«The difference between a Paris agreement with good markets and a Paris agreement with bad markets,» he says, «is a system in which we avoid climate disasters and a system where we hide only behind technical details and do not reduce a single ton of CO2.» While no country openly admits to wanting «weak» rules, «if you look at the details of the Brazilian proposal, most countries feel that this does not reflect the robustness of accounting, as required by the Paris agreement,» says Hanafi. Recognizing that many developing countries and small island developing states that have contributed the least to climate change are most likely to suffer the consequences, the Paris Agreement contains a plan for developed countries – and others that are able to do so – to continue to provide financial resources to help developing countries reduce and increase their capacity to withstand climate change. The agreement builds on the financial commitments of the 2009 Copenhagen Accord, which aimed to increase public and private climate finance to developing countries to $100 billion per year by 2020. (To put it in perspective, in 2017 alone, global military spending amounted to about $1.7 trillion, more than a third of which came from the United States. The Copenhagen Pact also created the Green Climate Fund to mobilize transformation funding with targeted public dollars. The Paris agreement expected the world to set a higher annual target by 2025 to build on the $100 billion target by 2020 and create mechanisms to achieve this. It will also enable the contracting parties to gradually strengthen their contributions to the fight against climate change in order to achieve the long-term objectives of the agreement. Indeed, research shows that the cost of climate activity far outweighs the cost of reducing carbon pollution. A recent study suggests that if the United States does not meet its climate targets in Paris, it could cost the economy up to $6 trillion in the coming decades. A lack of compliance with the NPNs currently foreseen in the agreement could reduce global GDP by more than 25% by the end of the century.
Meanwhile, another study estimates that achieving – or even exceeding – the Paris targets by investing in infrastructure in clean energy and energy efficiency could have great benefits globally – about $19 trillion. Taking part in an election campaign promise, Trump – a climate denier who has claimed that climate change is a «hoax» perpetrated by China, announced in June 2017 his intention to withdraw the United States from the Paris Agreement. But despite the rose garden president`s statement that «we`re going out,» it`s not that simple. The withdrawal procedure requires that the agreement be in effect for three years before a country can formally announce its intention to withdraw. She`ll have to wait a year before she leaves the pact. This means that the United States could formally withdraw on November 4, 2020, the day after the presidential elections. Even a formal withdrawal would not necessarily be permanent, experts say. a future president could join us in a month. Although these problems are solved by clear rules, many argue that the credits purchased in the OSE CHARBON markets are, in the long run, only a distraction from the fundamental need for all countries to extract fossil fuels. «In a world where we are all at zero, there is nowhere another weakening that can be bought or sold,» says Dufrasne. «The whole logic of balancing your emissions abroad has no future. This is not compatible with the Paris Agreement.
President Trump is pulling us out of the Paris climate agreement.