Globalization
The ecological side effects of globalization are clear. Among the side effects are unequal wealth distribution such as where few persons are very rich while the average man in the developing nation hasn’t yet witnessed the main benefits of globalization; varying compensation for developing countries such as where a technical worker in a developed nation is paid more for his or her work than his counterpart in the developing nation (American University, n.d.). There is a large difference of income between the developing and the developed nations; the developed nations’ income is double that of the developing nation. Environmental problems are global simply because pollution in one area transcends national and geographical borders. Examples include the increment in the level of pollution such as due to increased movement of products from one location to another since there is increased fuel consumption. Aircraft gas emissions have led to an increment of greenhouse gases and damaging the ozone layer.

An international regime is international treaties or international organizations. International organizations do matter in that they assist in alleviating the cost which is used in unilateral action and the costs that can be used in future agreements. International regimes are formed because of the importance to oversee the behavior of nations regarding an issue. The international regimes are used to tackle global challenges by the international community using collective ways. The major findings about international regime formation that Young and Osherenko draw from their research on polar cases are integrative bargaining and the veil of uncertainty such as by “changing the membership of the group engaged in the search for mutually agreeable provisions” (Osherenko, 1993, p.13); emerging of salient solutions which with the influence to determine the “expectations increases the probability of success in” building the institution. Individuals as leaders whereby some forms of leadership are vital for the success in the formation of a regime.
According to Young and Osherenko, the significance of science in influencing the international regime process is argued as, whereby, the more the probability of the “parties to focus on scientific considerations,” the more the “probability of success in the process of regime formation.” Interests too influence the formation of international policy process; according to Young and Osherenko in their hypothesis relevant parties, all the members who have vested an interest in the issue need to be involved in the negotiating table so as the formation of the regime can be successful. Normative arguments also influence the international policy process because some parties may obstruct the policy process by “failing to comply with the terms of any arrangement established” such as where “doubts about verification have impeded the establishment of arms control regimes.” (p. 17).

The international policy process should be conceptualized as comprising more than two levels so that stakeholders can be allowed to opine what they see as missing; an example is whereby Young and Osherenko and during a research with Russian members, “the research team articulated what they thought was missing from the preceding three sections of the template” and after they understood the contextual factors, “the research team found it useful in alerting them to the relevance…can do and significantly affect the timing and content of regime formation.”

The implications of saliency of science, norms and interests at different levels for the international policy process; in saliency of science, even though the salient solution need to be easy and simple for all stakeholders to understand, oversimplifying it may make it “ambiguous or uncertain, leaving much to be resolved” later when the regime has come into being (Birger, 2012). Norms affect the international policy process such as where uncertainties concerning authentication have affected foundational process of establishing regimes. Interests may implicate the process such as in the situation whereby if one party’s exclusion may make him “refuse to join or sabotage.” (p. 17).

The negotiation of the Montreal Protocol model for addressing climate change was suitable got endorsement from nations worldwide; it provided an example of where both poor and rich nations funded and offered their cooperation with a global aim on environment and the probability that corporation of the world in global issues (Hasenclever, Mayer & Rittberger, 1996). It was near-successful in eliminating the manufacturing and the usage of substances that were ozone-depleting and proved an example whereby world nations can work towards a common goal by universal participation. Also, the Montreal Protocol was taken as a precaution before the ozone layer depletion got to extreme and fatal situations.

There are several factors that have limited the effectiveness of international policy approaches to environmental problems. These factors include the integration of politics into the international environmental problems (Keohane, 1982). Technology; where there’s no technology, it can greatly hamper the adaptation of the policies. Economic wealth; developed and richer nations are better equipped to adapt to the costs of the changes compared to their developing counterparts which are poor. Information and skilled personnel; these are required so as to evaluate and come up and implement effective adaption methods (Tarzi, 2004). Lastly, there is a widely-held believe that developed countries which have well-developed institutions are well able to adapt compared to the less-developed social institutions in the developing countries.

References
American University.Homepage. Montreal Protocol. The Mandala Projects. Retrieved on February 24, 2012 from http://www1.american.edu/ted/MONTREAL.HTM
Birger, S.J. (2012). International Ozone Policies: Effective International Cooperation. Environmental Agreements: An Introduction. pp. 38-48
Hasenclever, H., Mayer, P. & Rittberger, V. (1996). Interests, Power, Knowledge: The Study of International Regimes. Mershon International Studies Review, Vol. 40, No. 2, pp. 177-228
Keohane, R.O. (1982). The Demand for International Regimes. International Organization, Vol. 36, No. 2, International Regimes, 332-355
Osherenko, G. (1993). Polar politics: creating international environmental regimes.Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.
Tarzi, S.M. (2004). Neorealism, Neoliberalism and the International System. International Studies, Vol. 41, Issue 1, pp. 115-128