United We Stand, Divided We Fall: The Case for a World Environment Organization
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The first global response to the impending crisis of climate change occurred with the creation of the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) in 1972. Since then, conferences have been convened, agreements have been adopted, and another body has been formed without any substantial global progress on the environment having transpired. I examine how current institutional arrangements have failed and prescribe the construction of a World Environment Organization (WEO) as a normative remedy. Such a body would need to be well resourced, with its mandate expanded to the effect that it could compete against the legally binding edicts of the World Trade Organization (WTO). A WEO could also replace dishevelled inter-state action on climate change with centralized, international agreement, implementation, and enforcement of initiatives. I also explore the moral obligation the industrialized North has to assist the underdeveloped South in actualizing the latter’s environmental commitments, and mechanisms that would give the South a greater degree of decision-making power than it presently has. Liberal market environmentalism, an anti-thesis to the proposed WEO, is explained and rebutted. The role of Canada’s current administration in the global response to environmental degradation is likewise studied and critiqued. Though the conclusions I draw from my survey of the literature are normative, I utilize various examples in current affairs to suggest that a productive, cooperative WEO can realistically be consummated.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".