On Exaggerations, Agreements, Treaties and a Chris Farley Reference

I think people are exaggerating the impact the Paris Agreement actually has or had. Anyone want to take a stab as to why it is called an "agreement" rather than a "treaty?" They aren't the same thing. A treaty is usually formed by an overseeing or governing party, which writes strict terms or conditions that the members of the party need to follow lest they face consequences for breaking the conditions of that treaty. An agreement doesn't necessarily have to follow these principles at all. They aren't equitable with each other. For instance, one could argue that all treaties are agreements, but one cannot argue that all agreements are treaties. There are of course degrees of agreements in how binding they are to the members of that agreement. With the Paris Agreement, it actually has no power and nations like India only are a part of it on a "we'll see" contingency. Basically, if they get billions of dollars of aid from other nations they will become a part of it. "Give us billions of dollars and we will throw our support behind your largely symbolic agreement." More or less.

Despite, or in spite of, what various fact-checkers are saying, In October 2016, "The Guardian" reported:

"Money will be a big challenge for India, which says it will require over $2.5tn (£1.9tn) to meet all its targets. It says it will achieve the targets only if other countries give it money and discounts on new technology."

Countries set their own terms and there is no official treaty or enforcement measures. Let us say that a country breaks the terms of their agreement. What happens to them? Well, the consequence amounts to:

Although there is an effective false dichotomy being peddled, I am all for alternative energies. Whatever you think about the state of global warming, there is nothing wrong with wanting to be good stewards of the planet. I think that is something we should all strive for regardless of bickering on the data. I choose to bypass this argument because it generally goes nowhere. The citation of one study will lead one to cite a study which says opposite and this goes on in a never-ending loop. I simplify it by making it a moral question. 

In the end, the Paris Agreement is like a bunch of people getting together, clapping each other on the back, while criticizing others in such a way which implies that principle is not the standard cannon by which one is praised and another criticized. In short, national burdens aren't equal to pollution output. Now, is Trump the one to lead us into a more environmentally conscious future? I am not so sure about that, but concerning the decision to leave the Paris Agreement, I believe it was the right call.