Slashdot Mirror
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."
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."
So you are applying your idiot thinking on him, since it was mentioned in his speech he knew. However you in just reading the various sites such as huffington post. .
And yet, according to TFA, The Whitehouse is going to honour that four-year withdrawal clause over a "treaty" that is both legally non-binding and doesn't include any real penalties for failing to meet its conditions in the first place. Sure sounds more like a way to be able to claim that something promised in a campaign has been achieved without actually doing anything meaningful than anything else. Sure enough, the Pro-Trump side of the gallery is pointing to a campaign goal met and the other that it's meaningless because of promises (as yet unmet) by major corporations and numerous US States to meet their Paris obligations anyway.
Same swamp, different day.
UNIX? They're not even circumcised! Savages!
Since the Paris deal was never submitted to the Senate for confirmation, it is not a legally binding treaty, only a verbal agreement by Obama.
The Paris Agreement was adopted as part of the UNFCCC (United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change), which IS a treaty the U.S. adopted in 1992.
Most of the legally binding aspects of the Paris accord, which include stuff like ongoing monitoring of climate change, reports to the international organization, etc. were part of that original treaty.
Where you're sort of right is that just about all the rest of the Paris agreement was set VOLUNTARILY by each country, including specific actions to mitigate emissions, goal levels for each country, etc. While it would be against the spirit of the Paris agreement, there's absolutely nothing in that agreement that prevents the U.S. from unilaterally lowering its own goals (which the U.S. set itself).
There is disagreement on this point, but a number of U.S. officials who actually were involved with the drafting and negotiation of the original Paris agreement have gone on the record to state the U.S. could "backslide" on its goals. They say that specific language was originally considered that would prevent "backsliding," but it was removed from the final version of the agreement. Obviously there would likely be diplomatic backlash if the U.S. lowers its goals, but not likely worse than what it will experience by backing out entirely.
Which makes Trump's claims all the more mystifying. Especially about his claims that maybe the U.S. could "get a better deal." The U.S. DETERMINED the "deal." It could change its own terms. About the only thing required by the deal that the U.S. would be legally obligated to in the future would be ongoing monitoring and reports on emissions, which (as I said) was basically already part of the original Senate-approved treaty in 1992.
The ONLY reason to withdraw completely is to attempt to send a message that climate change isn't real and thus the entire exercise of the agreement is invalid. But all the rhetoric about "getting a better deal" is complete and utter balderdash.
>"Most of these efforts are being funded by profit-seeking capitalists, not "countries".Build a better battery, and the world will beat a path to your door."
Exactly. There are many, many millions of Americans, regardless of political party, who are itching to jump on clean, affordable, efficient products. Look at LED bulbs as a perfect example. We didn't need legislation or mandates or public service messages. We just needed a good product and some time. After several years, they are taking over and flying off the shelves.
Next up, electric cars- who doesn't want a powerful, quiet, efficient, vehicle with a fraction of the moving parts and things to fail? The private solar panel industry is just exploding now. People can't get enough!
And who in the USA doesn't want the country to be energy-independent?
Artificially trying to force things down people's throats is nowhere near as effective as education and motivation followed by real products people can buy.
Not only that, Trumps dipshitted coal policy will at best bring 500 to 700 new jobs in only those mines that produce high quality coal that can be used in coking plants...and only when US steel production is increased significantly. At the same time power producers are ditching coal fired plants for natural gas plants and investors are lining up for renewable energy tech. There is nobody interested in investing in coal. It is yet another example that Trump is utterly clueless and painfully inept! Which morons voted that idiot into office? Please step forward so that we can punch you.