Environmental governance

Answer

The way the world tries to manage shared environmental problems through rules, treaties, IGOs, summits and non-state actors, without a world government.

Answer

There is no world government to make a state keep its environmental promises, so voluntary rules can be ignored.

Answer

Through treaties and agreements, IGOs (like the UN Environment Programme), global summits, and non-state actors (NGOs, scientists, cities, companies).

Answer

When the science is clear, the solution is affordable, alternatives exist and the burden is shared fairly — as with the ozone phase-out.

Answer

When costs are huge and unevenly shared, powerful industries resist, science is politicised, and there is no cheap alternative — as with climate change.

Answer

The science was clear, cheap substitute chemicals existed, and nearly every country agreed a binding phase-out — so compliance was affordable and near-universal.

Answer

The costs of cutting fossil fuels are huge and unevenly shared, powerful industries resist, and agreements are voluntary, so action lags the science.

Answer

Voluntary pledges are too weak for urgent, high-cost problems, so some argue for binding rules with penalties and stronger institutions that can compel.

Answer

States guard their sovereignty and won't accept an authority that overrides their economic choices, and enforcement across borders is near-impossible.

Answer

Aligning incentives so compliance is in states' interest, and sharing the burden fairly — not just writing rules.

Answer

Align incentives (pricing, cheap green tech), binding transparency and monitoring, fair burden-sharing and finance, and empowering non-state actors.