This may seem like a useful program, but the main arguments against the initiative focus on how the agreement was managed and its potential economic benefits. Here are four pros and cons of the Paris climate agreement. Countries that have decided to accede to the Paris Agreement have few legal or even enforceable obligations to participate or deliver on their promises. Instead, the agreement focuses on voluntary participation and the objectives set by individual countries. This approach allows for internal political pressure to enforce the guidelines set by each nation-state. Increased temperature would reduce water supply and harvest levels. In addition, melting ice would raise sea levels, flood coastal communities and destroy thousands, if not millions, of homes. By committing to reducing greenhouse gases, the Paris Agreement aims to prevent these ecosystem disruptions. There are more than two years left before the United States officially withdraws from the Paris climate agreement. Here is a short primer on the content of the agreement. The aim of the Paris Agreement is to strengthen humanity`s response to the threats of climate change. Maintain an increase in global temperature to two degrees Celsius above pre-industrial levels in the next century. The agreement also aims to improve a country`s ability to cope with the effects of a changing climate by further directing financial objectives towards the technology framework and resource mobilization.
The Paris Agreement does not dare to use the words “promise” or “commitment.” It is so absurd to approve anything that can be considered too restrictive that its announcement was delayed at the last minute, because the United States insisted on replacing the word “must” with “should” with respect to the responsibility of developed countries in mitigating the effects of climate change (Article 4.4). The same nations that are asking us to maintain this agreement are the countries that have cost the United States billions of dollars through hard trade practices and, in many cases, lax contributions to our critical military alliance. You see what`s going on. It`s pretty obvious to those who want to keep an open mind. www.npr.org/2017/05/18/528998592/energy-companies-urge-trump-to-remain-in-paris-climate-agreement The Paris Agreement has clear and substantial environmental benefits, but it is not without its flaws. Here are some of the pros and cons of the agreement, since it concerns the environment. The result is a Paris agreement full of sound and rage of good intentions, but little else. It is reassuring, for example, that Paris has approved the new temperature target of 1.5oC. But what is not in the agreement is an indication of how to proceed.
What is written in the agreement shows that this will not be the case. As long as the United States cannot resign legally, it remains responsible for maintaining its part of the agreement. Commitments could include measuring emissions and reporting their results to the United Nations.  Some U.S. states, along with Puerto Rico, have pledged to pursue the goals of the Paris Agreement, even if the United States withdraws.  Under the Obama administration, domestic energy production was limited and the mantra of campaigners against fossil fuel production, “keep it in the ground,” was rising. Under the current government, this trend has been reversed, driven by executive orders such as Promoting Energy Independence and Economic Growth and Implementing an America-First Offshore Energy Strategy. Starting in February, the International Energy Agency predicted that the United States would overtake Russia to become the world`s largest oil producer by 2019. In April, Citigroup analysts predicted that the United States would continue to overtake Saudi Arabia next year to become the world`s largest oil exporter.
These achievements would have been impossible under an Obama-like energy policy based on compliance with the paris agreement`s restrictions.