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."
Let me get this straight... It's a non-binding accord (other than we can't leave until 4 Nov 2019). So nothing changes.
Some days I get the sinking feeling Orwell was an optimist.
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.
I am not arguing for or against the climate deal, just pointing out a simple fact of US law.
Citation: US Constitution Article II, Section 2, Clause 2 of the United States Constitution, includes the Treaty Clause, which empowers the president of the United States to propose and chiefly negotiate agreements, which must be confirmed by the Senate, between the United States and other countries, which become treaties between the United ..
-- Will program for bandwidth
Donald Trump is an international laughing stock, and so is the United States of America.
This is what happens when uneducated racists pick our presidents, because the so-called smart people are too fucking stupid to vote.
Withdrawing from the overall UN climate treaty would have the US out immediately. So would subjecting the Paris agreement to Senate ratification and having it fail. A third immediate exit path would be to declare President Obama's signing of the agreement without the advice and consent of Congress an illegal act, conducted without the authority of the United States.
It only took you this long to find something that was mentioned in the speech?
I guess you were to busy making up stories like from Feb 14.
From the TFA:
There's nothing in the fishwrap that actually cites anything from the White House that actually states this. And that's the entire premise for the lengthy diatribe that follows.
The sad truth for the tree-huggers is that the US has absolutely no obligations under the Paris accords in the first place. The Paris climate accords has never been ratified by the US Senate, as all treaties must be, under the Constitution. The former dictator-in-chief deemed it to be sufficient to scribble his worthless signature on it, proclaiming to the law of the land. He knew it would never be ratified by the Senate, so he imagined that all the treaty wasn't a treaty, and his signature was sufficient, and which the sycophantic media then trumped (pun not intended) from coast to coast, as if it was a done deal. But the cold hard truth is that the US has never entered the Paris climate accords, and it makes no logical sense to follow some cockamamie rules to exit an agreement that was never entered in the first place.
I do wish that President Trump would grow some balls and simply flush the whole thing down the drain, blow off the inevitably howling from the radical Left, and move on to other things. But he seems to want to didle around, to appease the radical left wing, with handwaving and vague promises of renegotating, or some such. Sadly, he hasn't learned that there's simply no way to appease the radical left. They are permanently scarred and afflicted by Trump Derangement Syndrome, for which there's no cure, unfortunately. Trying to appease the left will never succeed. There's nothing in the climate accords that benefits the US. All it does is obligate the US to send billions of dollars to third-world ratholes, every year.
The best thing to do is to simply put the whole thing in the rear-view mirror.
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.
Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
None of the terms are binding. So while we technically we might still have to be part of it until 2020, if we decide to throw it out, we can just start ignoring totally now.
I don't think that word means what you think it means.
So much winning
Paris deal wasn't ratified. For better or worse, it basically is not worth the paper it's printed on given the US Constitution.
However, politicians must provide proper regulation. Otherwise we will not achieve CO2 neutrality by 2045. Unfortunately, Trumpistan will not participate in these efforts for the next 4 years. Also Europeans are also more promise than action. We all have to use our boots and kick politician in the ass (metaphorically).
Don't pollute the Earth: the atmosphere, the oceans and the land. ..
The air is unique and from everyones that we breathe: humans, animals and plants. Same is for the water.
Don't make bigger the ozone holes.
Don't proliferate the chlorates, sulfides, carbides,
Don't cut down the forests.
And overall, there is not another living planet for us: the Earth is the only planet for us.
this is america we can do wat we want
we need to stop relying on renewable wet dreams and take advantage of the coal we have sitting in our own back yard
bring back our jobs trump
make america grate again
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.
I am not arguing for or against the climate deal, just pointing out a simple fact of US law.
Citation: US Constitution Article II, Section 2, Clause 2 of the United States Constitution, includes the Treaty Clause, which empowers the president of the United States to propose and chiefly negotiate agreements, which must be confirmed by the Senate, between the United States and other countries, which become treaties between the United ..
That's not even remotely true.
The Paris deal isn't a treaty, it's an "accord". Because that's different, it can be agreed to by the president without any buy-in from the legislature. It comes under the "umbrella" treaty agreement the US has with the UN which *was* ratified by congress.
And if you disagree, note that Obama actually taught constitutional law at college, and no one disagreed with the action at the time - no one in the legislature brought the issue or the supreme court, no group in the US sued the government and pushed it to the supreme court.
I don't know where people get these ideas from. A plain-text reading of the constitution does not always convey the complexity and intricacies of the underlying law.
Whether we stay or leave (or return) will be a 2020 presidential election topic.
I'm not sure. Obama never had the senate confirm the treaty because it was unclear if it would have passed (50/50 chance I read somewhere). So it was basically an agreement between the Obama administration and the other partners. They even debated a lot about this to make the wording of the deal so that this approach was possible. Furthermore, no provisions are actually binding, so even if the US is still 'in' it for 4 years, that doesn't mean they will do anything. Also the US could legally have stayed in and just revised its pledge, to nothing.
If the resistance has anything to do with it, it'll be his only term.
In the mean time, if he's stuck with it he'l obviously just sabotage it, as he is doing with the ACA.
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.
Not *entirely*... it also requires developed nations to give $100 billion annually to the less-developed nations.
Really. The agreement has no enforceable requirements, the goals are paltry and minor, and yet sends $100 billion to undeveloped nations to waste on corruption.
(And the US is already one of the least polluting nations, our measures of pollution have been going down over time, and this trend will continue with the introduction of electric vehicles and drone delivery.)
I honestly have no idea why anyone was ever in favor of the Paris agreement.
It's a complete and total waste.
In a world... that needed a giant middle finger displayed to it. A world... that had one man, willing to give that finger so desperately needed.
It was a world... of Trump.
QUEUE INCEPTION BASE HORN
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
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.
Twitter supports and protects racists - by smearing their critics with the "Hate Speech" label.
Welcome to the Max Weber's world of legal materialization, United States of America. The next President rejoins the accord, the next after that abandons the accord and so on, while the NGOs, local governments and citizens do the actual changes without the explicit support from the federal government or the law. Meanwhile, all kinds of contradicting pieces of legislative cruft and contradicting orders and guidance to the executive branch can't be cleaned up fast enough. A sort of continental ice shelf of the the ice age with layers upon layers of legislation is formed. This creates an unpredictable and expensive environment for the most important citizens of the federation: the corporations!
Fine and dandy to believe the Sierra Club and some highly-politicized "scientists", but AGW (unlike the natural change in climate over geologic timespans) largely DNE.
Twitter supports and protects racists - by smearing their critics with the "Hate Speech" label.
I honestly have no idea why anyone was ever in favor of the Paris agreement.
That is solely favored by people that have a irrational hatred for carbon-based compounds as fuel. In addition, the people pushing Paris are largely shielded from the costs - they can fly highly polluting jets, power large houses, and drive smog-generating cars without worry.
Twitter supports and protects racists - by smearing their critics with the "Hate Speech" label.
Environmentalism as a cult makes Scientology look good.
Twitter supports and protects racists - by smearing their critics with the "Hate Speech" label.
The House of Representatives voted against it before Obama even negotiated it. I'm surprised Trump didn't mention that in his speech. And the Senate never ratified it. Under the US constitution, treaties must be ratified by the Senate. Even if you don't think Senate confimation is necessary because you don't think it was technically a treaty, the US is still not a party to it because a president can only enter the country into an agreement because it is normally assumed that the leader of a country represents the country. But when the legislature explicitly denies that the president represents the country for the purposes of a particular negotiation, then no other country can reasonably assume that the people of the US are bound by Obama's agreement.
By the way. Slashdot rules are that you are not supposed to mod down a post just because you are convinced it is wrong. If a significant number of people believe it is correct then you are supposed to respond with arguments and evidence, not just bury the opposing view. If it is something like a typographical error or something then you can mod it down, but not if it is a considered conclusion, even a wrong one.
Slashdot administrators have told me that moderators that modded down my good faith posts, have had, and will have their moderator privileges permanently revoked. Even though the Slashdot administrators may disagree strongly with my conclusions, burying opposing views is considered bad faith moderation.
Leaving the Global Climate is also leaving future jobs behind.
The pollution and Global Climate change is reinventing our future jobs and economy.
Hence, more careers available.
Instead of getting lung cancer from digging for coal.
Work in a manufacturing building solar and wind turbines.
First off, this is a TREATY and requires the approval of the Senate for it to be binding. Boy Obama NEVER sent it to the Senate and therefore it is NOT binding. "HIS" word and signature is worth the toilet papier that it was wiped on.
The reason people are claiming this nonsense is that they want to be PC about it and all nice. But if the Senate ever did vote on it the issue would be ended immediately. But since politicians don't care about what the American people want, only a high-paying job, they won't vote on it out of fear of losing their gravy boats when voting against it.
Why is it that a US Politician doing something which favors the US is giving a "middle finger" to the world? India stating in that same accord that they would not take any action until they received $2 Trillion dollars was not a middle finger to the world? The majority of countries not having to take any action yet receiving US Tax payer dollars in "aid" is not a middle finger to the rest of the world?
Sorry, but this was an anti-US agreement. Obama did a whole lot of those, and had no problem telling the world how he felt about the US, so that should not be a surprise. Read the damn thing! Pulling out is Pro-American. Being willing to negotiate a fair treaty, as the Trump administration said they would attempt to do immediately is not giving a middle finger to anyone. The countries who are refusing to talk to the US Administration are giving the finger to the US.
-The wise argue that there are few absolutes, the fool argues that there are no probabilities.
/Paris/ is an accord of the UNFCCC. The USA can withdraw from the UNFCCC one year after giving its notice.
They talked about this recently on Science Friday, but here's an article with quite a bit of detail:
http://www.heritage.org/enviro...
My God, it's Full of Source!
OUTSIDE_IP=$(dig +short my.ip @outsideip.net)
Then would Aspen, Colorado be their holy city, with Al Gore's various homes being their version of seminaries?
Twitter supports and protects racists - by smearing their critics with the "Hate Speech" label.
US is choosing to leave in 2020. It does not need to follow any rules in the accord.
Yeah, dyslexic presidents tend to overlook these fine points.
In 2020 he will be either in jail or in a dementia home.
Or we'll all be dead.
No, it is all about the UN Green Fund and the pigs at the trough there. Trump suspended payments to this UN boondoggle, which saves the USA about 3 Billion Dollars per year. Apart from that, the technology is changing inexorably. Coal stations are closing, wind and solar are getting cheaper. There is no need to pay the UN green fund pigs billions for nothing. It is hard not to agree with Trump on this.
Every US citizen must be punished and forced to live in poverty to make up for the damage done to the rest of the world.
Every citizen! They are all greedy crybabies who ruined everything good in the world and they must pay.
So how are they forcing it down your throat, dickwad? By looking stern???
You mean that treaty that was never approved by Congress? If you treat it like a treaty and not an "accord" or whatever that is that Obama gave himself the right to sign, then we can legally exit in a year.
More fake news from a fake news site. The truth is, we were never in it. Obongo was in it. It was never sent to the Senate for approval, because Obongo knew it would fail to be ratified. President Trump wants it renegotiated, especially the stipulations that American taxpayers have to pay billions of dollars to India and China. So Trump gives lip service to some non binding '"rules", just to stay in the game. We are at the beginning of this, not the end. BUT Obongo is gone, and the renegotiated agreement cannot just shit all over America, if they want us to go along.
... So we never entered into it in the first place.
Presidential agreements are not binding on future administrations.
https://www.washingtonpost.com...
I've decided to stop wasting my time responding to AC trolls/sockpuppets... so if you want a response from me... login.
The Paris agreement was never ratified by the senate so it has no legal validity under constitutional law
Since when has the US ever cared about honouring treaties? (That is, us honouring them. We get really upset when other people don't honour ours). I've yet to hear of ANY penalty, and it's a voluntary agreement anyway to "try hard to do a good job." Whatever.
Ok, so shit Democrats do on their own can't be overridden, and nothing Republicans do can be acknowledged.
Nice double standard we have here.
Divided we fall, but fuck that it's more important for progressives that their ideas be followed....
Har har, the US will do as it wants and anyone who does not agree can enjoy a nice dose of sanctions, cruise missiles and drone strikes. Covfefe, hombre?
What are they going to do about it?
If the Paris Accord only requires Presidential approval to be enforced, it only requires Presidential disapproval to end immediately.
If Obama can do it all by himself, Trump can undo it all by himself - immediately if desired.
And note that every other country that has a domestic ratification requirement for a treaty has followed that route and gotten the Paris Accord TREATY ratified domestically.
Like the UK.
Like Australia
Like India
Like China
Like Japan
The US doesn't have to leave the Paris Agreement because without Senate ratification the US never agreed to the TREATY.
Look up Treaty on Treaties. You will see why we are now bound by the Paris Accord - no vote needed.
We acted as if, supported some of the ideas and "agreed" that it was a positive thing under Obama. By anyone of those seemingly innocent things; we are bound and require voting to withdraw.
That's the way it is, so stop arguing that we are or are not in it.
And then we all die. THE END
All the progressives who have been in total freak-out mode are either dishonest drama queens, or idiots who do not even know the most-basic facts about the thing they are ranting about, right?
Also of note: most of the pundits on the left who have pretended to be reasonable have been saying Trump should not have withdrawn because he took a PR hit for abandoning a non-binding toothless agreement. More dishonesty. IF the damned thing is so toothless, then there should be no panic over our withdrawl and we should be able to get out as quickly and easily as a traditional Muslim divorce (where the man only must say the arabic version of "I diivorce you" three times)
Nice comment title - too bad it applies to what you wrote.
As for the Paris deal being an accord, every other country that has to ratify treaties treated it as a treaty (which they have to, since it attempts to bind future administrations)
Who cares if Obama taught constitutional law - he was also had more unanimous overturns by the Supreme Court than any other modern president - so even is he knew constitutional law, he sure as hell did not follow it. (And as for why no one brought it to the Supreme Court at that time - look up a little legal item called standing. Nobody has standing to sue over the action until they are constrained by the action - as nothing in the Paris accord would have taken effect, no one had standing to sue.)
Treaty on Treaties. Look it up, we are bound without an official exit.
We are officially in it because we agreed with it's ideals; by either supporting it actively (we did) or even publicly, even if tacitly, agreeing (which we did). (Read: Obama did).
We are bound by the Treaty on Treaties to honor the new accord or *officially* remove ourselves. (Which does require a vote).
That is why we see the date 2020. If Trump could just get out of it prior to then, he would have. He can bad mouth it all day long, but behind the scenes it carries on.
*personally I believe the Paris Accord has about as much teeth as a UN Letter. But, Trump wouldn't have had to "think about it" unless he knew he couldn't withdraw immediately.
It's a NON BINDING agreement, and, if it requires congress/senate approval, they never got one. F U on this so called man made global warming garbage. It's made up, and has been. You flipping morons that believe this garbage, based on 10,20,50 years worth of climate data. HA! Given the age of the earth, it's been COLDER, and WARMER way before man ever came into being. You simpletons that believe this garbage your (un)education departments force feed you every day. Just look up the parallel between global temperatures, and the sunspot cycles, along with the locations of Jupiter & Saturn and you'll find your man made crap. The "modern maximum" in sunspots ended within the last few years, and has been on a DOWN trend, and, if the trend continues, we are headed for global cooling, not global warming. Sunspots, or the lack of, causing CME's to hit our planet, disrupting the geomagnetic bubble around our planet changes weather more than anything man could.
Treaty on Treaties. Look it up, we are bound without an official exit.
We are officially in it because we agreed with it's ideals; by either supporting it actively (we did) or even publicly, even if tacitly, agreeing (which we did). (Read: Obama did).
We are bound by the Treaty on Treaties to honor the new accord or *officially* remove ourselves. (Which does require a vote).
That is why we see the date 2020. If Trump could just get out of it prior to then, he would have. He can bad mouth it all day long, but behind the scenes it carries on.
*personally I believe the Paris Accord has about as much teeth as a UN Letter. But, Trump wouldn't have had to "think about it" unless he knew he couldn't withdraw immediately.
WE did not agree to its ideals. If it's a treaty, it requires Senate ratification before WE agree.
We have most powerful military on the planet. If we don't follow the agreement, what the hell are they going to do about it? Nothing, that's what.
You are incorrect. Also, "we" doesn't mean you personally. In fact, I'll reckon "you" will never be a part of a political decision steering the country.
That aside, the president at the time, was elected and did bind us to that accord.
Did "you" or the "people" get asked last time we signaled an agreemen with an international body?
There's no proof that climate change is caused by man, and a lot of evidence it isn't. The climate change proponents use extremely bad science. And bad math. And badly adhere to scientific method. Meanwhile prominent climatologists to a Nobel laureate, physicist point out the folly and error in the global warming preachers. But it is like arguing religion. The "faithful" aren't swayed by facts, because they place faith in a mechanical engineer that found celebrity. But he's not a climatologist. Consider, the polar bear. Dieing because of global warming. But the population is higher now. Why? We stopped hunting them, and stopped clubbing baby seals for coats. So, no predation, larger food supply, more polar bears. Greenland is melting and the seas will rise! Well, the glacier edges at the coasts are melting. But inland the Greenland ice pack is adding 5cm a year. Antarctica has more icepack even though it calves off icebergs the size of Manhatten that come from sheets of ice overhang the sea. Critical science is needed, not models that are frequently proven wrong, "adjusted" temperatures, and reliance on less than worldwide data, collected in dubious manners, and then cherry picked with the data counter to the arguments, adjusted.
Yeah but the US cumulative emissions per capita to date is still 10x China emissions. Touche! ...and US current emissions per capita are still 3x China. Point!
Where are we going and why are we in a handbasket?
Actually no.
It's pretty easy to understand that countries can't be trusted if the treaties made by one of the temporary wearer of the big hats won't be upheld by the next one, especially when they come as quickly as every 4 years, and in this country never lasts more than 8 under any circumstances.
Whether you like it or not, it's the duty of the POTUS to uphold our treaties and agreements, even if he personally doesn't like them. If he has the power to voluntarily dismiss them, he has to do it by the means allowed for in the agreement. If he doesn't like that, he can bite off his own dick for all that matters, assuming he can find it.
Non-binding accord, never submitted to the Senate for ratification. In place in spite of a Senate resolution following the 95-0 vote against the Kyoto accord saying not to submit one without certain missing features. Only in place by executive action of dubious legality for which no money has ever been appropriated. No money, no law, no agreement.
The story is completely false. The US can leave any time, because the US is not a party to the treaty. The US ever ratified its involvement, and it is therefore not bound by any of its requirements.
...the US is leaving according to the appropriate rules, and formal departure will actually take some time.
So why are so many of you shitting yourselves with anguish over it?
-Styopa
is it bad news or good news for US. What is he impact?
So, in the strictest sense of the world this "accord" is in fact a binding treaty and as such requires senate approval before the president can get our country caught up in it .... so we were never legally a party to this treaty. Just because the president calls it "not a treaty" and writes his name on it doesn't make it so. So .... as such, since we aren't really part of it, we can leave whenever we like ..... but more to the point ... what are these bunch of green hippies going to do about it anyway ;)
or are you saying otherwise? Like that there are little people and big people, and big people (who live over here) are allowed to each pollute more than little people (who live over there), or something along those lines?
Where are we going and why are we in a handbasket?
President does not have the constitutional right to agree, ratification or signin to international treaties like the Paris climate deal.
The right to ratification treaties rests in US Senate.
Pulling out of Paris does NOT mean we have to stop offering small business grants and paying for the NSF, DOE, etc. How can you even equate the two things? I imagine the $3T will be more productive when spent by US citizens (who like clean and safe energies such as solar and wind) than if it were handed to 3rd world dictators and (for some reason) China.
Pulling out of Paris does NOT mean we have to stop offering small business grants and paying for the NSF, DOE, etc. How can you even equate the two things? I imagine the $3T will be more productive when spent by US citizens (who like clean and safe energies such as solar and wind) than if it were handed to 3rd world dictators and (for some reason) China.
Where are you getting that 3TN figure?
Hate to sound skeptical but I suspect you're talking shit, you see.
I do not want your cheap brainburning drugs. They are useless for work. And I am a working man today.
Fine and dandy to believe the Sierra Club and some highly-politicized "scientists", but AGW (unlike the natural change in climate over geologic timespans) largely DNE. But that's science that /. won't accept.
Twitter supports and protects racists - by smearing their critics with the "Hate Speech" label.
The US complied with Kyoto, much to the detriment of its own citizenry (read: the majority not living in the coasts or in environmentalist Colorado).
As for Paris, someone wanted an uninterruptible gravy train from the US to some BFE country, even at the cost of entire US regions. Americans got their choice through representation, and the US exited it, despite the claims from the MSM to the contrary.
Twitter supports and protects racists - by smearing their critics with the "Hate Speech" label.
Politicians and the mainstream media pulling more shit out of their ass whenever it serves them.
Sorry about your "rules", but we aren't "required" to follow any such thing, and what are you going to do if we ignore those rules?
It was never ratified by congress, full stop.
WE did not disagree either. WE don't agree to fund a tax cut to the richest people. WE don't agree to invade Iraq or Syria. WE don't agree to NAFTA. WE don't agree to nuclear warheads or selling to the Saudis. WE agree to let the president and the government decide things.
Don't like it? Run for president and pass a resolution to make it all 100% direct democracy. Or leave and get your own country.
And you're not an engineer of any shape or form.
Obama's signature on an international agreement is worth nothing with ratification by the Senate. Any of us could sign it and it would have the same effect - NONE!
cronies will be enriched.
Just more fake news by NYTimes!!!
Slashdot people STOP reading NYTimes, CNN, MSNBS, Washington post, and the Huffington post.
As in like, why do we do this to ourselves?
From TFA, it reads like this accord is nothing more than a friendship contract. Aren't we all fucking grownups here?
How much money is wasted through PAYING people to make shit like this even happen? Christ.
I tend to rant.
Or what? You'll repeat the same false point yet again?
>Hate to sound skeptical but I suspect you're talking shit, you see.
Why the hell would you hate to be skeptical, are you too stupid to question what you're told? The $3T is a "middle of the road" estimate. They vary between $1T and $5T depending on who did the study. I'm not going to give you any one link or study, I suggest you do some reading and draw your own conclusions. While you are doing so I strongly suggest you leave behind your hatred for sounding skeptical, being skeptical is a necessity in today's world, especially when politics and climate change are involved.
Every time Trump tries to do something 'landmark' it turns out it's just him not understanding the way the world/politics/reality works. I understand he's "the president" but are his aides really not allowed to fucking taze him or something equally subduing when he goes all Orange-Maniac on the country?
He's solidly his own worst enemy, and just won't listen when people try to tell him he's being an ignorant asshat - even his own kids.
Actually no. It's pretty easy to understand that countries can't be trusted if the treaties made by one of the temporary wearer of the big hats won't be upheld by the next one, especially when they come as quickly as every 4 years, and in this country never lasts more than 8 under any circumstances. Whether you like it or not, it's the duty of the POTUS to uphold our treaties and agreements, even if he personally doesn't like them. If he has the power to voluntarily dismiss them, he has to do it by the means allowed for in the agreement. If he doesn't like that, he can bite off his own dick for all that matters, assuming he can find it.
POTUS does not get to pass treaties for the USA; only Congress can do that. POTUS negotiates them but Congress authorizes them. The Paris Accord was never passed by Congress. It was only negotiated by the former POTUS administration. Therefore the USA is not actually a legal party to the Paris Accord and therefore can completely ignore it. That is, after all, how the Constitution defines the Treatise process for the USA.
Truth is like the sun. You can shut it out for a time, but it ain't goin' away. - Elvis Presley (source: imdb.com)