Some people believe that one international organization should be established to address environmental issues. In this essay, however, I will challenge this school of thought.
Firstly, it is enormously difficult to decide whether a problem in a certain country should be tackled first. To provide a supporting example, one needs 100k no further than the infamous 2019 blaze occurring in Amazon forest. While large countries, such as the US, the UK and Germany all eagerly wished to intervene to tackle the incessant wildfires, Brazil, whose forest was burned, turned a blind eye to such an event, claiming that it was nothing out of the ordinary. Undoubtedly, finding a common ground among over 200 countries in the world would be an extremely difficult, nay impossible, task.
To add further credence to my assertion, I note the many impossible tasks where the imaginary world organization had to work out how much each country would have to contribute to the cause of environmental protection. Countries where there are serious environmental problems would supposedly have to pay more or countries, but these may happen to be the most economically disadvantaged ones. Similarly, nations with the most resources would be expected to pay more, but they may not suffer from any imminent environmental problems. As such, it is nigh on impossible to calculate the amount of money, manpower and other resources that a nation would have to contribute to preserving the environment.
In conclusion, it would be unworkable to found a global organization in the hope that it could address all environmental problems. This is due to the unachievable unanimity among nations when they have to make decisions on what problems should be prioritized and how much each nation would need to contribute.