President Trump says the Paris Agreement will affect job growth, manufacturing and industries such as coal, natural gas, steel and cement. He expressed concern that U.S. commitments are superior to those of China and India and proposed that the U.S. consider renegotiating the agreement. 1. Climate protection could generate $26 trillion in economic benefits worldwide. We significantly underestimate the economic benefits of climate change measures, according to a recent report by the Global Commission for the Economy and Climate. The transition to a low-carbon economy could generate $26 trillion in economic benefits worldwide by 2030. The report focused on five sectors: energy, cities, food and land use, water and industry. Ambitious measures in all these areas could generate net profits compared to business-as-usual.
In our analysis, we started from a complete adaptation and the use of new species. For example, when a new species appears in a country`s exclusive economic zone, we assume that a fishery will be developed in order to gain potential economic benefits and jobs. However, it would only be included in the analysis if it were ranked in the top 10 based on the landed value for each country. No nation can manage the effects of climate change alone. The Paris Agreement assured almost every nation in the world that they were committed to tackling climate change. It`s a truly global company. Countries present their climate commitments and ensure that all nations contribute to reducing their emissions and adapting to climate change. The commitments cover the emissions of 190 countries — 97% of global greenhouse gas emissions. The agreement guarantees for the first time the commitments of all major emitters, including China, India, Mexico, Europe, Japan and the United States – to reduce their emissions.
And because our action helps encourage others to act, we cannot protect Americans from the damage caused by climate change if we don`t act at home and help secure the action of other countries. A strong domestic motivation of countries to meet their new commitments under the Paris Agreement is based on the nature of these commitments – these objectives are based on the implementation of measures that are in their own interest. Policymakers in these countries must live up to their commitments, as their citizens demand the necessary measures to comply with the Paris Agreement, as these measures address urgent national needs such as air pollution, job creation, poverty reduction and climate impact reduction. For example, China will further reduce its greenhouse gas emissions as part of its strategic plan to reduce air pollution and coal consumption. And India will continue to use renewable energy massively to combat energy poverty, and because renewable energy is the cheapest option. Here is a brief introduction to the content of the agreement. www.npr.org/2017/05/18/528998592/energy-companies-urge-trump-to-remain-in-paris-climate-agreement While all the premises of the Paris climate agreement are beneficial, there are a few less obvious benefits that should also be taken into consideration. This comparison provides the end-of-century warming, which is associated with the lowest total cost for damage and reduction, as used in the IAM used (Fig. 1).
Cost-benefit-optimal warming is therefore determined by the shape of the two cost curves. Cost reduction curves are characterized by two universal properties. First, they diverge from today`s warming, especially when there is no negative-emission technology. Second, the mitigation costs of a warming scenario without mitigation effort are reduced to zero. In contrast, the damage-cost curve is notoriously zero without heating and increases with rising temperatures. . . .