So from reading the answers in this question, it seems the Paris Climate Agreement was basically non-binding with no actual consequences and in addition, the targets are set by the host countries themselves.

If this is the case, what's even the point? What are the countries the have signed on actually agreeing to? What is the impact to a country to sign or not sign the agreement?

  • 18
    There is a pickup soccer game down the street from me with no ref, but somehow it is still recognizably a soccer game and not a brawl. Toothless and voluntary is not the same as worthless.
    – user9389
    Jun 1, 2017 at 23:22
  • @not - nice analogy. Can you elaborate further?
    – Pollman
    Jun 2, 2017 at 0:33
  • Of course, there is the obvious impact of the climate change issue not being addressed ("if the USA is not following it we don't either") and suffering the consequences of climate change. Sure, the consequences won't be felt only by the country/ies refusing to comply with it, but as it is said in Spanish, "Collective harm, consolation for fools"
    – SJuan76
    Jun 2, 2017 at 7:25
  • 6
    @notstoreboughtdirt - the worthiness of soccer game is in having fun. Are you implying that the worthiness of Paris accord is for signatory politicians to have fun?
    – user4012
    Jun 2, 2017 at 10:51
  • 2
    It seems to be a good way to pretend to be doing something (or to pretend to want to do something) without actually having to do anything (or even wanting to do anything). Jun 2, 2017 at 12:39

2 Answers 2


The main purpose of the Paris Climate Agreement is to provide a pathway forward in tackling climate change. Though it allows each country to decide on their own course of action, it "solidifies international cooperation for climate change" and "sends a powerful signal to markets that now is the time to invest in the low emission economy".

The agreement provides a pathway forward to limit temperature rise to well below 2 degrees, maybe even 1.5. The agreement provides a mechanism to increase the level of ambition.

The Paris Agreement is an ambitious, dynamic and universal agreement. It covers all countries and all emissions, and is designed to last. This is a monumental agreement. It solidifies international cooperation for climate change. It provides a way forward.

it seems the Paris Climate Agreement was basically non-binding with no actual consequences

There's indeed no legal consequences should a country not comply with it. However, the country will just be "overshadowed by negative reactions", according to the FAQs published by the UN.

Q: What happens if a country doesn’t live up to its commitments? Would there be any enforcement?

Countries have every reason to comply with the terms of the Agreement. It is in their interest to implement the agreement, not only in terms of achieving the benefits of taking climate action, but also to show global solidarity.

There is no benefit to flouting the Agreement. Any short-term time gain will be short-lived. It will undoubtedly be overshadowed by negative reactions, by other countries, financial markets, and most important, by their citizens.

What are the countries the have signed on actually agreeing to?

Basically, it encourages the countries to take action and to determine their own goals. The argument is that it's in everyone's interest to tackle climate change and thus this agreement formalises this action.

Q: What does the agreement require countries to do?

The agreement requires all countries to take action, while recognizing their differing situations and circumstances. Under the Agreement, countries are responsible for taking action on both mitigation and adaptation.

Countries officially submitted their own nationally determined climate actions. They have an obligation to implement these plans, and if they do, it will bend the curve downward in the projected global temperature rise.

The agreement not only formalizes the process of developing national plans, but also it provides a binding requirement to assess and review progress on these plans. This mechanism will require countries to continuously upgrade their commitments and ensure that there will be no backtracking.

This agreement is a clarion call from governments that they are ready for implementing the 2030 Sustainable Development Agenda.


In conclusion, this agreement is less of an enforcement mechanism for countries to fight climate change. Rather, it's a call for action and encourages all the signatories to do their best to achieve the ultimate to limit global warming below 2 degree Celsius and hopefully to 1.5 degree Celsius. As such, it's largely symbolic and voluntary to a certain degree. However, it signifies that the world is united and their agreement to tackle climate change.

References & articles worth checking out

  • "However, it signifies that the world is united and their agreement to tackle climate change". Right now, "that the world was united"
    – motoDrizzt
    Jun 2, 2017 at 15:52
  • 1
    "As such, it's largely symbolic [..]" - it took a long wall of text to build up to that conclusion.
    – Sjoerd
    Jun 3, 2017 at 0:18
  • @motoDrizzt it still is. If anything, Trump has shown how committed the US is despite Trump.
    – user1530
    Jun 4, 2017 at 1:26

If countries are unwilling or unable to enforce carbon reductions in other countries with sanctions or other force. Then the agreement must be enforced by the goodwill of the signatories ( altruism, national pride, the collective good, vs guilt and shame for not complying).

If the agreement were mandatory or enforced, then this would actually take away from the goodwill that is the primary incentive to comply with the treaty.

I personally don't believe that goodwill will be enough to make the massive and ongoing sacrifices necessary to avoid carbon emissions, but others have more faith.

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .