The Climate Case for Globalization

Image via Pinterest

***

Over the past half-century, the world has undergone fundamental changes in how countries trade, communicate, and cooperate. This increasing level of connection and interdependence between countries is known as globalization. It involves the exchange of goods and services, ideas, politics, and culture—all accelerated by breakthroughs in digital technology and transportation. The convergence of these factors has made way for massive positive impacts across the globe. While many positive impacts are worth analyzing, most fall under one category: growth. The economic growth driven by globalization has tremendously alleviated poverty, increased life expectancy, and given consumers access to more affordable and diverse products. 

This growth has undoubtedly been a force for good—but it has also ravaged the planet in the process. As industries expand and demand rises, so does the reckless extraction of natural resources. The pursuit of profit and prosperity has resulted in our forests decimated, our oceans trashed, and perhaps most critically, our atmosphere polluted with greenhouse gases. The systems of globalization that have produced so much good have also unleashed mass environmental destruction. However, if globalization is powerful enough to destroy the environment, then it is powerful enough to save it. The only way for us to restore our planet is through a full-force mobilization of international cooperation, innovation, and integration—the exact components that define globalization in the first place. While globalization was once seen as the enemy of our planet, we must realize that now it is our only hope of saving it.

To understand how we can redirect globalization to bring us to a better future, we must first analyze the past. On December 12, 2015, 196 parties adopted the Paris Climate Agreement (PCA) under the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC). As of 2025, the only United Nations (UN) member states that are not pledged to the agreement are the United States, Iran, Libya, and Yemen. This comes after U.S. President Donald J. Trump withdrew from the agreement for the second time in 2025, as he did during his first presidential term in 2016. Nevertheless, the PCA has served as a monumental framework for international cooperation to address climate change. 

The goal of the agreement is to hold the increase of the global average temperature well below 2°C but pursue efforts to limit the temperature to 1.5°C. Every five years, countries are required to submit climate action plans based on their current economic and political conditions. The plans are called nationally determined contributions (NDCs) and outline what actions the country will take to reach the goals of the agreement and how the country will mitigate the impacts of global warming.

In 2024, however, Earth recorded its hottest year, with global average temperatures temporarily surpassing the critical 1.5°C threshold within a decade since its adoption. This comes as countries have been failing to meet their own NDCs or setting inadequate commitments. The international watchdog Climate Action Tracker (CAT) reported that the policies set by the PCA participants are on track to reach a catastrophic 2.7°C by the end of the century. While the PCA remains the most substantial environmental treaty to date, its main weakness lies in the absence of enforceable mechanisms: countries face absolutely no penalties for failing to set appropriate NDCs, meet their NDCs, or help other countries meet theirs through non-binding climate finance; there is no international regulatory body to hold countries accountable. While the Paris Climate Agreement has given the world a framework to address climate change on an international level, it fails to fully maximize the benefits of globalization to solve humankind’s climate crisis.

While the Paris Climate Agreement is an honorable attempt to harness the power of globalization, more effective measures such as the Montreal Protocol on Substances that Deplete the Ozone Layer represent how international climate cooperation can have global success. Adopted on September 16, 1987, and now signed by every member state of the UN, the Montreal Protocol is recognized as one of the most successful international environmental agreements in history and is seen as a model for environmental diplomacy. The Protocol regulates and phases out chemicals known as ozone-depleting substances (ODS), many of which are chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs) used in aerosol sprays, refrigerants, and other household products. Scientific inquiries of the time revealed that these substances damage and deplete the stratospheric ozone layer when released into the atmosphere. Without this protective shield, harmful levels of ultraviolet radiation would seep through the atmosphere and cause skin cancer and eye damage. 

To begin, the Protocol established strict, time-sensitive plans for developed and developing countries to phase out the use of ODS relative to their economic and political conditions. Within this time, parties were required to report data, regulate ODS trade, and institute national licensing systems. The Protocol also created the Multilateral Fund. Its goal was to provide key financial and technical support to developing countries to ensure compliance with the objectives of the Protocol. The Fund was highly successful, promoting over 8,600 projects directed by the World Bank and multiple UN agencies.

The Montreal Protocol was created to be reviewed and adjusted annually in order to respond to new scientific findings and technological advancements. In 2016, the Parties to the Montreal Protocol reached an agreement known as the Kigali Amendment regarding the phase-down of hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs), a group of substances used as an alternative to types of ODS. Although HFCs do not deplete the ozone layer, they possess extremely high global warming potential (GWP), with some being multiple thousand times more powerful than carbon dioxide. The Kigali Amendment is expected to prevent emissions up to 105 billion tonnes of carbon dioxide equivalent greenhouse gases, averting around 0.5°C temperature rise by the end of the century—arguably the single largest preventative greenhouse gas measure the world has ever made.

Due to the Montreal Protocol, nearly 99 percent of all ODS have been phased out, with the ozone layer expected to fully recover around the middle of the century. By 2030, it is projected that around 2 million cases of skin cancer will have been prevented. Beyond its original objective, the Protocol has also delivered considerable cuts in greenhouse gas emissions, contributing to the goals of the Paris Climate Agreement. In 1988, conservative U.S. President Ronald Reagan praised the treaty, stating: 

“The Montreal protocol is a model of cooperation. It is a product of the recognition and international consensus that ozone depletion is a global problem, both in terms of its causes and its effects. The protocol is the result of an extraordinary process of scientific study, negotiations among representatives of the business and environmental communities, and international diplomacy. It is a monumental achievement.”

The Montreal Protocol is a testament to the power that globalization has to bring successful, tangible change to the planet. The entire international community came together to address and fix an issue that threatened everyone. The Protocol exemplifies the systems of globalization at work to address a common problem through a binding, measurable, and time-focused approach. Unlike the Paris Climate Agreement, where countries are only obligated to report their goals, countries that ratify the Montreal Protocol are required to reach the objectives under mandatory timelines or face international law violations and trade sanctions. 

Unfortunately, the Earth demands more than just the Montreal Protocol or the Paris Climate Agreement to solve the climate crisis. While both offer indispensable insights into the accomplishments and flaws of international environmental agreements, the Earth now needs a fully globalized climate solution—a measurable, binding, enforceable, and time-bound agreement mobilized and received by every country in the world. It must be fueled by the understanding that climate change is not a national problem but rather a global responsibility, with large developed countries like the United States, China, and the United Kingdom needing to lead—setting the foundation for others to follow.

This new framework must include binding emissions targets, standardized carbon pricing or a global cap-and-trade program, data reporting requirements, and international enforcement mechanisms that ensure compliance and prevent freeriding. Trade agreements need to be enacted incentivizing clean and sustainable investments while penalizing pollution. Institutions like the International Monetary Fund and World Bank need to direct sustainable investment and ensure climate equity in developing countries. Global carbon registries should be established with complete transparency and public access. Environmental innovation needs to be scaled rather than dismissed. Developed countries must financially support climate transitions in developing countries. And goods, services, capital, and information must continue flowing freely across borders.

The infrastructure of globalization is already in place. All we need to do is redirect—not reconstruct—the systems we have already built. We need to realign the powers of globalization toward climate change and realize that this borderless crisis requires a borderless response. If globalization helped create this problem, then only a revised version can fix it. We have the resources. We have the knowledge. And the systems are already in place. All we have to do is use them.

***

This article was edited by Naba Syed.