In entering the Paris Climate Accord, a responsibility was imposed on the US to give money to developing countries with the expectation that said countries would use the funds to expedite the process of acquiring more efficient energy. On the surface, this expectation seems like an ambitious effort to help all countries combat the wasting of nonrenewable energy, but when looked at more closely these efforts would cripple the US economy as well as national efforts to combat climate change. According to research provided by Chief Investment Officer, it is estimated that by 2030 the US GDP would fall by 3.4 percent and employment rates to be docked by 1.6 percent because of the loss of jobs in the gas industry, which would not be compensated by the renewable energy industry because of the lack of jobs and resources in the field. Additionally, it would cost $1-2 trillion a year worldwide after 2030, according to the president of the Copenhagen Consensus Center Bjorn Lomborg. Adversely, Lomborg also estimates that by the year 2100 the global temperature would only decline by 0.17 percent which is hardly comparable to the funds used. 
   Not only would the economies of developed countries such as the US suffer, but the economies of developing countries are not likely to improve. In an interview with South African political advisor Leon Louw at the 2011 UN climate summit, Louw explained that “Countries that get more government to government aide have lower economic growth rates. Countries with less aid, have higher growth rates.” 
   In other words, the money spent is not worth the promise of more developed countries and the promise of an improved climate especially because the agreement places very loose expectations for improvement in developing countries (i.e., China has established that it will not begin taking strides to cut carbon emissions until 2030 while it remains the largest carbon emitter in the world, and meanwhile India will not cut emissions until they experience a vague GDP growth while it remains the fourth largest carbon emitter in the world. 
   Instead of losing billions on an ineffective agreement, more faith should be put in the private sector. Instead of the government forcing energy development faster than it can produce it, our heads should be turned toward the enormous strides that private companies have made in producing renewable resources (for more information see Elon Musk’s Tesla), and let the demand for these innovations make way for themselves, leaving the world’s economy improved along with its climate.