But even if the United States decided to re-enter the agreement, it would have implications for outsourcing and the implementation of a few months. The Paris Agreement marks the beginning of a shift towards a low-carbon world – much remains to be done. Implementation of the agreement is essential to achieving the Sustainable Development Goals, as it contains a roadmap to combat climate change to reduce emissions and build resilience to climate change. Others say the U.S. withdrawal is due in part to the Obama administration`s inability to have the U.S. Senate ratify the Paris agreement. Indeed, research shows that the cost of climate activity far outweighs the cost of reducing carbon pollution. A recent study suggests that if the United States does not meet its climate targets in Paris, it could cost the economy up to $6 trillion in the coming decades. A lack of compliance with the NPNs currently foreseen in the agreement could reduce global GDP by more than 25% by the end of the century. Meanwhile, another study estimates that achieving – or even exceeding – the Paris targets by investing in infrastructure in clean energy and energy efficiency could have great benefits globally – about $19 trillion. This strategy included energy and climate policy, including the 20/20/20 targets, namely a 20% reduction in carbon DIOXIDE (CO2) emissions, an increase in the market share of renewable energy to 20% and a 20% increase in energy efficiency.  The long-term goal of the Paris Agreement is to keep the increase in the average global temperature at a level well below 2 degrees Celsius (3.6 degrees Fahrenheit) above pre-industrial levels; and to continue efforts to limit the increase to 1.5 degrees Celsius, while acknowledging that this would significantly reduce the risks and effects of climate change.
This should require a rapid reduction in emissions to achieve “a balance between anthropogenic emissions from sources and the reduction of greenhouse gases from wells” in the second half of the 21st century. It also means increasing the parties` ability to adapt to the negative effects of climate change and “reconciling financial flows with a way to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and climate-resistant development.” “The ue-Green agreement and the commitments of China, Japan and South Korea on CO2 emissions neutrality indicate the inevitability of our collective transition from fossil fuels,” said Laurence Tubiana, one of the architects of the Paris Agreement and now executive director of the European Climate Foundation. “This is certainly a blow to the Paris agreement,” said Carlos Fuller of Belize, the negotiator for the Alliance of Small Island States in the UN talks. The agreement stated that it would only enter into force (and therefore fully effective) if 55 countries that produce at least 55% of global greenhouse gas emissions (according to a list drawn up in 2015)  ratify, accept, approve or adhere to the agreement.   On April 1, 2016, the United States and China, which together account for nearly 40% of global emissions, issued a joint statement confirming that the two countries would sign the Paris climate agreement.  175 contracting parties (174 states and the European Union) signed the agreement on the first day of its signing.   On the same day, more than 20 countries announced plans to join the accession as soon as possible in 2016. The ratification by the European Union has achieved a sufficient number of contracting parties to enter into force on 4 November 2016. Now, that future could be in jeopardy, as President Donald Trump prepares to pull the United States out of the agreement – a step he can only legally take after the next presidential election – as part of a larger attempt to dismantle decades of the United States.