It is argued that global organisations should deal with environmental issues rather
than national governments. I generally disagree with this opinion.
First of all, environmental conditions act differently greatly in different countries,
so local governments can make more suitable policies. Developed countries mainly
face problems like industrial pollutant and carbon emissions from factories and
city traffic. By contrast, developing countries are troubled by food pollution and
soil loss. A global team cannot cope with all these problems well. Local
government know their own land, labor and people’s needs, so their environmental
plans are easier to carry out.
Secondly, national governments have direct right to manage local resources and
law enforcement. Governments can make strict local laws, fine polluting factories
and build waste treatment plants with public finance. However, global groups have
no chance to force any country to follow their orders. Many nations will not obey
global requirements because these policies may hurt their local economic growth
and increase social welfare loss. So each government takes direct responsibility for
its citizens’ living environment is the best solution. People can ask their own
government to improve local polluted areas through public suggestions such as
voting. Such supervision is hard to reach when the management power is given to
a global organisation.
In summary, national governments are more practical and effective in dealing with
environmental problems. Global organisations can only play an auxiliary role
instead of taking the place of the role of government.