In addition, countries are working “to reach a global peak in greenhouse gas emissions as soon as possible.” The deal has been described as an incentive and driver for the sale of fossil fuels.    Lima Call for Climate Action Puts World on Track to Paris 2015, UN Framework Convention on Climate Change (14 December 2014), newsroom.unfccc.int/lima/lima-call-for-climate-action-puts-world-on-track-to-paris-2015/; At COP17, the parties established the ad hoc working group on a Durban platform on enhanced measures and tasked with developing by 2015 “a protocol, other legal instrument or outcome agreed with force of res judicata under the convention” that applies to all parties. United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change, report of the Conference of the Parties at its seventeenth session, held in Durban from 28 November to 11 December 2011, 2, doc. FCC/CP/2011/9/Add.1, ¶ 2, decision 1/CP.17 (15 March 2012). The implementation of the agreement by all Member States is assessed every five years and the first evaluation will take place in 2023. The result will be used as a contribution to member States` new national contributions.  The inventory will not be one of the contributions/performance of each country, but of a collective analysis of what has been achieved and what remains to be done.  Vito De Lucia, The Encyclopedia of the Earth, Common But Differentiated Responsibility (July 27, 2007, 11:01 a.m.), www.eoearth.org/view/article/151320/. For the first time in the history of international climate negotiations, adaptation has its own article in a piece of legislation. What is even more striking is that loss and damage, which has historically been treated as part of adaptation, do so too.
For many years, negotiations on adaptation, loss and damage have been controversial between industrialized countries, which prioritize reducing adaptation and loss and damage, and developing countries that are particularly vulnerable to the effects of climate change. The chronicle of the controversial discussions and negotiations that led to these monumental articles of the Paris Agreement shows the tensions still present between the parties to the agreement. It also highlights negotiable points for future Conferences of the Parties (“COPs”). The amount of NDCs set by each country sets the objectives of that country. However, the “contributions” themselves are not binding under international law, for lack of specificity, normative character or mandatory language necessary for the creation of binding norms.  In addition, there will be no mechanism to compel a country to set a target in its NPP by a set date, and no implementation if a target set out in a NSP is not met.   There will be only one “Name and Shame” system or, as János Pásztor, UN Under-Secretary-General for Climate Change, cbs News (USA) stated, a “Name and Encourage” plan.  Given that the agreement has no consequences if countries do not comply with their obligations, such a consensus is fragile. A stream of nations withdrawing from the agreement could trigger the withdrawal of other governments and lead to a total collapse of the agreement.  On October 5, 2016, when the agreement received enough signatures to cross the threshold, US President Barack Obama said: “Even if we achieve every goal. We will only reach part of where we need to go. He also said that “this agreement will help delay or avoid some of the worst consequences of climate change.
It will help other nations reduce their emissions over time and set bolder targets as technology advances, all under a strong transparency system that will allow each nation to assess the progress of all other nations. `   Jorge Vinuales, The Paris Climate Agreement: An Initial Examination (Part II of III), Eur. Journal of Int`l Law Blog (February 8, 2016), www.ejiltalk.org/the-paris-climate-agreement-an-initial-examination-part-ii-of-iii/. . . .