DISCUSSION ESSAY

The Paris climate agreement.

The Paris climate agreement, also known as COP21, has marked the culmination
of years of fieldwork trying to reduce the greenhouse gas emissions, after a failed
attempt in 2009 at the Copenhagen Climate Conference (Adam, 2009). Studies have
demonstrated that the temperature has increased by more than 1°F and the 2001-2010
decade has been the warmest since 1880 (Global Warming Causes, 2011). The aim of
the Paris climate agreement is to keep global temperatures from rising more than 2°C by
2100, that is why more than 195 countries have reunited in Paris to make an agreement
that will improve the conditions of Earth and they have the commitment to being
reunited again every five years to exchange data of the improvements that they’re
supposed to be making. On the other hand, there are some environmental activists who
are in disagreement with the deal because they claim the agreement is too weak and
does not provide enough support for the developing countries (Adler, 2015) and there
are American conservatives that think this conference is a waste of time (Leber, 2015).
In this essay I will discuss the different viewpoints of some countries who have been
involved in this assembly and the negative thoughts of some activists and conservatives
from U.S.

Negotiators from nearly 200 countries gathered on December in Le Bourget,

Paris, and they were all in accordance with the situation of the climate of the world has
to change ride away. That is a fact that make many environmental activists like John
Coequyt -director of the federal and international climate campaigns- very pleased: “All
the core elements that the environmental community wanted.” - John Coequyt
(Worland, 2015). The fact that every single country and some environmental activists
agree with the treaty, as is a positive change for Earth that will improve the health of
people, lead people to think that these countries and activists are right, so it could be
said that this viewpoint is logical, despite of the fact we may find people who don’t
agree with it.

On the other hand, as it had been mentioned before, there are some
environmental activists that are not pleased enough with the agreement but not totally
against it. Erich Pica, president of Friends of the Earth U.S., was dissatisfied because
the activist program from his group for COP21 was more focused on climate justice
issues, such as getting the developed world to contribute more assistance to developing
countries to adapt to climate change and to transition to clean energy, which has not
been taken into account in the assembly, -Erich Pica, “The Paris Climate Agreement is
not a fair, just or science-based deal”- (Adler, 2015). Comparing this viewpoint with the
last one, it could be seen that it is a strong and convincing argument since, certainly, the
Paris Agreement does not have taken into account to developing countries.

In the last place, we may find conservatives who not in favour of the agreement
and are hitting hard on the point that they think this conference is a waste of America’s
time. Donald Trump claims that sending a vice president to the conference might be a
too high position, and the conservative columnist Charles Hurt affirms that Obama has
hatched a plot to make the U.S. inferior to the rest of the world. “President Obama’s
opening remarks at the Paris climate agreement were effectively an apology for
industrial progress” said Nicolas Lori (Leber, 2015). Even some conservatives, insist
there is a bigger conspiracy going on. This viewpoint could be right for the
conservatives, but the truth is the climate change conference in Paris is the closest the
world has ever come to reaching an agreement that covers 90% of greenhouse gas
emissions, so from every angle, this agreement will mean an improvement for the good
of Earth and persons.

To summarize, this essay has presented a number of different viewpoints dealing

with the new covenant of Paris. On the one hand, the beneficial impact that this
agreement could bring to people and Earth has been discussed by some environmental
activists whose beliefs are that the pact is yet not good enough, because of its lack of
preoccupation for the developing countries. On the other hand, the conservative point of
view of some Americans that think the covenant of Paris is a waste of time, does not
appear to be a problem while conservatives won't govern America. It could be asserted
that the world is ever changing and people are used to adapting to new circumstances,
which in this case will be good for the environment.