The president`s promise to renegotiate the international climate agreement has always been a smokescreen, the oil industry has a red phone at the Home Office, and will Trump bring food trucks to Old Faithful? This provision requires the “link” between different CO2 emission trading systems – since measured emission reductions must avoid “double counts,” the transferred mitigation results should be considered as a gain on emission units for one part and as a reduction in emission units for the other party.  Due to the heterogeneity of NDCs and national emissions trading systems, ITMOs will provide a format for global connections under the aegis of the UNFCCC.  This provision also puts pressure on countries to implement emission management systems – if a country wants to use more cost-effective cooperative approaches to achieve its NPNs, they need to monitor carbon units for their economies.  The NRDC is saddened to make the Global Climate Action Summit a success based on more ambitious commitments to the landmark 2015 agreement and enhanced initiatives to reduce pollution. President Obama was able to formally enshrine the United States in the agreement through executive measures because he did not impose new legal obligations on the country. The United States already has a number of instruments on the books, under laws already passed by Congress to reduce carbon pollution. The country officially joined the agreement in September 2016, after submitting its request for participation. The Paris Agreement was only able to enter into force after the formal accession of at least 55 nations representing at least 55% of global emissions. This happened on October 5, 2016 and the agreement came into force 30 days later, on November 4, 2016. While the agreement has been welcomed by many, including French President Francois Hollande and UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon, criticism has also emerged.
James Hansen, a former NASA scientist and climate change expert, expressed anger that most of the agreement is made up of “promises” or goals, not firm commitments.  He called the Paris talks a fraud with “nothing, only promises” and believed that only a generalized tax on CO2 emissions, which is not part of the Paris agreement, would force CO2 emissions down fast enough to avoid the worst effects of global warming.  Unlike the Kyoto Protocol, which set legally binding emission reduction targets (and penalties only for non-compliance) for industrialized countries alone, the Paris Agreement requires all countries – rich, poor, developed and developing – to take their share and reduce their greenhouse gas emissions. To this end, the Paris Agreement provides for greater flexibility: commitments that countries should make are not included, countries can voluntarily set their emissions targets and countries will not be penalized if they do not meet their proposed targets. But what the Paris agreement requires is to monitor, report and reassess, over time, the objectives of individual and collective countries, in order to bring the world closer to the broader objectives of the agreement. And the agreement stipulates that countries must announce their next round of targets every five years, contrary to the Kyoto Protocol, which was aimed at this target but which contained no specific requirements to achieve this goal.