Since Trump`s announcement, U.S. envoys – as well as on behalf – have continued to participate in U.N. climate negotiations to shore up the details of the agreement. Meanwhile, thousands of heads of state and government have intervened across the country to fill the void created by the lack of federal climate leadership, reflecting the will of the vast majority of Americans who support the Paris agreement. City and state officials, business leaders, universities and individuals included a base amount to participate in initiatives such as America`s Pledge, the United States Climate Alliance, We Are Still In and the American Cities Climate Challenge. Complementary and sometimes overlapping movements aim to deepen and accelerate efforts to combat climate change at the local, regional and national levels. Each of these efforts focuses on the willingness of the United States to work toward the goals of the Paris Agreement, despite Trump`s attempts to lead the country in the opposite direction. Implementation of the agreement by all Member States will be evaluated every five years, with the first evaluation in 2023. The result will be used as an input for new national contributions from Member States.
 The inventory will not be national contributions/achievements, but a collective analysis of what has been achieved and what remains to be done. While the enhanced transparency framework is universal and the global inventory is carried out every five years, the framework must provide “integrated flexibility” to distinguish the capabilities of developed and developing countries. In this context, the Paris Agreement contains provisions to improve the capacity-building framework.  The agreement recognizes the different circumstances of some countries and notes, in particular, that the technical review of experts for each country takes into account the specific capacity of that country to report.  The agreement also develops a capacity-building initiative for transparency to help developing countries put in place the necessary institutions and procedures to comply with the transparency framework.  In addition, the current agreement effectively blocks the development of clean coal in America – which it does, and the mines are beginning to open up. We have a big opening in two weeks. Pennsylvania, Ohio, West Virginia, so many places.
A grand opening of a brand new mine. It`s outrageous. This has not happened for many years. They asked me if I was going to leave. I will try. In addition, countries are working to reach “the global peak in greenhouse gas emissions” as soon as possible. The agreement has been described as an incentive and engine for the sale of fossil fuels.   These rules of transparency and accountability are similar to those set out in other international agreements. Although the system does not include financial sanctions, the requirements are intended to easily monitor the progress of individual nations and promote a sense of overall group pressure, discouraging any towing of feet among countries that might consider it. 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.  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.  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.”