Skip to content
Paper 3 · Global Politics · The Environment

Global environmental governance, 1988 to today

From the IPCC and Montreal Protocol to Paris and COP29, environmental cooperation has scored real wins but keeps hitting the limits of state sovereignty. The exam question: can the international community tackle climate change effectively?

The arc at a glance

1988IPCC founded
1989Montreal Protocol
1992Rio Earth Summit
1995COP1 Berlin opens
1997Kyoto, no US
2009Copenhagen fails
2015Paris Agreement
2018Youth climate strikes
2024COP29 finance gap
2025US exits Paris again

Click any step to jump to it - the lit step is the one showing below. Real successes (Montreal, Paris) sit alongside failures (Copenhagen) and withdrawals. Green = expanded or strengthened · Amber = mixed or contested · Red = restricted or weakened.

The timeline

1 / 10

Timeline tucked away while you test yourself. Close the quiz to bring it back.

1988

What happened. The IPCC was set up by the WMO and UNEP to give objective scientific advice on climate change.

What it shows. Building the consensus that underpins cooperation. IPCC founded

1989

What happened. The Montreal Protocol phased out CFCs to protect the ozone layer, covering 198 states.

What it shows. The most successful environmental treaty. Montreal Protocol

1992

What happened. The Rio Earth Summit established the UNFCCC and created the COP negotiation structure.

What it shows. The framework for all later climate diplomacy. Rio Earth Summit

1995

What happened. The first Conference of the Parties (COP1) met in Berlin, launching annual climate negotiations.

What it shows. The process of regular global bargaining begins. COP1 Berlin opens

1997

What happened. The Kyoto Protocol set binding targets for developed states but was undermined by US refusal to ratify.

What it shows. Binding targets weakened by missing key states. Kyoto, no US

2009

What happened. At COP15 in Copenhagen no binding deal was reached; states only "took note of" the accord.

What it shows. A major failure of environmental governance. Copenhagen fails

2015

What happened. The Paris Agreement committed 196 parties to limit warming below 2C, but through voluntary national contributions.

What it shows. Near-universal buy-in bought by dropping binding targets. Paris Agreement

2018

What happened. Fridays for Future school strikes spread worldwide, pushing climate up the political agenda.

What it shows. Public pressure rising, but not binding action. Youth climate strikes

2024

What happened. At COP29 in Baku states pledged $300bn a year by 2035, far below the $1.3tn demanded.

What it shows. North-South tension and the limits of agreement. COP29 finance gap

2025

What happened. In his second term Trump withdrew from the Paris Agreement and the WHO.

What it shows. National interest over global cooperation. US exits Paris again

Roll up and down: use the arrows, scroll or swipe inside the box, the up and down keys, or click any step in the arc above.

The account: what changed?

There are genuine successes here. The IPCC built the science, the Montreal Protocol fixed the ozone layer, and Rio created the COP machinery that produced near-universal sign-up at Paris.

But the deepest agreements are the least binding. Kyoto had targets but lost the US; Copenhagen collapsed; Paris won everyone by making targets voluntary. Sovereignty - states refusing to be bound - is the recurring ceiling.

The judgement line: International cooperation can work where interests align and costs are low (Montreal), but on climate the need for unanimous, sovereign consent means the strongest agreements are the weakest in force - Paris is universal but voluntary - so effectiveness is real but limited by the states themselves.
Turn it into an essay: which dates argue which way

The same events split by side. Build each paragraph around one point from each column, then judge.

Cooperation can work

  • Montreal Protocol (1989) - 198 states, the most successful treaty.
  • Rio (1992) built the UNFCCC and COP framework still used today.
  • Paris (2015) achieved near-universal buy-in (196 parties).
  • IPCC gives a shared scientific basis for action.

Cooperation keeps failing

  • Kyoto (1997) had binding targets but the US refused to ratify.
  • Copenhagen (2009) reached no binding deal.
  • Paris (2015) only worked by making targets voluntary.
  • COP29 (2024) finance fell far short, and the US left Paris again in 2025.

Use Montreal as the success and climate as the hard case: the difference is cost and sovereignty, which is the AO2 point examiners reward.

Quick check: ten questions
Question 1 / 10Score 0
Use it in the 30-marker

For "can the world cooperate on the environment?", contrast the Montreal success with the climate record (Kyoto, Copenhagen, Paris, COP29), then judge why climate is harder - cost and sovereign consent.

Use Paris precisely: near-universal but voluntary. That single fact does the evaluative work on whether cooperation is effective.

Lock in the treaties and concepts behind the timeline.
Open the notes →