Forward and offer some sort of positive contribution

This preview shows page 4 - 6 out of 7 pages.

forward and offer some sort of positive contribution, eventually none of the states will have the incentive to contribute at all. The Paris agreement for the first time brought 200 countries to the
table in terms of solving that issue. The developing countries which used the Kyoto Protocol to accuse nations like the US and China, now have agreed to co-operate alongside the developed nation as well. Now the question that remains, is the agreement of the clear majority of nations sufficient to forecast success of this treaty? Well the answer to this question is multi-layered. First, the Kyoto Protocol focused a lot on reduction of fossil fuel usage and deforestation. But it had very little substance in terms of creating a comparatively inexpensive method of doing so. We mentioned earlier that countries want to develop and development is a dirty process; cleaner development comes at a huge cost. And it is the cost factor that makes prevents rising developing nations from imposing stricter environment friendly rules. The Paris agreement directly addresses this issue. It stresses on the importance of technology transfer, research and development for the effective reduction of carbon emission by switching to alternative energy usage. And the developed nations have agreed to disburse a fund of 100 billion dollars over the years to developing countries for development of alternative energy technologies like solar and wind power. This fund also addresses the issue of adaptation of developing countries in the event of future climate change related calamities. This fund is crucial in solving the commitmentproblem, because these funds equip the developing countries with tools to take care of their own climate. It takes away their excuse of playing the role of the victim and blaming the developed nations while they still polluted the environment. The ultimate realist criticism for the Paris Treaty comes from the idea that this is not a binding treaty. While we may accept that the developing nations will do their part, what guarantees thatthe developed nations will still cooperate in the long run? Given that the rich countries have thefinancial capability to survive and adapt even under adverse climate situations, they have the motives to defect and the non-binding nature of this treaty further facilitates this idea. I believe this argument is not true. Because, realize that, if it was one single round of prisoner’s dilemma,then China and USA could have defected, reaped the benefits and moved on. But in the modernday international arena, states don’t only interact to ensure survival. They interact on multiple levels for a diverse pool of reasons. If I asked my friend for some notes before an exam, he is notbound to give me that notes. And if he doesn’t comply, I cannot punish him for that. However, that is not the only time we will interact. In the future, there will be situations where he will have similar needs from me, and if we have a strained relationship, he will equally lose from the

  • Left Quote Icon

    Student Picture

  • Left Quote Icon

    Student Picture

  • Left Quote Icon

    Student Picture