But no one in the formal process is incentivized to tell the truth about what is achievable. Since these goals are collective, an “ambitious coalition” can claim to favor them – no member is held responsible for bold goals that, in reality, have little basis. Even the IPCC, which should have told the truth in its final summary to policymakers, has no flogous claims about the impracticability of these goals. This is due to the fact that the IPCC summary, like the Paris Agreement itself, is essentially approved by consensus – a method for making decisions that favor oblique language and a high ratio between courageous statements and practical realities. But the truth is important, because this agreement is now organized around goals that are not achievable, which will make it difficult to honestly review periodically. It will also be more difficult for policymakers to focus on the enormous adaptation needs that lie ahead. Paris Convention, 2015. The most important global climate agreement to date, the Paris Agreement, requires all countries to make commitments to reduce emissions. Governments set targets known as national contributions, with the aim of preventing the global average temperature from exceeding the pre-industrial level by 2°C (3.6°F) and strive to keep it below 1.5°C (2.7°F). It also aims to achieve, during the second half of the century, net emissions for which the amount of greenhouse gases emitted corresponds to the amount removed from the atmosphere. (It`s also called climate neutral or climate neutral.) There are also serious legal and constitutional issues. Foreign heads of state and government in Europe, Asia and around the world should have no more to say about the U.S.
economy than our own citizens and their elected representatives. That is why our withdrawal from the agreement is a reaffirmation of America`s sovereignty.1 Our Constitution is unique among all the nations of the world, and it is my greatest commitment and honor to protect it. And I will. The other exaggerated topic was the birth of the “ambitious coalition” – a large group of nations that claimed to seek an agreement as ambitious as possible, when in reality it was little united, with the exception of slogans. This coalition preferred strong language around the goal of stopping warming to a level well below 2 degrees Celsius above the pre-industrial level, ideally at 1.5 degrees. Examining the feasibility of these targets has been one of the tasks of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) body to which I have been entrusted for the past five years. This experience convinced me that warming at these levels probably cannot be stopped – the world has been hesying for too long and now has to adapt to the consequences. Even a realistic emissions reduction program will blow by 2 degrees; 1.5 degrees is ridiculous. .