Kyoto Agreement Vs Paris Agreement

A new climate agreement was needed to maintain the international process to combat climate change beyond 2020. This was adopted at the Paris COP in 2015 in the form of a “Paris Agreement”, which for the first time contained a specific target to limit global warming to a level well below 2oC above pre-industrial levels of 1750. Ratified countries have set their own reduction targets, with a review and strengthening of efforts every five years to combat climate change. In October 2016, the required number of at least 55 ratified countries responsible for at least 55% of global greenhouse gas emissions was reached, meaning the agreement could enter into force. 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. Yes, there is broad consensus within the scientific community, although some deny that climate change is a problem, including politicians in the United States. When negotiating teams meet for international climate talks, “there is less skepticism about science and more disagreement about how to set priorities,” said David Victor, professor of international relations at the University of California, San Diego.

The basic science is that, since Trump`s announcement, U.S. envoys have continued to participate – as expected – in UN climate negotiations to shore up the details of the agreement. Meanwhile, thousands of heads of state and government have intervened across the country to fill the void created by the lack of federal climate leadership, reflecting the will of the vast majority of Americans who support the Paris agreement. City and state officials, business leaders, universities and individuals included a base amount to participate in initiatives such as America`s Pledge, the United States Climate Alliance, We Are Still In and the American Cities Climate Challenge. Complementary and sometimes overlapping movements aim to deepen and accelerate efforts to combat climate change at the local, regional and national levels. Each of these efforts focuses on the willingness of the United States to work toward the goals of the Paris Agreement, despite Trump`s attempts to lead the country in the opposite direction. These rules of transparency and accountability are similar to those set out in other international agreements. Although the system does not include financial sanctions, the requirements are intended to easily monitor the progress of individual nations and promote a sense of overall group pressure, discouraging any towing of feet among countries that might consider it. At the 2011 UN Climate Change Conference, the Durban Platform (and the ad hoc working group on the Durban Platform for Enhanced Action) were created to negotiate a legal instrument to mitigate climate change from 2020.