Philipp Pattberg

The international system is is crisis, undergoing a profound transformation. We seem to be quickly regressing back to a system of national egoism, “The strong do what they can and the weak suffer what they must”.

Addressing the fundamental crisis of climate change will not work based on national egoism. We need to revive global cooperation. Here is why climate change needs global cooperation (and what we have already achieved in that regard, and need to protect).

Why is climate change an international problem?

Climate change doesn’t stop at national borders. When greenhouse gases are released into the atmosphere, whether in one country or another, they mix globally and affect the entire planet. That means the emissions from one region can contribute to rising temperatures, sea level rise, or extreme weather events on the other side of the world.

No single country can solve the climate crisis on its own. Even if one nation cuts its emissions drastically, global warming will continue unless others do the same. That’s why international cooperation is essential. We need global agreements, like the Paris Agreement, where countries work together to reduce emissions, share technology, and support those most vulnerable to climate impacts.

In short, climate change is a shared problem, and it needs shared solutions.

What problem is climate change actually?

At its core, climate change means the Earth’s average temperature is rising, mainly because of human activities, especially the burning of fossil fuels like coal, oil, and gas. This releases carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases into the atmosphere, trapping heat like a blanket around the planet.

The main drivers of climate change are things we depend on every day: energy production, transportation, agriculture, and industry. These systems release the bulk of the emissions, but they’re also deeply connected to how our societies and economies function.

Climate change isn’t just about the environment. It affects food security, water supply, health, and even global stability. Heatwaves, droughts, floods, and storms are becoming more intense and more frequent. And those who are least responsible often suffer the most.

But here’s the deeper challenge: climate change is tied to the way we live, produce, and consume. It’s about what we value, like convenience, growth, or short-term profit, and whether we’re willing to shift toward more sustainable, fair, and long-term ways of thinking.

How is climate change being addressed? From Kyoto to Pais and beyond

Because climate change affects everyone, and no country can fix it alone, international cooperation has been key. Over the past few decades, countries have come together under the United Nations to try to tackle the problem together. The most well-known result of this is the Paris Agreement, signed in 2015.

The Paris Agreement marked a fundamental turning point in global climate governance. While it is often described as a successor to the Kyoto Protocol of 1997, the two agreements differ significantly in their architecture, scope, and approach to mobilizing climate action. These changes are not merely procedural tweaks, they reflect lessons learned from nearly two decades of climate diplomacy, as well as the shifting political, economic, and scientific context in which the agreements were negotiated.

One of the most visible shifts from Kyoto to Paris is the move from a top-down compliance system to a bottom-up pledge-and-review process.

Under the Kyoto Protocol, emission reduction targets were negotiated at the international level and legally assigned to a limited set of industrialized countries, the so-called Annex I Parties. These commitments, measured against a 1990 baseline, were binding and subject to a formal compliance regime. Developing countries, by contrast, were not required to adopt binding targets, based on the principle of “common but differentiated responsibilities.”

By 2015, this binary division between developed and developing countries had become politically untenable and environmentally insufficient. The Paris Agreement introduced Nationally Determined Contributions (NDCs), which every Party (regardless of income level or development status) must submit. These pledges are determined domestically, tailored to national circumstances, and updated every five years with an expectation of increased ambition. This “bottom-up” structure is intended to encourage universal participation, while a transparent review process and global stocktakes create soft pressure for stronger action over time.

The Kyoto Protocol was focused on quantified emissions reductions, for example, requiring Annex I countries to cut greenhouse gas emissions by an average of 5% below 1990 levels during the first commitment period (2008–2012). Although clear in scope, this design did not link directly to long-term climate stabilization goals, and it applied to only a fraction of global emissions.

The Paris Agreement, in contrast, anchors its ambition in a scientifically informed temperature target: holding the increase in global average temperature “well below” 2°C above pre-industrial levels and pursuing efforts to limit it to 1.5°C. This framing reflects advances in climate science and the recognition that the impacts of climate change intensify rapidly between these thresholds. The focus on a temperature outcome also allows for more flexible national pathways, provided that the aggregate effect of NDCs aligns with the long-term goal.

Kyoto was fundamentally a government-to-government agreement. While it enabled mechanisms such as the Clean Development Mechanism (CDM), the formal responsibility for mitigation rested squarely on national governments. Engagement with the private sector, cities, and civil society was indirect and mostly limited to project-level activities.

Paris explicitly acknowledges that climate action is not the exclusive domain of states. The Agreement encourages cities, regions, businesses, investors, and non-governmental organizations to take active roles in mitigation, adaptation, and finance. This is not simply rhetoric, but initiatives such as the Marrakech Partnership for Global Climate Action and the UNFCCC’s Global Climate Action Portal now serve to track and showcase non-state commitments alongside national policies. The rationale is that accelerating and scaling up climate action requires mobilizing all segments of society, not just central governments.

The Kyoto Protocol’s architecture was heavily weighted toward mitigation, i.e. reducing greenhouse gas emissions. Adaptation and capacity-building were treated as supplementary concerns. This reflected the late-1990s policy focus on preventing dangerous climate change primarily through emission cuts.

By the time of the Paris negotiations, it had become clear that even the most ambitious mitigation efforts would need to be complemented by robust adaptation strategies, financial support, and technology cooperation. The Paris Agreement adopts a holistic framework covering mitigation, adaptation, loss and damage, climate finance, technology development and transfer, capacity-building, and a transparency mechanism that applies to all Parties. It institutionalizes the concept of a global stocktake every five years to assess collective progress across all these dimensions, providing an iterative cycle of planning, reporting, and ratcheting up ambition.

Why do these changes matter?

 The shift from Kyoto to Paris represents a pragmatic adaptation to political realities and scientific urgency. Kyoto’s legally binding but narrow commitments proved insufficient to bend the global emissions curve, in part because they excluded major emerging economies and lacked the flexibility to adjust to changing circumstances. Paris’s inclusive, iterative, and multi-actor design seeks to overcome these limitations by combining universal participation with dynamic ambition-raising.

However, the Paris model is not without its challenges. The reliance on nationally determined pledges means that ambition is only as strong as domestic political will and capacity. The temperature goal provides a unifying vision, but translating it into sufficient and timely action remains a formidable task. Moreover, while non-state actors have stepped up in unprecedented ways, their efforts need to be systematically integrated with robust national policies.

The differences between Kyoto and Paris thus reflect a deeper evolution in the philosophy of international climate governance: from a compliance-driven treaty among a few industrialized countries to a global framework that mobilizes all nations and actors toward a shared long-term objective. Whether this transformation will deliver the pace and scale of change required is the defining question for climate diplomacy in the coming decade.

What are positive examples of progress already being made?

Despite existing challenges and severe delays in the implementation of Paris, there’s also a lot of progress, and that’s important to recognize.

More and more countries are investing in renewable energy like wind and solar, which are now cheaper than fossil fuels in many places. Cities are rethinking mobility, with better public transport, bike lanes, and electric vehicles becoming the norm.

Some countries have set ambitious goals to reach net-zero emissions, and industries are starting to innovate, whether it’s steel made without coal, or buildings designed to be energy-neutral.

We’re also seeing a shift in values. People are talking more about sustainability, companies are being held accountable for their carbon footprints, and climate awareness is growing, especially among young people.

These are signs that change is possible. The solutions are already out there; we just need to scale them up and make sure the transition is fair and inclusive. So yes, climate change is a big problem. But we’re not starting from scratch. The world is moving, and with enough ambition and cooperation, we can still shape a better, more sustainable future.