Indeed, research shows that the cost of climate activity far outweighs the cost of reducing carbon pollution. A recent study suggests that if the United States does not meet its climate targets in Paris, it could cost the economy up to $6 trillion in the coming decades. A lack of compliance with the NPNs currently foreseen in the agreement could reduce global GDP by more than 25% by the end of the century. Meanwhile, another study estimates that achieving – or even exceeding – the Paris targets by investing in infrastructure in clean energy and energy efficiency could have great benefits globally – about $19 trillion. Limiting the increase in global temperature to less than 2oC compared to the pre-industrial era is one of the objectives. Although the United States and Turkey are not parties to the agreement, as they have not indicated their intention to withdraw from the 1992 UNFCCC, they will continue to be required, as an “Annex 1” country under the UNFCCC, to end national communications and establish an annual inventory of greenhouse gases.  Most experts say no. The commitments made by countries are not ambitious enough and are not being implemented quickly enough to limit the increase in global temperature to 1.5 degrees Celsius, or even 2 degrees Celsius. The Paris Agreement is an ambitious, dynamic and universal agreement. It covers all countries and emissions and is designed for total time. This is a monumental agreement.
It strengthens international cooperation on climate change. It offers a way forward. The Paris Agreement is the first legally binding universal global agreement on climate change adopted at the Paris Climate Change Conference (COP21) in December 2015. The 2010 Cancun Agreements provide for voluntary commitments from 76 industrialized and developing countries to control their greenhouse gas emissions.  In 2010, these 76 countries were collectively responsible for 85% of annual global emissions.   Adaptation issues were at the forefront of the paris agreement. Collective long-term adaptation objectives are included in the agreement and countries must be accountable for their adaptation measures, making adaptation a parallel element of the mitigation agreement.  Adaptation objectives focus on improving adaptive capacity, resilience and vulnerability limitation.  The Protocol left unresolved several issues that were to be decided later by the sixth conference of the parties to the UNFCCC COP6, which attempted to resolve these issues at its meeting in late 2000 in The Hague, but failed to reach an agreement due to disputes between the European Union (which favoured stricter implementation) and the United States Canada. , Japan and Australia (who wanted the agreement to be less ambitious and more flexible).