To contribute to the goals of the agreement, countries presented comprehensive national climate change plans (national fixed contributions, NDC). These are not yet sufficient to meet the agreed temperature targets, but the agreement points to the way forward for further measures. On October 5, 2016, when the agreement reached enough signatures to cross the threshold, U.S. President Barack Obama said, „Even if we achieve all the goals… we will only get to part of where we need to go. He also said that „this agreement will help delay or avoid some of the worst consequences of climate change.” It will help other nations reduce their emissions over time and set bolder goals as technology progresses, all under a strong transparency system that will allow each nation to assess the progress of all other nations. [27] [28] A dichotomous interpretation of CBDR-RC led to an international agreement on the Convention and its Kyoto Protocol. Industrialised countries (Annex I) committed to absolute emission reduction or limit targets, while all other countries (excluding Appendix I) did not have such commitments. However, this rigid distinction does not reflect the dynamic diversification between developing countries since 1992, as evidenced by the diversity of contributions to global emissions and economic growth models (Deleuil, 2012). Dubash, 2009). This led Depledge and Yamin (2009, 443) to refer to UnFCCC Schedule I/non-Annex I as the dichotomy and „greatest weakness of the regime.” The EU and its member states are among the nearly 190 parties to the Paris Agreement. The EU formally ratified the agreement on 5 October 2016, allowing it to enter into force on 4 November 2016. In order for the agreement to enter into force, at least 55 countries representing at least 55% of global emissions had to file their ratification instruments. The Paris Agreement has an „upward” structure unlike most international environmental treaties, which are „top down”, characterized by internationally defined standards and objectives that states must implement. [32] Unlike its predecessor, the Kyoto Protocol, which sets legal commitment targets, the Paris Agreement, which focuses on consensual training, allows for voluntary and national objectives.
[33] Specific climate targets are therefore politically promoted and not legally binding. Only the processes governing reporting and revision of these objectives are imposed by international law. This structure is particularly noteworthy for the United States – in the absence of legal mitigation or funding objectives, the agreement is seen as an „executive agreement, not a treaty.” Since the 1992 UNFCCC treaty was approved by the Senate, this new agreement does not require further legislation from Congress for it to enter into force. [33] The EU and its member states are individually responsible for ratifying the Paris Agreement. There was a strong preference for the EU and its 28 Member States to simultaneously table their ratification instruments to ensure that neither the EU nor its Member States commit to fulfil commitments that are strictly the other` and there was concern that differences of opinion on each Member State`s share of the EU reduction target and the British vote to leave the EU would delay the Paris Pact. [72] However, on 4 October 2016, the European Parliament approved the ratification of the Paris Agreement[60] and the EU tabled its ratification instruments on 5 October 2016 with several EU Member States. [72] Although mitigation and adjustment require more climate funding, adjustment has generally received less support and has mobilized less private sector action. [46] A 2014 OECD report showed that in 2014, only 16% of the world`s financial resources were devoted to adaptation to climate change. [50] The Paris Agreement called for a balance between climate finance between adaptation and mitigation, highlighting in particular the need to strengthen support for adaptation by the most affected parties
