The Paris Agreement, which was agreed upon by approximately two hundreds nations across the globe in December of last year, seeks through well-articulated goals to converse global warming, specifically the effects of the phenomenon. The underlying and main objective is to stop global temperatures from increasing by two degrees Celsius. 

Around the time that the agreement was signed by political leaders, the then-British Premier David Cameron took to twitter to say:

Today?s climate change deal means our children will see we did our duty in securing the future of our planet.

_

President Obama stated: 

No agreement is perfect, including this one. Negotiations that involve nearly two hundred nations are always challenging. Even all the initial targets set in Paris are met, we?ll only be part of the way there when it comes to reducing carbon from the atmosphere. 

Intended Nationally Determined Contributions were submitted by signing member states showing their determination to meet objective of the convention.  In spite of the efforts made and steps taken thus far including the milestones in climate change mitigation a year later in line with the Paris Agreement, there still exist a belief that measures currently in place are insufficient if we are to stop the global temperatures from rising.  In its own right, such a belief is somewhat necessary considering that the wealth of nations and the extremes under which they exist in regards to climate change have the following scenarios resulting:

A lack in wealth for any given nation equates to a lack in resources to meet specific targets of the INDC and all general goals to combat climate change by the nation.

Abundance in wealth for any given nation equates to sufficiency in resources to meet specific targets of their INDC and all general goals to combat climate change by the nation if there exists the inclination and will to combat climate change. 

The generation of wealth in any nation by its industries may contribute more to climate change beyond their INDC thus making change imminent while at the same time there are less direct effects of climate change on the population of that nation such as food insecurity, poverty and hunger.

The generation of wealth in any nation by its industries may contribute less to climate change lower their INDC to the agreement while at the same time there are more direct effects of climate change on the population of that nation such as food insecurity, poverty and hunger considering direct reliance on the natural environment and its resources by the particular nation a common phenomenon in those termed developing countries mainly in Africa and parts of Asia. 

In light of the four outlined scenarios, lack of resources though the will is present, lack of will though resources are present, choosing economic development over climate change mitigation are reasons why while focusing on the INDCs alone, there is room for a fact that the Agreement is not enough a tool to meet the set target in our fight against climate change. 

While there exist this somewhat extreme yet justifiably true a notion that we are not doing enough to combat climate change, there exists yet another extreme which is resilient on the belief that climate change is not real, is a hoax and a conspiracy. This is one extreme that is a threat to the progress of our fight against climate change. It is even more-so serious an extreme when it is harbored by potential global leaders who hold the belief that the phenomenon is a tactic of sorts to draw back economic development. One example of such leaders stands out amongst the rest. 

In the words of the American President-elect Mr Donald Trump in 2012, 

?The concept of global warming was created by and for the Chinese in order to make US manufacturing non-competitive."

A turnaround by this leader was reached recently regarding his being receptive to climate change when during the presidential debates leading to his presidential victory when he said,

"There is still much that needs to be investigated in the field of 'climate change,'" he said. "We must decide on how best to proceed so that we can make lives better, safer and more prosperous."

But clear to the fact, the leader in his implication that the US should not waste "financial resources" on climate change and should instead use them to ensure the world has clean water, eliminate diseases like malaria, increase food production, or develop alternative energy sources clearly reflects on his continued disbelief in climate change. 

One thing that he is yet to learn regarding his ambition ?to ensure the world has clean water, eliminate diseases like malaria, increase food production, or develop alternative energy sources? is that as a result of the same phenomenon called climate change that he is yet to believe in, clean water resources around the globe are dwindling, diseases like malaria become harder and harder to eliminate with climate change, the natural environment upon which the majority food production systems of the world are anchored are ?climate fragile? and in most parts of the world particularly Sub-Sahara Africa and Asia, the serious threats of climate change are already felt and lastly, there would be few alternative energy sources to go by save for the scorching sun. 

Trump is not the only public figure and leader to talk against climate change, Ezra Lavant during the wake of the Paris Agreement dismantled the entire phenomenon of climate change as a divisive instrument for socio-economic inclusion by the United Nations.  In light of all this disbelief, it falls upon the children and youth advocates of our generation, to educate our leaders, initially with an education to distinguish between faith and science. Faith as we know it requires the conception of belief before facts, while science is facts leading to the conception of belief. At the same time, facts need not to be believed as is with the case of faith, they only need to be conceived as they are with their overwhelming evidence. Christianity, Buddhism, Islam, Judaism to name a few are religions. Global Warming, greenhouse effect, changing weather atterns and their extremes all feed into a science called Climate change, a science, not a religion. In that light and towards a world free from climate woes, it falls upon the generations of our time to educate our leaders towards perception, that climate change is not an element of faith but of fact and science, and most importantly perceive that CLIMATE CHANGE IS REAL and is a war that can only be won if the whole world is to fight it together as one.