The Paris Agreement is proof that climate change has become a priority for the majority of the world. 1. Different rules are established for each country in the agreement. The Paris Agreement creates a structure in which different rules apply to each country. This disadvantage even affects nations that would be covered by a “developed” classification. When India and China signed the pact, they were not forced to reduce their greenhouse gas emissions in the same way as the United States. Don`t you ever dream of a world where people put their differences aside and work together to fight climate change? In 2015, thanks to the Paris climate agreement, this dream came closer to reality. This landmark agreement, in force under the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC), has been signed by 195 UNFCCC members since 2019. Participants included some of the world`s leading polluters, including China, the United States, India, Japan and Germany.
The agreement focuses on how to manage, finance and mitigate global greenhouse gas emissions – and effectively unite the world`s major powers to fight climate change together. [1] The organization that spends these funds operates without accountability or transparency. The Cato Institute calls the Green Climate Fund the “Slush Fund for Global Dictators.” Anyone involved in the agreement contributes to this. One of President Trump`s main criticisms of the Paris climate accord is that he has said he is unfair to the United States. He seems to be right. As atmospheric temperatures rise, world leaders have put in place an approach to stabilizing the climate. This agreement, known as the Paris Climate Agreement, has one of the main outliers of the international community: the United States. On June 1, 2017, President Trump announced his intention to withdraw from the agreement, which would create doubts about the ability of the United States to meet its climate protection commitments. Whenever a complex global effort is discussed, where results are distant for many years, countries take the easy route because of the expected losses. Long-term thinking, the negatives that can change the serious world, should be decided by our scientific thinkers and not by politicians. If they are wrong, we lose relatively little, but if they are right and we do nothing, what are the possibilities of our fetus? In addition to knowing that we know that we know, and the moral nivon for collective action that brings this perspective, some details of the agreement are also encouraging. The desire to keep global average temperatures “well below 2 degrees Celsius above pre-industrial levels and to make efforts to limit the increase in temperature to 1.5 degrees Celsius above pre-industrial levels” is the common touchstone of the agreement, which is well above expectations and brings hope to small island states that need a more ambitious goal to survive (1.5 , to stay alive”).
Comments
Powered by Facebook Comments
