It is undeniable that there are various types of International Relations perspective, such a scenario is contributing both positively and negatively to the attempt on reducing climate change.
Indeed, according to the Realism’s perspective, since they do not have a central authority as there is no single state who has a dominant position, it is likely to result in a lacking of consensus on making the right decision about reducing the climate change. In fact, this is mainly due to the Realism’s main objective: to survive. They do not see climate change as a threat to their survival, or even if that is the case, it would be future generation’s problem. Furthermore, they would not willing to give up such high sunk costs at the beginning of the process as every states would attempt to maximise their own welfare, even though long term benefits of reducing climate change are much more significant.
On the other hand, since the world is becoming more integrated nowadays, high level of interdependence exhibited by countries would lead to higher level of international cooperation, hence climate change would be tackled more efficient since there would be less free riders.
Transnational governance is defined as a subset of a governance in general and it has a role in climate change by engaging in making rules in order to entail a conscious intention to create or alter behavior for a community of implementers to follow. In fact, unlike the traditional governance, they do not have singular focus or direction, hence they would consider climate change as a global issue and emission reductions are not the sole focus as their targets are more diverse, which including changing infrastructure, promoting renewable energy etc.
Transnational governance approaches is usually called under the name ‘climate governance experience’ . The first benefit this concept brings is flexibility since it involves multiple actors (states) and so that such actors can voluntarily engage in multiple venues where the transnational process is tied to a formal consensual decision making.
The second benefit is brought by starting out with a larger perspective as the transnational governance would see climate change as a product of the modern economy, hence the collective efforts of such approach would not be hampered by the need to definitely going toward that direction eg binding emissions reduction.
There are also many drawbacks of such approaches. Firstly, it is the lack of a specific target. hence it would not lead to a more centralize process of monitoring and enforcement. As a result, such approach might not lead to effective climate change reducing action. Secondly, the actors who are involved in the project would be able to customize it as an attempt to fit them best. Such a behaviour would lead to minimizing the impact on reducing climate change as actors’ best preferences might not necessarily be the best solution.