Recognizing that many developing countries and small island developing states that have contributed the least to climate change are most likely to suffer the consequences, the Paris Agreement contains a plan for developed countries – and others that are able to do so – to continue to provide financial resources to help developing countries reduce and increase their capacity to withstand climate change. The agreement builds on the financial commitments of the 2009 Copenhagen Accord, which aimed to increase public and private climate finance to developing countries to $100 billion per year by 2020. (To put it in perspective, in 2017 alone, global military spending 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 mobilize transformation funding with targeted public dollars. The Paris agreement expected the world to set a higher annual target by 2025 to build on the $100 billion target by 2020 and create mechanisms to achieve this. The countries most affected by the effects of climate change will be low-lying nations, particularly vulnerable to sea level rise, and developing countries that do not have the resources to adapt to changes in temperature and precipitation. But prosperous nations like the United States are also increasingly vulnerable. In fact, millions of Americans – especially children, the elderly and the poor – are already suffering from the wrath of climate change. The level of the NDC set by each country[8] will determine the objectives of that country. However, the “contributions” themselves are not binding under international law because of the lack of specificity, normative nature or language necessary to establish binding standards. [20] In addition, there will be no mechanism to compel a country[7] to set a target in its NDC on a specified date and not for an application if a defined target is not achieved in an NDC. [8] [21] There will be only a “Name and Shame” system [22] or as UN Deputy Secretary General for Climate Change, J.

Pésztor, CBS News (US), a “Name and Encouragement” plan. [23] Since the agreement has no consequences if countries do not live up to their commitments, such a consensus is fragile. A cattle of nations withdrawing from the agreement could trigger the withdrawal of other governments and lead to the total collapse of the agreement. [24] (a) to keep the increase in the average global temperature at a level well below 2 degrees Celsius above pre-industrial levels and to continue efforts to limit the increase in temperature to 1.5 degrees Celsius above pre-industrial levels, which would significantly reduce the risks and effects of climate change; Part of the criticism of the protocol rests firmly on the idea of climate justice (Liverman, 2008, p.