— Commitment of developed countries to support developing countries` efforts to build a “clean and climate-resilient future” through financial, technological and capacity-building assistance. We all want cleaner air, but the Paris Climate Agreement and related regulations put America at a competitive disadvantage compared to the rest of the world. In the case of climate change, the cake is the ability of the atmosphere to absorb our emissions without triggering catastrophic changes in our planet`s climate. People who want large tranches are countries that want to emit large amounts of greenhouse gases. The United States can face prosecution for its acts or omissions, whether they remain in the Paris Agreement or leave the Paris Agreement. It should be remembered that Massachusetts v. The EPA has been filed by 12 U.S. states and other petitioners arguing that the EPA has a responsibility to regulate CO2 as a pollutant. States have obtained the right to sue for offences related to the effects of CO2 emissions. In Juliana v. United States, 21 young plaintiffs are suing the federal government for its actions to participate in climate change, making constitutional claims for violating the rights to life, liberty and property, and for failing to protect the resources of public trust.
It is to be expected that this type of prosecution will continue. In fact, India has pledged to reduce its emissions below what the country would achieve if it continued on the same path it is currently following. In other words, he has set the bar so low that he can continue his usual course of emission intensity and look like a climate hero. In recent months, Trump and his proxies have argued that the administration`s policies have actually helped reduce emissions. For example, in a speech in Pittsburgh in October, Trump cited fracking gas as the main source of reducing emissions. In an environmental speech in July (the very existence of which was itself an indicator of the administration`s growing concern about the political importance of the issue), Trump claimed that the US was a leader in reducing emissions and even boasted that the country was doing better than its peers. “Each of the signatories to the Paris Climate Agreement is lagging behind America,” he said. President Donald Trump is right to withdraw from the Paris Agreement. While the climate is indeed changing and human activities are playing a role, the chances of an impending climate catastrophe are simply unrealistic and not grounded in reality.
The poorly negotiated Paris Climate Agreement imposed unfair, impractical and unrealistic carbon reduction targets on the United States. Trump`s climate message has never seemed particularly concrete. In the early years of Trump`s presidency, when the administration tore up climate regulations left and right, journalists repeatedly tried to ask government officials if the president “believes” the science of climate change. White House advisers generally avoided the question, as they were obviously uncomfortable with the gap between reality and Trump`s personal views. Yet there is a baseline figure that shows the significant cost to the United States of inaction on climate change – costs that would be even higher if other countries followed suit. We must first ask ourselves: “What was the purpose of the Paris Climate Agreement”? The actual event of the meeting was the largest “parenthesis event” in the history of the world – the 195 participants showed up with their voluntary commitments. None have been questioned in any way. They were all assembled in a very large agreement. The agreement has NO enforcement mechanism. It allows all participants to change their voluntary commitments up or down at any time and in any way they choose, and there are no sanctions for non-compliance if a country decides not to comply.
The commitments of China and India entered into force in 2030! Ho! So what was the point, apart from cocktails and good conversations? It was up to “world leaders” to practice “climate orthodoxy” and put themselves at the forefront of political correctness. The agreement was, by definition, a farce. The big, big Nothing Burger! But since then, politics has changed: Climate change is now one of the most discussed topics in the 2020 presidential race, and the vast majority of Americans say they support measures to reduce emissions, including the Paris Agreement. As mentioned in his Remarks on June 1, 2017, President [Donald] Trump made the decision to withdraw from the Paris Agreement because the United States was imposing an unfair economic burden on American workers, businesses, and taxpayers. Commitments under the Agreement. The U.S. has reduced all kinds of emissions, even as we grow our economy and ensure our citizens have access to affordable energy. Our results speak for themselves: U.S. emissions of air pollutants that affect human health and the environment decreased by 74% between 1970 and 2018.
Net greenhouse gas emissions in the U.S. decreased by 13% from 2005 to 2017, even though our economy grew by more than 19%. This coincides with a YouGov opinion poll for Stop Climate Chaos Scotland (SCCS), which indicates that 70% of respondents support major action to tackle climate change. It is true that China has committed to maximizing its emissions towards 2030, but it has also committed to reducing the carbon intensity of its economy to 60-65% from 2005 levels and more than doubling the share of carbon-free energy in its overall economy over the same period. This will force China to make massive investments in clean energy, and the country already provides 50% clean electricity by 2030, thanks in large part to the rapid expansion of wind and solar. India has also pledged to reduce the emissions intensity of its economy by 33-35% from 2005 levels over the same period, and it is also taking serious action, including installing renewable energy at breakneck speed. .
