The agreement was also explicitly negotiated to maximize its chances of being enacted under the executive powers of the US president, without having to submit the agreement to the U.S. Senate. This implied that it could be reversed in the same way. What can also be very worrying and a real danger to the environment is the inclusion of vague elements and concepts such as sinks to absorb carbon into the atmosphere, so that the door remains open to geoengineering and other technological approaches. This belief in unlimited technological progress pushes us in the opposite direction of this agreement, especially when Co2 capture projects do not work or are halted due to inefficiency. It creates the illusion that we can continue to pollute the environment, because one day we will find solutions and delay concrete action. This situation is doubly ill-advised if lower renewable energy costs cost less to switch to renewable and decentralized energy production. This document provides an overview of the key elements of the Paris climate agreement and provides an assessment of its main strengths and weaknesses. The document concludes with a reflection on what is needed for its effective implementation. 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 organization that spends these funds operates without accountability or transparency.

The Cato Institute calls the Green Climate Fund the “Slush Fund for Global Dictators.” Anyone involved in the agreement contributes to this. For all these reasons, we can confirm that this agreement will bring about changes and solutions to the climate crisis for several decades to go. Therefore, if mitigation plans are not good enough, is there a good mechanism to increase these plans in the near future and regularly, in order to be as precise as possible with the necessary efforts? Not really, and one of the biggest risks of this agreement is that we assume it exists. There are too many flaws in operationalization, too much room for interpretation of how these efforts should be made and shared. The “Adaptation” section is perhaps one of the best results with the creation of a qualitative objective to examine the measures taken and the needs to improve the resilience of the poorest and weakest countries, in combination with the 5-year mitigation cycle. The agreement recognizes the close link with climate change action as an essential solution to reduce the need to adapt to climate change. Several fundamental rights are also explicitly mentioned to ensure that adaptation measures are tailored to the specifics of each country in order to respond to gender and to take into account vulnerable and indigenous communities. One thing is certain: this agreement will not be enough to limit the average temperature of global warming to 2 degrees Celsius, let alone the 1.5 degrees Celsius temperature that the agreement itself considers necessary. However, for domestic policy reasons in most countries and in the current geopolitical reality, this is the best deal we have been able to reach.

That is why we cannot place all our hope in such an international agreement and action must be taken at all levels at which we are all involved. Although this agreement is the first collective universal international response to a global borderless threat, not all countries have succeeded in sealing an agreement that will effectively limit global warming below the 2oC threshold, beyond which climate change will be catastrophic.