Those who have and contribute to anthropogenic climate change have also benefited from being part of the agreement of a new market-based instrument, the Sustainable Development Mechanism. In a society dominated by large groups, this seems to be the preferred solution of our political leaders. The history of market-based solutions to environmental problems shows that they are less effective than regulatory approaches, which clearly define a goal to be met. Take, for example, the European carbon market, which has so far failed. However, the agreement also focuses on highly market-based approaches that reveal a compromise and hopefully leave an opportunity to prove again what is really a good thing. There are some historical examples, such as human rights, where there is broad international agreement, clear red lines that cannot be crossed, and real economic threats through sanctions or boycotts. (Even then, problems of collective action are emerging.) But climate change is not well suited to this kind of thing. There are no clear red lines, there are no agreed measures, who should do what and how much to issue is too much. And it is difficult to punish countries for the production of products that sanctions countries consume. “We have the technology and the knowledge to make these emission reductions, but what is missing are policies and regulations strong enough to achieve this,” Watson said in an interview. “Right now, the world is on a path between 3 and 4 degrees C (5.5 and 7F) by the end of the century. Sachs, who generally believes in international agreements, believes that this is a bad thing, with immeasurable ecological consequences.
But he fears that people will not take these more pessimistic opportunities seriously. So, with this paper in hand, let`s take a cold and hard look at the state of Paris. We start with a little background, for context. The future of the agreement depends to a large extent on the outcome of this election. Negotiators are already fighting for a plan for Trump`s second term.