As much as climate change had been debated, nothing really has done to solve the problem. Since 1990s, including Kyoto Protocol, the international institutions has shown its lack of capacity to manage the issue. In order to prevent further damage and danger, the global community needs a stronger international institution to address the issue effectively.
Either in a domestic level or an international level, the issue has been politicized, which is the reason why it only had been debated and nothing had been done. Tucker explains this issue by focusing on a domestic level. He points out how the older generation, who has more political power, does not want to pay the cost today, which influences the decision making process. However, this is not only about a domestic level; even in a global level, many states do not want to pay the cost today. Some of the powerful states even use their power to not pay the cost. Even if some of powerful states do pay the cost, such as EU, their effort to make the change does not make that much difference since other states do not participate.
Reason why so many people, either in a domestic level or an international level, do not want to pay the cost today is because they do not get a direct impact from the climate change yet. To address that everyone should care and should take action about the issue, the role of international institution becomes essential. As Shorr addressed, the international institution should build the foundation to solve the issue. With the foundation, not only member states, but also other actors, such as NGOs, will participate and sharp the system over time, which will eventually affect domestic policy sphere as well. For this reason, the international institution is the primary impediments to combat climate change and as international institution system modifies, a domestic level will influenced by it.
Considering the importance of the international institution, it needs to be rebuilt. Victor points out several critical points about how to rebuild the international institution based on what had been done. I totally agree that there should be a collective demand among member states. The world six largest emitter countries are not even on the same page of the issue and their interests diverge as well. By having a collective demand, member states would more likely to cooperate since there is some incentives for them, which will eventually address the issue. Victor also points out some of structural issues, such as number of members in decision-making process. However, building the basic, including creating collective demand, is the most important task at this point where it does not have one.
Unlike climate change could have been addressed more effectively; it did not make any progress since 1990s. Now, we are at the point where we could be late if we do not take the action soon. Fact that we are at this point, it is the wake up call for the whole global community as well as for the international institution to manage the issue before it gets worse.