Currently, 197 countries – every nation on earth, the last signatory is war-torn Syria – have adopted the Paris Agreement. 179 of them have consolidated their climate proposals with official approval, including, for the time being, the United States. The only major emitters that have yet to formally accede to the agreement are Russia, Turkey and Iran. In 2013, at COP 19 in Warsaw, the parties were invited to make their “nationally planned contributions” (INDC) to the Paris Agreement in due course prior to COP 21. These bids represent the mitigation targets set by each country for the period from 2020. The final CNN was submitted by each party after their formal ratification or adoption of the agreement and recorded in a UNFCCC registry. To date, 186 parties have submitted their first NCCs. A growing chorus of U.S. business leaders, state and local government officials, civil society groups and foreign partners condemned the president`s announcement that “the United States will stop ending the Paris Agreement effective Thursday, June 1.” As Susan Rice, a former national security adviser, put it, taking the United States out of the Paris Agreement is a “coup for America`s global leadership for the foreseeable future.” In foreignpolicy.com, a group of former Obama administration officials presents a strong and compelling exhibition of “Why Paris is Abandoned is a Disaster for America.” They explain why meeting our Paris commitments would be much better not only for climate outcomes, but also for our national security, for the future of our economy and for the image of the United States in an increasingly unstable world. An important point, which is taken into account by many observers, is that, under the Paris Agreement, the President is able to reduce our national contribution (NDC) to reducing greenhouse gas emissions, when that would be myopic at best, since states are not legally obliged to meet certain emissions targets. If the objectives themselves are essentially voluntary, the president`s idea that the United States must withdraw completely from the agreement to relieve us of its supposed economic costs is wrong.

In 1992, President George H.W. Bush joined 107 other heads of state at the Rio Earth Summit in Brazil to adopt a series of environmental agreements, including the UNFCCC framework, which is still in force today. The international treaty aims to prevent dangerous human intervention in the planet`s climate systems in the long term. The pact does not set limits on greenhouse gas emissions from individual countries and does not contain enforcement mechanisms, but establishes a framework for international negotiations on future agreements or protocols to set binding emissions targets. Participating countries meet annually at a Conference of the Parties (COP) to assess their progress and continue discussions on how best to combat climate change. The non-obligation of emission targets is an essential and targeted feature of the Paris Agreement. As chief U.S. chief negotiator Todd Stern explains, it should be used to enable the parties to set their own emissions targets to encourage broad state participation and to encourage maximum ambitions. At the same time, this approach is flexible enough to create a sustainable framework to further reduce emissions over time. The Paris Agreement is the first legally binding universal global agreement on climate change adopted at the Paris Climate Change Conference (COP21) in December 2015.

Many countries have stated in their INDCs that they intend to use some form of international emissions trading scheme to implement their contributions. In order to ensure the environmental integrity of these transactions, the agreement requires the parties to respect accounting practices and to avoid double counting of “mitigation results transferred internationally.” In addition, the agreement creates a new mechanism that