In addition, countries are working to reach “the global peak in greenhouse gas emissions” as soon as possible. The agreement has been described as an incentive and engine for the sale of fossil fuels.   Although the agreement has been welcomed by many, including French President Francois Hollande and UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon, criticism has also emerged. James Hansen, a former NASA scientist and climate change expert, expressed anger that most of the agreement is made up of “promises” or goals, not firm commitments.  He called the Paris talks a fraud with “nothing, only promises” and believed that only a generalized tax on CO2 emissions, which is not part of the Paris agreement, would force CO2 emissions down fast enough to avoid the worst effects of global warming.  Although the enhanced transparency framework is universal, the framework, coupled with the global inventory that takes place every five years, aims to 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.  Adaptation issues were at the forefront of the paris agreement. Collective long-term adaptation objectives are included in the agreement and countries must be accountable for their adaptation measures, making adaptation a parallel element of the mitigation agreement.
 Adaptation objectives focus on improving adaptive capacity, resilience and vulnerability limitation.  How each country is on track to meet its obligations under the Paris Agreement can be constantly monitored online (via the Climate Action Tracker and the climate clock). The level of the NDC set by each country will determine the objectives of that country. However, the “contributions” themselves are not binding under international law because of the lack of specificity, normative nature or language necessary to establish binding standards.  In addition, there will be no mechanism to compel a country to set a target in its NDC on a specified date and not for an application if a defined target is not achieved in an NDC.   There will be only one “Name and Shame” system or as “I`m Our Pesztor,” the United States.