The 32-page document provides a framework for global climate action, including climate change mitigation and adaptation, support for developing countries, as well as transparent reporting and strengthening of climate goals. Here`s what it`s supposed to do: As explained in this C2ES theme letter, U.S. participation in the Paris Agreement can only be decided by the president without seeking the advice and approval of the Senate, in part because it is crafting an existing treaty, the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change. If Biden becomes president, he would have ample power to join him as an “executive agreement.” In short, the agreement does not eliminate coal jobs, it only relocates those jobs from America and the United States and ships them overseas. This agreement is less about climate and more about giving other countries a financial advantage over the United States. The rest of the world applauded when we signed the Paris Agreement – they went wild; they were so happy – for the simple reason that it put our country, the United States of America, which we all love, in a very, very big economic situation. A cynic would say that the obvious reason why economic competitors and their desire for us to stay in the agreement is that we continue to suffer from this great self-inflicted economic wound. We would have a hard time competing with other countries in other parts of the world. The level of NDCs set by each country sets the objectives of that country.
However, the “contributions” themselves are not binding under international law because they do not have the specificity, normative character or mandatory language necessary for the creation of binding norms.  In addition, there will be no mechanism  to force a country to set a target in its NDC by a certain date and no application if a target set in an NDC is not met.   There will only be a “Name and Shame” system or, as János Pásztor, UN Under-Secretary-General for Climate Change, told cbs News (USA), 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 net of nations withdrawing from the deal could trigger the withdrawal of more governments and lead to a total collapse of the deal.  The Paris Agreement has a “bottom-up” structure unlike most international environmental treaties, which are “top-down” and are characterized by internationally defined norms and goals that states must implement.  Unlike its predecessor, the Kyoto Protocol, which sets commitment targets with the force of law, the Paris Agreement, which emphasizes consensus-building, makes it possible to achieve voluntary and nationally defined targets.  Specific climate goals are therefore promoted politically rather than legally linked.