In DICE-2016, the linearity of first-order differential equations is maintained, but the parameters are calibrated to obtain a good adaptation for a more distant future (periods up to 4000 years) 21. Emission reduction costs were revised slightly upwards in DICE-2016. However, this change does not have a significant impact on the results21. Those who cry out for action on climate change are the ones who should be most upset by the deception of the Paris Agreement. The fact that the developed and developing countries of the world are coming together has been hailed as a breakthrough, but it is far from that. Since Mr Trump`s announcement, US envoys have continued to participate – as planned – in UN climate negotiations in order to shore up the details of the deal. Meanwhile, thousands of leaders across the country have stepped in to fill the void created by the lack of federal climate leadership, reflecting the will of the overwhelming majority of Americans who support the Paris Agreement. Among city and state officials, business leaders, universities, and individuals, there has been a wave of participation in initiatives such as America`s Pledge, the U.S. Climate Alliance, We Are Still In, and the American Cities Climate Challenge. Complementary and sometimes intersecting movements aim to deepen and accelerate efforts to combat climate change at local, regional and national levels. Each of these efforts focuses on achieving the goals of the Paris Agreement, despite Trump`s attempts to steer the country in the opposite direction.
The Paris Agreement has a “bottom-up” structure, unlike most international environmental treaties, which are “top-down” and are characterized by internationally defined norms and goals that states must implement.  Unlike its predecessor, the Kyoto Protocol, which sets commitment targets that have the force of res judicata, the Paris Agreement, focused on consensus-building, allows for voluntary and national targets.  Specific climate objectives are therefore more politically encouraged than legally linked. Only the processes governing reporting and verification of these objectives are prescribed by international law. This structure is particularly notable for the United States – in the absence of legal targets for reduction or funding, the agreement is considered an “executive agreement and not a treaty”. Since the 1992 UNFCCC treaty has received Senate approval, this new agreement does not require further laws of Congress for it to enter into force.  To this end, we integrate BHM`s estimates into one of the largest IAM14,15,16, DICE-201316. Thanks to its simplicity, DICE makes it possible to evaluate cost-benefit optimality in a scientifically highly transparent and controlled way.
According to its original version, also used to advise US climate policy,17,18,19, achieving the 2°C target would result in mitigation costs well in excess of the resulting avoided damage.16,20,21 . . .