WEO is a No Go

Though both arguments for and against a world environmental organization make some good points, the argument against an organization makes more sense with the gravity of our current environmental state. The environment is a topic that touches every aspect of life and development in countries: no one can escape from its effects and because we are all in this world together, everyone is dependent to protecting the resources we share. The arguments against this type of organization are more compelling for the world today.

With the complex interconnectedness of each aspect of the environment, it is necessary to have some coordination between organizations. But, organizations will not create lasting change without a “political will.” I would argue that political will entails more than determination, but a steadfast commitment to upholding the agreements set out – most countries in our world are not at this point in commitment to environmental problems yet. Before an organization can exist, a commitment to ideals it will uphold is necessary. Not only do all countries not have the same ideals on climate change, but adding deforestation, water scarcity and land use into the picture, and no one will be able to agree! Two examples most clearly depict what would go on if countries tried to make a WEO:

 1. Creating an organization is much like constitution building. One important thing to note about a constitution is that it is a commitment of the country to follow the ideals of constitutionalism. This means that a constitution (or organization) is simply a document that starts the discussion. The state itself must follow the commitments in order for the constitution to truly be an instrument of constitutionalism. Building this WEO without first having set ideals of environmentalism that every country agrees upon will therefore be fruitless, and lead to an organization that does not make much change. Trying to build a country out of nothing has historically not worked well, which leads me to believe building an organization out of nothing (no set common standards across the globe) will also lead to nothing. This is also shown in the Copenhagen video because the countries were trying to build an agreement without having fully discussed all standards. Much like proponents of a WEO, they were focusing on details before a broader picture was painted.

 2. Comparing a WEO to the current WTO is further proof that an organization like this at this time would not change anything. The political will for lowering trade barriers was already in place by the time the GATT came into effect. Countries wanted this type of organization. Additionally, trade is less complex of an issue than the environment because it is more in control of the states. The far-reaching complexity of the environment makes a single organization somewhat of a fairytale. Further, the unique dispute settlement mechanism of the WTO is the most successful part of that organization. How would a component like that even work for a WEO? Because environmental problems are more of a tragedy of the commons scenario, it would be hard to have sanctions against a country’s oceans or forests. 

Though in theory a WEO sound like a good plan and a way to streamline efforts to protect the environment, at the current time this type of organization will not work. In the future, if there is significant movement forwards in the field of the environment maybe something could work. However, the only way it will be successful is if states all realize that working within an organization could bring some stability to an anarchic world and there is a commitment of the government to find a solution and be dedicated to carrying it out.