Slashdot Mirror
Paris Climate Change Agreement Enters Into Force (theguardian.com)
The Paris agreement on climate change enters into force on Friday, marking the first time that governments have agreed legally binding limits to global temperature rises. From a report on The Guardian: The passage of the accord -- the fruit of more than two decades of often tortuous international negotiations on combating climate change -- was hailed by nations and observers around the world. Under the agreement, all governments that have ratified the accord, which includes the US, China, India and the EU, now carry an obligation to hold global warming to no more than 2C above pre-industrial levels. That is what scientists regard as the limit of safety, beyond which climate change is likely to become catastrophic and irreversible. Countries have put forward commitments on curbing carbon emissions under the agreement, but a report on Thursday found those pledges would see temperature rises significantly overshoot the threshold, with 3C of warming. Environmental groups urged governments to do more.
I honestly read that as farce.
This article is incorrect, if I recall correctly, the U.S. Senate needs to approve all treaties before they take effect in the United States.
No force on the USA.
Yes, all treaties need ratification by the senate.
This is just an Obama wish list.
The next president (Trump I hope) can disagree and undo any executive action to go along with it.
Is that there is no hard target. What happens if a country emits twice as much CO2 as they pledged? Nothing.
Therefore it is worse than Kyoto, even if the US didn't ratify it.
that are merkins will just ignore it and fail to ratify it into law and carry on consumning and consumming. Some of them will also claim its Jebuzzes will!
The term "Executive Agreement" covers the Paris agreement. The Executive Agreement is an end-run around the Constitutional requirement for Senate approval for treaties. It's a violation of the Constitution that a compliant Supreme Court agreed to. A perfect example of the erosion of the Constitution over time.
The bad news is that it's the law of the land now because the Court said that it was and the Congress rolled over.
HBI's Law: Frequency of calling others Nazis is directly correlated with the likelihood of the accuser being Communist.
It doesn't matter. The other countries couldn't care less on the internal mechanism for entry into force within the USA. What matters to the rest of the world is that the US ratified it. Now go ahead and sue your president for ratifying the agreement if he wasn't allowed to by your senate. The US is still a part of the agreement.
Actually it's not. As the president does not have the authority to ratify a treaty for our country.
The world is about to discover that man made laws cannot override nature.
...a report on Thursday found those pledges would see temperature rises significantly overshoot the threshold, with 3C of warming. Environmental groups urged governments to do more.
Oh, you mean like climate engineering to take positive steps to reduce the temperature and soak up excess carbon already up there and maybe prevent the damage already on track to happen? No?? That's so evil that we shouldn't even consider it?
How about nuclear energy? That doesn't fart out carbon, and then we can still use, you know, electricity rather than... "Unequivocally no" again? Oh, right, because Chernobyl happened that proves it can't work. I'm sure a similar nuclear disaster now is just as likely and would be much worse than a silly little 3 degree temperature rise.
So the solution is... wishes, everyone riding around on bikes, and moral superiority? Because it looks to me like we're stuck between a rock and a hard place. The rock of fossil fuel interests keeping us from actually doing anything before it's a crisis, and naive environmentalists groups who rule out actual solutions on the grounds that they might not be completely perfect.
It's meaningless without ratification. The US will not make any effort to comply with it and the courts will throw out any attempt to force such an effort until it is ratified. The US is not part of the agreement, because the agreement will not be enforced in any way until it is ratified.
The "hot air" we should worry about are the empty promises, as always.
From TFA ...to which I'd add: while the framework is allegedly 'binding', I can't for the life of me find any consequences for breaking the pledges, so is a "legal framework" meaningful without punishment?
"The carbon emission curbs put forward by countries under Paris are not legally-binding but the framework of the accord, which includes a mechanism for periodically cranking those pledges up, is binding. "
(Recognizing, of course, that a lack of actual enforcement mechanism is precisely why this 'agreement' exists in the first place...it's just nice words with nothing behind it.)
-Styopa
This article is incorrect, if I recall correctly, the U.S. Senate needs to approve all treaties before they take effect in the United States.
Not necessarily true for executive agreements. It's not a legally binding agreement so no ratification by the Senate is apparently required.
The Executive Agreement is an end-run around the Constitutional requirement for Senate approval for treaties. It's a violation of the Constitution that a compliant Supreme Court agreed to.
How do you figure? Executive agreements do not legally bind the US to anything. Basically they are figuratively handshake deals with no consequences for reneging. As long as nothing in the agreement requires an act of Congress or is legally binding to the country the president is under no obligation to consult Congress about the agreement. If Congress has an issue with the agreement they are able to pass legislation forbidding the president from performing to meet the agreement.
There is not ratified treaty, there is nothing beyond a gentlemen's agreement that other people won't behave badly. It is not often you find agreement between such idealogically disparate organizationshttps://www.cato.org/publications/testimony/pitfalls-unilateral-negotiations-paris-climate-change-conference or https://thinkprogress.org/no-the-paris-climate-agreement-isnt-binding-here-s-why-that-doesn-t-matter-62827c72bb04 or even http://www.climatedepot.com/2016/09/01/un-paris-climate-pact-remains-non-binding-meaningless/
as for the laws of nature, suckers stop chanting and start running now. Zika forever. http://www.independent.co.uk/travel/news-and-advice/zika-virus-travel-brazil-male-infertility-sterility-south-america-central-america-caribbean-a6834091.html
How about nuclear energy? That doesn't fart out carbon, and then we can still use, you know, electricity rather than... "Unequivocally no" again?
Actually, environmentalists are very split on this. Some still are anti-nuke, but a large number of enviornmentalists actually do endorse nuclear power because it doesn't emit carbon dioxide. That group notably includes James Hansen, the climate scientist that the deniers most love to hate.
Some links:
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/nuclear-power-must-make-a-comeback-for-climate-s-sake/
http://thehill.com/policy/energy-environment/189068-climate-scientists-to-green-activists-embrace-nuke-power
https://cna.ca/news/prominent-environmentalists-embrace-nuclear/
http://www.ucsusa.org/nuclear-power/nuclear-power-and-global-warming#.WBynCeErLOQ
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2015/dec/03/nuclear-power-paves-the-only-viable-path-forward-on-climate-change
The world needed to be on the ball about this 20 years ago or so. If there is a point of no return, surely we have crossed it by now.
That's the constitution.
Except, there's no penalty for failing to meet the stated goals...
Ken
I'm sorry, I totally believe that man is contributing to climate change but this story is so rosy eyed its downright dumb. We have NOT made progress. It's going to cost trillions and trillions of dollars to get where people want to go and not billions. The idea that major powers will voluntarily give up percentage points of GDP to reach even the low percentages of what scientists THINK will be needed is naive. Politicians that crave power and have made it are not dumb. They know this full well which is why I'm suspicious that these agreements are nothing more than power grabs to screw us all over. If it was a SERIOUS agreement that was ENFORCEABLE I'd think less so, but this one? Please! A carbon tax that effectively got what they wanted would drive up the cost of electricity in places like the UK by 50-75%. That's the sort of numbers that politics will now allow. Attempting to Modify human behavior is not going to solve this problem. Technology is the only way out.
It has no provisions for enforcement
Which is like everybody in a town meeting standing up and saying "I pledge to drive the speed limit"
sounds nice, guarantees nothing.
The thing has no teeth, but it sure feels like progress, and looks Very Official. Something BIG to point at when hysterics demand: WHAT IS BEING DONE ABOUT THIS
Right: It's either a treaty and not ratified or an executive agreement and has no authority.
In any case: it's meaningless toilet paper.
John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
Wish I had points to mod this up.
I read that Wikipedia page, and I think you should be careful with using the term "legally binding" as it seems to have a very specific meaning.
Yes it does have a specific meaning and I'm quite confident lawyers have been pouring carefully over that very fact. This is not some novel legal construct we are talking about here. Executive agreements have been used quite often in the past.
Its not a full treaty since it was not ratified by the US senate, what they tried to do is piggy back it off another treaty that the US had ratified in 1992. As to wether this has the full force as a normal treaty has yet to be seen.
An executive agreement is only good so long as the current President decides to agree to it. It in no way legally binds the US in perpetuity as an actual treaty would. This accord has no real muscle over the US. We are not subject to international laws without an actual treaty ratified by the Senate.
Our constitutional scholar president should stop pretending that his word alone dictates what the country is bound to. He should know better or his diploma should be revoked.
Meh.
Yeah, it's really easy to just tag anybody who disagrees with you as "anti-humanist" and "faux-environmentalist" and "not actually environmentalists."
That really doesn't get anywhere, and certainly doesn't engage discussion or change anybody's mind, but I guess it makes you feel good.
I have a question: why would you think a prostitute would do a better job on taxes than an accountant? Wouldn't it have been simpler to just hire a different accountant?
https://www.nrdc.org/experts/david-doniger/paris-climate-agreement-explained-does-congress-need-sign
TL;DR everything in the paris agreement is already covered by a UN climate change framework that was ratified by the Senate.
Paris Climate Change Agreement
Do they really need everyone else to help handle climate change in Paris. It's just one city.
It must have been something you assimilated. . . .
Mohammed: Did you see Mohammed at the meeting today?
Mohammed: No, but his brother Mohammed showed up.
Mohammed: What did Mohammed talk about?
Mohammed: Mohammed introduced us to Mohammed who is also a mason!
Mohammed: A mason? No shit? How long has he been one?
Mohammed: About five years. He was referred to the local lodge by Mohammed.
Mohammed: Ah, yes, Mohammed. He has a shit ton of connections around town!
Mohammed: Yes, and our brothers, police be upon them, Mohammed and Mohammed from Egypt came, too.
Mohammed: I've been thinking of becoming a clown.
Mohammed: A clown, Mohammed, why?
Mohammed: So I can film myself being gay.
Mohammed: Oh, you.
Mohammed: So anyway, is Mohammed, Mohammed, and Mohammed coming to the next party?
Mohammed: Indeed. Mohammed was so funny last time.
Mohammed: Well it wouldn't be a party without Mohammed.
Mohammed: Yes, my friend. POLICE BE UPON THEM!
Let me first provide a bit of context. I'm no fan of fossil fuels or being dependent on them. Even IF they are not messing up the atmosphere as some are apt to claim, they are not a renewable resource and sooner or later we are going to run out of them , how much later again a point of debate but nobody debates it will happen. To me it make sense to find a way to do something better 'just in case' most the majority of scientist who study climate happen to be correct AND because why be dependent on a limited resource that you might be able to use in other ways if you don't have to.
That being said, all these decisions come with real human costs. One example is that the typical cap and spend strategies many people support may the ability to raise fertilizes prices to a level that will cause mass starvation in impoverished countries ( a lot of fertilizer is from natural gas a process that produces C02).
Other 'green' strategies are bound to fall square on the shoulders of consumers as well, replacing power plants creating new infrastructure , replacing vehicles , all cost money ( and energy ) and resources. The complexity of the problem of breaking global dependence on fossil fuels in a carbon negative way may be one of the greatest challenges to human engineering.
So for those who may be more able then myself:
Where are the conversion kits so that we can convert our exist vehicles to electric ?
Where is the way of fast charging or exchanging batteries so we can repower these vehicles in minutes rather then hours?
Where are the affordable batteries / solar panels/ green power alternative or any other technology that can be paid for by the average builder without raising the prices of homes
out of reach for most people ?
We need these things to be as affordable and functionally equivalent to the technology they replace or we can expect great resistance in widespread adoption.
All of this assumes of coarse it is possible to continue or modern technological lifestyle in a carbon neutral fashion. Does we currently expend more power then we are able to take in from the sun without killing the plants?
âoeTolerance applies only to persons, but never to truth. Intolerance applies only to truth, but never to persons.
Oh good. We have now stopped global warming and all it took was an executive order.
Take that science.
Obama will be removing the "anti-dumping" duties on Chinese solar so normal people can get solar easier? The UN/US/EU will stop w/ their ridiculous shipping restrictions on li-ion batteries so we can have a practical option other than a $15k NiFe battery systems or towers of 260lb saltwater batteries or Lead? Or are we going to continue pretending that having solar systems installed for nearly 10x what they should cost by Solar City is a good thing? Perhaps we just need more carbon credits so people can feel better by throwing more money at the wall while polluting? Perhaps what we really need, is to get everyone to throw out their 410a based air conditioners, since the new ones break down in the atmosphere to be ozone friendly in 3 years instead of 10.
Only the headlines matter when it comes to the ClimateChange scam.
Your internal affairs don't matter. Other countries think you are part of the agreement. That makes you part of the agreement, like it or not.
Let say there was a clause (there isn't) that if the USA didn't reduce CO2 emissions by 50% in 2050 other countries can apply a 50% tax on everything imported from the USA. That clause could be invoked even if you say your president didn't have the authority to ratify the treaty, because international judges will say that the USA is part of the treaty.
Lived in Chicago, Arkansas, New York, and DC and seen more of America up close than Trump. Started off as a Republican, and might have been the Republican Parties' nominee had she not left because of their racist undertones (see Wikipedia). Established mandatory teacher testing in Arkansas, an accountability item that Republicans would be proud of. Failing to get more adult Americans insured, was able to get CHIP passed to insure more American children. More experienced in the real world of getting things done through collaboration. Was Secretary of State and has a solid grasp of foreign policy.
Business owners like Trump generally run dictatorships and aren't up to the grinding job of building a coalition to get things done.
You might have had a point, except it's not even a treaty under the laws of your country.
And Germany has stated that it will "postpone" implementation. So, it is in 'effect' so long as you don't count those countries that are 'postponing' it probably until forever. lol
Anybody that believes that China growing their coal plants by 35-50GW each year, with no real cuts, and only the western world to make huge cuts, will cause CO2 to drop, is a total FOOL.
Sadly, there are many all around.
I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
As someone already pointed out, Executive Agreements are not legally binding - where as Executive Actions are.
To your point, executive action issuance is on a huge rise and does erode the Constitution.
Unfortunately, it's the do-nothing Congress that indirectly encourages their use since the impotent House and Senate are incapable of doing any job other than obstructionism, not limited to any party.
If the POTUS didn't follow the internal mechanisms, then the US *didn't* ratify it, and thus, it's not part of the agreement. That's how things work.
Examine even your most deeply held beliefs. Nobody is always right.
International judges would not say that, because the US didn't ratify it. All countries have to follow their own internal mechanisms to actually, legally join agreements.
Examine even your most deeply held beliefs. Nobody is always right.
Actually it's not. As the president does not have the authority to ratify a treaty for our country.
Nor does the President have the authority to continue a war without Congress declaring a war. However: Vietnam, Iraq, Afgahnistan, Columbia, Syria, Somalia ... looks like a duck, sounds like a duck, walks like a duck.
Our Elected (and appointed) leaders lack the self restraint to ONLY perform their authorized duties and not what they can get away with!
As someone already pointed out, Executive Agreements are not legally binding - where as Executive Actions are.
Q: What is the difference between an Executive Order, an Executive Directive, an Executive Action, and an Executive Agreement?
A: The title at the top of the paper it is written on.
And just how can any system be allowed to exist that does not take action to eliminate a threat to human lives? Global warming is not a matter of opinion. It is a blatantly obvious reality. And yes we can all expect some pain and suffering to take place in order to reverse global warming. I am 72 years old and the ruin and destruction of the environment world wide is disgusting, in my lifetime alone. The most vital step is an absolute lock of birth control. No matter what science does for us the more people was have the worse things will get. A nation with half as many people will have half as much pollution. If you want more, healthy fish in our oceans reduce the amount of fishing by 50%. If you want better air dedicate a lot more land to forestry. That means land use for habitation and agriculture must be reduced which means we can feed and house less people. One child to one female for life without exceptions will lower our population density rather quickly. And to stop over use of our crop lands make it illegal to export any food crops or crops like cotton or tobacco. Less fertilizer, less run off, less pesticides, all from simply banning the concept of exporting any food at all.
All the models include a CO2/Water vapor positive feedback coefficient.
Wrong. This is an emergent property in models, not a built-in assumption. It is also confirmed by real world observations today (e.g., here and here).
Your right, Trump has never gotten various suppliers and contractors together to accomplish anything - all his multi-million dollar renovations and construction projects "just happen" without any intervention or direction from him.
Are you really that stupid, or do you just not even pause when regurgitating democrat party talking points?
Ken
No, she's just collected millions of dollars from foreign governments who want favors while they throw gays off rooftops and sodomize US Ambassadors.
And if the Koch brothers via their surrogate Donald Trump win the presidency, Donald will insure that the USA will not be part of the other 99 countries, which, including China, India, Malaysia have signed on. The 99 other countries know what harm global warming is doing to the crops, the size of Hurricanes, Tornadoes, Oceans, and more. Pretty soon, a lot of Florida will be below sea-level.
Leslie Satenstein Montreal Quebec Canada
With the growth of government means more enrichment of cronies and more poverty for the rest of us.
I don't know, and I don't care
Is your brain sedated?
According to recent research, CO2 increases blood acidity and strongly decreases brain performance at 1000 ppm if not less.
What about atmosphere that does not make drowsy.
http://thinkprogress.org/clima... "the exposure-response between CO2 and cognitive function is approximately linear across the concentrations used” (500 ppm - 1500 ppm)
There is >400 ppm of atmospheric CO2 already.
Yes they would. And the US did ratify it. Only "it" isn't considered a treaty within US laws. Worldwide it's still a treaty/agreement/whatever you call it. And the US is part of it, like it or not.
False. Just because Obama said "yeah sure, we'll sign this" doesn't mean it's considered binding domestically or abroad.
Examine even your most deeply held beliefs. Nobody is always right.
Yes it is exactly how it works. When you send your head of state to sign an agreement, other countries aren't supposed to read all your laws to make sure he has the right to do it. Just like some dictators decided on their own to sign the agreement, if rule of law isn't applied in your country and that makes you sign it, then too bad for you, but you are politically bound by it.
But anyways as multiple people said in this discussion, it is not a treaty but an executive agreement within US law and senate approval isn't required. So the rule of law has been respected.
Other countries absolutely are supposed to figure out if you're following your own rules, because that's the only way they can know whether you're taking it seriously or not. You can be politically bound, but not legally, and international judges wouldn't rule against you.
Rule of law has been respected only if you agree that it's not legally binding. The Senate would need to approve it otherwise.
Examine even your most deeply held beliefs. Nobody is always right.
There is nothing legally binding in the agreement to begin with therefore it doesn't matter if US Senate approval was required or not. It's a goodwill agreement in which all signatories agree that the temperature increase should be kept well under 2 Celsius. How will this be achieve? By reducing CO2 emissions, but countries are free to set their own target and there is no penalty for countries not reaching their goal. Except name and shame, of course.
So again, what should the US Senate have to approve in this agreement?
By the way, even if all countries reach their target, the temperature will increase by about 3.5 Celsius so the agreement is very weak and self-contradicting.