The president`s promise to renegotiate the international climate agreement has always been a smog screen, the oil industry has a red phone inside, and will Trump bring food trucks to Old Faithful? From an international perspective, long-term strategies give the Paris Agreement credibility and certainty that its objectives can be achieved. They also increase transparency and build trust between nations, as each party is committed to working towards emissions neutrality and encourages others to do the same. With a solid foundation of positive reciprocity of action, long-term strategies are an ideal tool for governments to communicate their commitment to fighting climate change to other countries that need this information to assess their commitment. Unlike the Kyoto Protocol, which sets legally binding emission reduction targets (as well as sanctions for non-compliance) only for developed countries, the Paris Agreement requires all countries – rich, poor, developed and developing – to do their part and significantly reduce greenhouse gas emissions. To this end, greater flexibility is built into the Paris Agreement: the commitments that countries should make are not otherwise worded, countries can voluntarily set their emission targets (NDCs) and countries are not subject to any penalty if they do not meet the proposed targets. What the Paris Agreement requires, however, is monitoring, reporting, and reassessing countries` individual and collective goals over time in order to bring the world closer to the broader goals of the agreement. And the agreement stipulates that countries must announce their next set of targets every five years – unlike the Kyoto Protocol, which aimed at that target but did not contain a specific requirement to achieve it. Following a campaign promise, Trump – a climate denier who claimed climate change was a “hoax” committed by China – announced in June 2017 his intention to withdraw the United States from the Paris Agreement. But despite the president`s statement from the rose garden that “we`re going out,” it`s not that easy. The withdrawal procedure requires the agreement to be in place for three years before a country can officially announce its intention to leave. Then he will have to wait a year before leaving the pact. This means that the United States could officially leave on November 4, 2020 at the earliest, one day after the presidential election. Even a formal withdrawal would not necessarily be permanent, experts say; a future president could join him in a month.
Article 28 of the Convention allows parties to withdraw from the agreement after sending a notice of withdrawal to the depositary. The notice period may take place no earlier than three years after the entry into force of the Agreement for the country. The revocation shall take effect one year after notification to the depositary. Alternatively, the agreement stipulates that withdrawal from the UNFCCC, under which the Paris Agreement was adopted, would also remove the state from the Paris Agreement. The conditions for exiting the UNFCCC are the same as for the Paris Agreement. The agreement does not contain any provisions in case of non-compliance. The level of NDCs set by each country will set that country`s objectives. However, the “contributions” themselves are not binding under international law because they do not have the specificity, normative character or mandatory language necessary to create binding norms.  In addition, there will be no mechanism to force a country to set a target in its NDC on a specific date and no application if a target set in an NDC is not met.   There will be only one “Name and Shame” system, or as János Pásztor, UN Under-Secretary-General for Climate Change, told CBS News (USA), a “Name and Encouragement” plan.
 Given that the agreement does not foresee any consequences if countries do not comply with their obligations, such a consensus is fragile. A net of nations withdrawing from the deal could trigger the withdrawal of more governments and lead to a total collapse of the deal.  While the enhanced transparency framework is universal, as is the global stocktake that will take place every 5 years, the framework aims to provide “integrated flexibility” to distinguish between the capacities of developed and developing countries. In this context, the Paris Agreement contains provisions to improve the capacity-building framework.  The agreement takes into account the different situations of certain countries and notes in particular that the technical expertise of each country takes into account the specific reporting capacities of that country.  The agreement also develops a transparency capacity building initiative to help developing countries put in place the institutions and procedures necessary to comply with the transparency framework.  As a contribution to the objectives of the Agreement, countries submitted comprehensive national climate action plans (Nationally Determined Contributions, NDCs). These are not yet sufficient to meet the agreed temperature targets, but the agreement points the way for further action. The Supreme Court has always recognized the power of presidents to enter into international agreements without Senate approval when the agreement falls under the constitutional authority of the president or the authority arising from previous actions of Congress. The Paris Agreement does not create legally binding emission reduction commitments for the United States. The president had ample authority to finalize the agreement based on the Senate`s approval of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change in 1992 and the legal authority to protect Americans` health and our environment found in basic U.S.
air quality laws and other environmental laws. And almost all of the procedural requirements of the agreement to provide information can be implemented under the constitutional authority of the president. Recognizing that many developing countries and small island states that have contributed the least to climate change could suffer the most from its consequences, the Paris Agreement includes a plan for developed countries – and others that are “capable of doing so” – to continue to provide financial resources to help developing countries mitigate climate change and increase their resilience to climate change. The agreement builds on financial commitments from the 2009 Copenhagen Accord, which aimed to increase public and private climate finance for developing countries to $100 billion a year by 2020. (To put this in perspective, global military spending in 2017 alone amounted to about $1.7 trillion, more than a third of which came from the United States.) The Copenhagen Pact also created the Green Climate Fund to support the mobilisation of transformation finance with targeted public funds. The Paris Agreement established hope that the world would set a higher annual target by 2025 to build on the $100 billion target for 2020 and put in place mechanisms to achieve that scale. The authors of the agreement have incorporated a timetable for withdrawal that President Trump must follow – to prevent it from irreparably harming our climate. From a national perspective, these strategies are fundamental because they guide the short- and medium-term prospects of the political and economic cycles and provide political certainty for bold and concrete action by economic actors. .