PYQ Vault · Paper 2 · Contemporary Global Concerns — I
The recent move of USA to withdraw from the Paris
How the answer moves
The flow snapshot — the routes in, the body, the counter-view and the routes out.
Flow snapshot — how the answer moves
Intro routes
, wy VS eae ‘a ey) ate by ae 8 Ye a bs _ > ae oe xe “ – ¥ eS aes Me un FF ene at = ‘a ee fg:. m Fe * 4s = ' B a] 4 =I 's v ers I: ty Sh: tend *s, srs i 2t ag Per €. 6 – at. – £5 % > ‘ vod s i SP, oy f & fh [_ —_s = J #s f Rd, aa ee = seed pried MN) 8 yal I. Pe ate → hr 7
Body flow
R1 Paris (2015) = rare voluntary consensus, bottom-up NDCs, <2°C → US exit a real setback (rests on collective commitment, not enforcement) R2 US withdrawal (Trump 2017 -~. finalised 2020) = retreat from multilateralism — tests whether a consensus regime survives one major emitter leaving
Counter-view
Falkner: exit weakens the collective commitment the accord depends on — Ban Ki-moon: US as 2nd-largest polluter burdens the carbon budget + makes finance harder — domino effect: developing states may relax pledges (decarbonisation cost + energy security) — onus shifts to EU / China / India (none experienced in
Conclusion routes
a multilateral regime) + unclear Katowice Rulebook → dilution risk — IPCC: 1.5°C budget gone by 2030 even if Paris followed — bottom-up design absorbs the exit, US rejoins under Biden → Stern: link climate action to development for equity one emitter's exit can unravel a voluntary consensus (contagion, diluted finance) vs a bottom-up architecture is resilient — survives exits and re-entries, held together by remaining emitters, finance and equity R1 prospects turn on sustained finance + CBDR + leadership of the remaining emitters, not any single state R2 setback real but not permanent — future secured by integrating climate with equitable development, not the presence of the US
Model answer
Handwritten, in the form it would be written in the examination hall.
