Specific results of increased attention to adjustment financing in Paris include the announcement by the G7 countries of $420 million for climate risk insurance and the launch of a Climate Risk and Early Warning Systems (CREWS) initiative.  In 2016, the Obama administration awarded a $500 million grant to the “Green Climate Fund” as “the first part of a $3 billion commitment made at the Paris climate talks.”    To date, the Green Climate Fund has received more than $10 billion in commitments. The commitments come mainly from developed countries such as France, the United States and Japan, but also from developing countries such as Mexico, Indonesia and Vietnam.  In 1995, the parties to the climate convention adopted texts whose effects were limited and non-binding, but which defined fundamental principles and objectives. The Kyoto Protocol, adopted in 1997 and weakened by the non-ratification of the United States and the withdrawal of Canada, Russia, Japan and Australia, set specific binding targets, including figures for industrialized countries, without quantifying the commitment of developing countries. The Copenhagen conference (COP15) recognized the need to limit the temperature increase to 2oC above pre-industrial levels and called for an increase in the resources of industrialized countries. The Paris Agreement has an “upward” structure unlike most international environmental treaties, which are “top down”, characterized by internationally defined standards and objectives that states must implement.  Unlike its predecessor, the Kyoto Protocol, which sets legal commitment targets, the Paris Agreement, which focuses on consensual training, allows for voluntary and national objectives.  Specific climate targets are therefore politically promoted and not legally binding.
Only the processes governing reporting and revision of these objectives are imposed by international law. This structure is particularly noteworthy for the United States – in the absence of legal mitigation or funding objectives, the agreement is seen as an “executive agreement, not a treaty.” Since the 1992 UNFCCC treaty was approved by the Senate, this new agreement does not require further legislation from Congress for it to enter into force.  Recognizing that many developing countries and small island developing states that have contributed the least to climate change are most likely to suffer the consequences, the Paris Agreement contains a plan for developed countries – and others that are capable of doing so – to continue to provide financial resources to help developing countries reduce and increase their resilience to climate change. The agreement builds on the financial commitments of the 2009 Copenhagen Accord, which aimed to increase public and private climate finance to developing countries to $100 billion per year by 2020. (To put it in perspective, in 2017 alone, global military spending amounted to about $1.7 trillion, more than a third of which came from the United States. The Copenhagen Pact also created the Green Climate Fund to mobilize transformation funding with targeted public dollars. The Paris agreement expected the world to set a higher annual target by 2025 to build on the $100 billion target by 2020 and create mechanisms to achieve this. 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.