Negotiators of the agreement said the INDCs presented at the Paris conference were inadequate and noted „with concern that the estimated overall greenhouse gas emissions in 2025 and 2030 resulting from the Intended Nationally Determined Contributions do not fall under the most cost-effective 2°C scenarios, but lead to a projected level of 55 gigatons in 2030.“ and further acknowledging „that much greater efforts to reduce emissions will be needed to keep the global average temperature rise below 2°C by reducing emissions to 40 gigatons, or 1.5°C.“  [Clarification needed] The Paris Agreement is the first universal and legally binding global climate agreement adopted at the Paris Climate Change Conference (COP21) in December 2015. In addition, countries aim to „reach a global peak in greenhouse gas emissions as soon as possible.“ The deal has been described as an incentive and engine for the sale of fossil fuels.   This agreement not only restricts the severe economic restrictions of our citizens, but also does not live up to our environmental ideals. As someone who cares a lot about the environment, which I do, I cannot, in all conscience, support an agreement that punishes the United States – which it does – the main environmental protection in the world, while no significant obligation is imposed on the world`s main polluters. This includes ending the implementation of the Nationally Determined Contribution and, very importantly, the Green Climate Fund, which is costing the United States a huge fortune. The agreement recognises the role of non-party stakeholders in the fight against climate change, including cities, other sub-national authorities, civil society, the private sector and others. They say states and cities will help reduce U.S. emissions by 19 percent from 2005 levels compared to 2025 — that`s not enough to offset the U.S. commitment to Paris, but it keeps those goals „at hand.“ The 32-page document provides a framework for global climate action, including climate change mitigation and adaptation, support for developing countries, as well as transparent reporting and strengthening of climate goals. Here`s what it`s supposed to do: Others say the U.S. withdrawal is due in part to the Obama administration`s failure to get the Paris Agreement ratified by the U.S.
Senate. Lord. Mr. Speaker, it takes courage, it takes commitment to say no to the praise of the people while doing what is right for the American people. You have that courage, and the American people can console themselves because you have their back. The Paris Agreement has a „bottom-up“ structure unlike most international environmental treaties, which are „top-down“ and are characterized by internationally defined norms and goals to be implemented by states.  Unlike its predecessor, the Kyoto Protocol, which sets commitment targets with the force of law, the Paris Agreement, which emphasizes consensus-building, makes it possible to achieve voluntary and nationally defined targets.  Specific climate goals are therefore promoted politically rather than legally linked.