is that climate solutions can negatively impact economic growth in the short term. Phasing out fossil fuels threatens major industries, while transitioning to renewable energy requires substantial upfront investment. This can stall political action, as leaders balance environmental priorities with economic stability.

Additionally, responsibilities are not evenly distributed. Developed countries bear greater accountability, yet rising economies increasingly contribute to emissions. Reconciling different capabilities and impacts complicates negotiations.

Meanwhile, impacts grow irreversible. Extreme weather, rising sea levels, and collapsing ecosystems threaten human security. The risks are shared, but the most vulnerable communities tend to be least responsible.

With time running short, innovation offers hope. Rapid technology advances can accelerate decarbonization in transport, buildings, industry and energy. Carbon removal techniques may help extract historical emissions. Local initiatives demonstrate sustainability, while global information sharing spreads solutions.

Yet greater commitment remains vital. Ambition must increase, or coming generations will pay the price. Visionary leadership can reframe climate action as an opportunity to reinvent economies, unite humanity, and secure our common future. The task is monumental, but the stakes are even greater. Our legacy depends on the road ahead.