While the enhanced transparency framework is universal and the global inventory is carried out every five years, the framework must provide «integrated flexibility» to distinguish the capabilities of developed and developing countries. In this context, the Paris Agreement contains provisions to improve the capacity-building framework.  The agreement recognizes the different circumstances of some countries and notes, in particular, that the technical review of experts for each country takes into account the specific capacity of that country to report.  The agreement also develops a capacity-building initiative for transparency to help developing countries put in place the necessary institutions and procedures to comply with the transparency framework.  The objective of the agreement is to reduce the global warming described in Article 2 and to «improve» the implementation of the UNFCCC by the following form: Thus, the United States will now cease all implementation of the non-binding Paris Agreement and the draconian financial and economic burdens imposed on our country. It also means ending the implementation of the national contribution and, most importantly, the Green Climate Fund, which is costing the United States a huge fortune. We have one of the most frequent energy reserves in the world, enough to lift America`s poorest working people out of poverty. But as part of this agreement, we are effectively locking up these reserves and taking the great wealth of our nation – it is a great wealth, it is a phenomenal wealth. Not so long ago, we had no idea that we had such wealth and that we were leaving millions and millions of families trapped in poverty and unemployment. Under the Paris Agreement, each country must define, plan and report regularly on its contribution to the fight against global warming.  There is no mechanism for a country to set an emission target for a specified date, but any target should go beyond the previous targets. The United States formally withdrew from the agreement the day after the 2020 presidential election, although President-elect Joe Biden said America would return to the agreement after his inauguration.  The Paris Agreement is the world`s first comprehensive climate agreement.
 Although mitigation and adjustment require more climate funding, adjustment has generally received less support and has mobilized less private sector action.  A 2014 OECD report showed that in 2014, only 16% of the world`s financial resources were devoted to adaptation to climate change.  The Paris Agreement called for a balance between climate finance between adaptation and mitigation, highlighting in particular the need to strengthen support for adaptation from the parties most affected by climate change, including least developed countries and small island developing states. The agreement also reminds the parties of the importance of public subsidies, as adjustment measures receive less public sector investment.  John Kerry, as Secretary of State, announced that the United States would double its grant-based adjustment funding by 2020.  Risks are increasing, as these agreements have historically become more ambitious only over time. In other words, the Paris framework is a starting point, no matter how bad, it is not an end point. And the exit from the agreement protects the United States from future violations of U.S. sovereignty and from any future massive legal liability. Believe me, we have a massive legal responsibility if we continue to do so. The EU and its member states are individually responsible for ratifying the Paris Agreement. There was a strong preference for the EU and its 28 Member States to simultaneously table their ratification instruments to ensure that neither the EU nor its Member States commit to commitments that belong exclusively to the other and there was concern that there was a disagreement on each Member State`s share of the EU-wide reduction target.
just like the v