In the run-up to the Paris meeting, the United Nations has instructed countries to present plans detailing how they intend to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. These plans have been technically referred to as planned national contributions (INDC). As of December 10, 2015, 185 countries had introduced measures to limit or reduce their greenhouse gas emissions by 2025 or 2030. In 2014, the United States announced its intention to reduce its emissions by 26-28% from 2005 levels by 2025. To achieve this goal, the country`s Clean Power Plan should set limits for existing and projected emissions from power plants. China, the country that emits the most greenhouse gases as a whole, has set a goal of reaching its carbon dioxide emissions “around 2030 and making the best efforts to reach an early peak.” The Chinese authorities have also sought to reduce carbon dioxide emissions per unit of gross domestic product (GDP) by 60-65% compared to 2005. However, it is important to remember that the Paris agreement is not static. Instead, it must strengthen countries` national efforts over time – meaning that current commitments are the terrain, not the ceiling, of climate change ambitions. Labor`s emissions – continuing to reduce emissions by 2030 and 2050 – have yet to be implemented and the agreement provides the instruments to ensure that this happens. 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.” 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.  The level of NCC defined by each country 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.  In addition, there will be no mechanism to compel a country 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.   There will be only a “Name and Shame” system  or as UN Deputy Secretary General for Climate Change, J. Pésztor, CBS News (US), a “Name and Encouragement” plan.  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.  In his speech in the White House Rose Garden, Trump called the Paris agreement an agreement to deny, disadvantage and impoverish the United States. The final agreement causes loss and harm to its own article.
Responsibility and compensation are also expressly excluded in the decision text attached to the contract. At the end of COP 21 (the 21st meeting of the conference of the parties at the conference chairing the conference), on 12 December 2015, the final text of the Paris Agreement was adopted by all 195 participating UNFCCC member states and by the European Union to reduce emissions under the method of reducing greenhouse gas emissions. In the agreement of 12 languages, members promised to reduce their carbon emissions “