The US Can't Leave The Paris Climate Deal Until 2020 (nytimes.com)

An anonymous reader quotes the New York Times: Last week, President Trump announced that the United States would withdraw from the Paris climate agreement. But it will take more than one speech to pull out: Under the rules of the deal, which the White House says it will follow, the earliest any country can leave is November 4, 2020. That means the United States will remain a party to the accord for nearly all of Mr. Trump's current term... Nov. 4, 2019 is the earliest date that the United States can submit a written notice to the United Nations that it is withdrawing from the Paris deal -- exactly three years after it came into force. As soon as that happens, the United States can leave the accord in exactly one year... If a new president enters the White House on Jan. 20, 2021, he or she could easily submit a written notice to the United Nations that the United States would like to rejoin the Paris accord. Within 30 days, the United States could re-enter the agreement and submit a new pledge for how the country plans to tackle climate change.
The article also acknowledges "a growing coalition of states, cities and companies that are pledging to do as much as they can to meet the United States' climate goals on their own."

Comments

The entire thing was symbolic anyway

[rsilvergun]

with no enforceable requirements. It's a moot point when we pull out. The point is that we've made the gesture to pull out. It's basically a giant middle finger to the rest of the world.

Re:The entire thing was symbolic anyway

[ScentCone]

Yes, it's a giant finger given to the people who wanted to use climate change concerns as a way to make countries like the US fork over a bunch of cash to other countries with no obligation on their part to spend it on anything in particular, while also leaving "developing" countries like China completely off the hook.

Meanwhile, everything that's already being done to develop new and more efficient, cleaner technologies will continue to happen anyway. The Paris agreement was just Obama genuflecting in an act of political vanity and pandering, and would have had zero impact on the climate while mostly just costing citizens in the US a pile of money for no clear climate-related purpose or meaningful outcome.

Re: International Laughing Stock

[KGIII]

Huh...

1) I believe the science is valid and that AGW is a problem.
C) I dislike Trump, a great deal.
VIII) I have no problems with us withdrawing from the accord, States and businesses are picking up the slack, or so it appears.

So, frankly, I don't much care that you don't like Trump. I don't like him either. Now, put on your big boy pants and go find a way to be nicer to Mother Nature. It'd be far more productive for you to help than it is for you to sit and complain.

Much ado about a non-binding "agreement" treaty

[sethstorm]

If it's so much of a nothingburger where the US pays and developing nations don't, why bother trying to stay in? As for the states and other entities wishing to bankrupt themselves into compliance, that's on them.

It'd be more credible if it was an actual treaty and developing nations actually did more than face-saving gestures.

NYT is Wrong - Withdraw from the UNFCCC

[bill_mcgonigle]

/Paris/ is an accord of the UNFCCC. The USA can withdraw from the UNFCCC one year after giving its notice.

They talked about this recently on Science Friday, but here's an article with quite a bit of detail:

http://www.heritage.org/enviro...

Re:Trouble is, AGW's not real.

[Kohath]

I don't believe you can fit 10,000 people and an elephant in your bedroom no matter what your computer model say .

Re:Woopie

[markdavis]

You are correct that there were some incentives placed. But the real driver was the availability of something that worked and could pay for itself in energy savings. Once the public was offered products that produced acceptable quality light (good color, no strobing, good distribution), in a compatible package, at an affordable price, it was easy to make the switch through just education about the higher price of the bulb paying for itself.

The same thing will happen in other markets.

Another example- recycling. Many (including me) recycled, even when it meant separating things and hauling an inconvenient tub to the road every few weeks. But once the separation technology improved and it could be done centrally, large bins were made available just like regular trash bins. Regular pickup with no silly separating of the items into various sub-bins, and voila! No need for regulations or laws FORCING people to recycle- it just happened naturally. In my neighborhood (which is by no means liberal nor rich) recycling went from perhaps 20% to perhaps 90% in just a few years.