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

It's not legally binding

[rossz]

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 ..

Re:It's not legally binding

[Gravis Zero]

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.

Shut up, Trump doesn't know that! ;)

Re:It's not legally binding

[Zocalo]

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.

Re:It's not legally binding

[AthanasiusKircher]

What you said is largely inaccurate, but there's a kernel of truth.

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.

Re:It's not legally binding

[hey!]

The situation is actually much more complex than you seem to think. Sure, as matter of US law, the accord is not technically a "treaty", and therefore the President can give it the old heave ho. But as a matter international law...

Well, let's start there. Calling international law "law" is misleading. It's not law in the sense of state and federal law, where there is an authority with overwhelming power who compels obedience. International law is more like politics, or norms of behavior.

There is no power on Earth that can compel the United States to do anything -- even obey a treaty. In 1977 we signed a treaty with Panama which ceded control over the Panama Canal to them. If we said today, screw it, we're talking it back, who would stop us? Panama? That's just reality, and reality trumps any other theoretical basis for law.

The US is effectively above any sort of international "law". But being above the law is not the same as being beyond the reach of consequences. And the consequence of breaking an international agreement -- "treaty" or not -- is that other countries begin to expect bad faith from you. That's why US diplomats always negotiate a ratification clause or a withdrawal clause into any agreement we enter into, to avoid the possibility of conflict between international expectations and US law. If the agreement has a ratification clause we think of it as a treaty, but in fact from an international standpoint that makes exactly 0 difference.

Failure to abide by the withdrawal terms of a non-treaty pact may be perfectly legal as a matter of domestic US law, but it violates the norms of international "law". And that would have consequences for us because we ourselves expect other nations to follow those norms. Not even we can get everything we want through force; we don't even want to.

Re:It's not legally binding

[AthanasiusKircher]

The Paris Accord was a 2015 modification to that Treaty. Modification to the treaty or accord requires Senate approval. No such approval was obtained. As such, the USA was never part of the Paris Accord.

Sorry to burst your bubble, but the whole point of the UNFCCC treaty was to create a "framework" (it's in the name) for future climate agreements.

The Paris Agreement was specifically designed to be "voluntary" in many of its requirements to avoid the legal issues that plagued the Kyoto Accord back in the 1990s. The Kyoto Accord *did* place legally binding restrictions on climate actions to be taken by the U.S., and as such, it required Senate confirmation (where it was rejected).

Executive Agreements do not necessarily require reconfirmation of the Senate when they are implementing a treaty already approved by the Senate. Specifically, if they do not modify existing domestic laws, executive agreements generally don't require Senate confirmation. (Note that Executive Agreements are not uncommon -- the U.S. has engaged in over 18,000 of them, some dating back to the early days of the country, compared to only a bit over 1,000 treaties.) As I understand it, the Obama administration intended to enforce its contribution to the agreement through existing federal statutes and regulations (like the Clean Air Act), so no changes to domestic laws would be necessary beyond what was already achieved in the UNFCCC treaty.

Note, of course, that an Executive Agreement is less binding than a treaty, so there's no question that Trump has the authority to unilaterally withdraw from it, though doing so without following the terms of withdrawal in the agreement would be a diplomatic disaster that would undermine U.S. authority in international negotiations.

Re:It's not legally binding

[AthanasiusKircher]

The UNFCCC was used as a basis for the Paris Accord, but it is not the same treaty, nor is the Paris Accord actually part of the UNFCCC.

The Paris Agreement was explicitly adopted as an "annex" to the UNFCCC. See the text of the agreement (from p. 2):

I. Adoption. 1. Decides to adopt the Paris Agreement under the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (hereinafter referred to as "the Agreement") as contained in the annex...

The formal "annex" begins on p. 20 of the link. Let's see what else you have.

The US has never ratified the Paris Accord, in any way, and is not currently a member of it. It cannot 'withdraw' because it was never a part in the first place.

Again, nope. Note further the stipulations from the original UNFCCC treaty for annexes (Section 16):

3. An annex that has been adopted in accordance with paragraph 2 above shall enter into force for all Parties to the Convention six months after the date of the communication by the Depositary to such Parties of the adoption of the annex, except for those Parties that have notified the Depositary, in writing, within that period of their non -acceptance of the annex.

Note further that Article 23 of the Paris Agreement states that Article 16 of the Convention specifically applies to the Paris Agreement. Since the U.S. did NOT notify the Depository of its non-acceptance of the Annex known as the "Paris Agreement" within 6 months, the UNFCCC automatically makes the Paris Agreement binding upon the U.S., according to the terms approved by the Senate when it adopted the treaty in 1992.

So yes, even if the U.S. didn't sign the Paris Agreement, since we didn't "opt out," the U.S. is by default bound to it by the terms of the previous UNFCCC treaty.

Try again.

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:Woopie

[ShanghaiBill]

Let me get this straight... It's a non-binding accord (other than we can't leave until 4 Nov 2019). So nothing changes.

Correct. This is just political mastrubation.

Meanwhile, scientists and engineers are busy working on better solar panels, more efficient wind turbines, biofuels, battery tech, integrated grids, carbon sequestration, etc. Stuff that actually matters.

Nerds will save the world, not politicians.

It's all voluntary

[Chris Mattern]

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.

Not even remotely true

[Okian Warrior]

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.

Re:Not even remotely true

[quenda]

The Paris deal isn't a treaty, it's an "accord".

And I understand that the main reason it was never a treaty was exactly this: The US gov't would never have got it through the coal-industry, sorry, Republican-controlled congress.

Re:Not even remotely true

[Cmdln Daco]

And if you disagree, note that Obama actually taught constitutional law at college,

I had 'Associate Professors' like Obama when I was in College. I assume a lot of us have had that experience.

Re:Not even remotely true

[dhawton]

Since the president doesn't have the authority under the Constitution to create laws, agreeing to the "accord" doesn't have change anything about the United States under the Constitution. Obama taught Constitutional Law, but then signed Executive Orders attempting to create law "because of Congress's inaction". Interesting, where under the Constitution does the executive branch have authority to create law? Exactly.

Re: Woopie

[KGIII]

I suppose we could do nothing different, but I'm not sure how that helps.

Re:Nerds provide the tools

[Moheeheeko]

It doesn't matter what Trump is going to do. The companies and scientists in the US that would be doing the work under the deal have unanimously said they are still going to do the work. The only difference here is that the US wont be contributing money to 3rd world countries so they can step up their game, which honestly inst that big of a deal because none of them pollute even near as close as the US, China, and India (the latter two aren't even going to start their work until after 2020 anyway).

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.

Re:Much ado about a non-binding "agreement" treaty

[AthanasiusKircher]

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

Many have committed to more than "face-saving gestures."

The whole point of Paris was to avoid the diplomatic debacle of Kyoto. Trying to negotiate all sorts of "hard" details in a binding treaty just meant that a lot of countries tried to keep the standards as low as possible, and some countries (e.g., the U.S.) just refused to sign entirely.

Nobody ever thought the Paris agreement was great. But the idea was at least to get as many nations as possible "at the negotiating table" to (1) acknowledge that climate change is a problem, (2) discuss the overall global targets needed, and (3) get all nations to agree to do SOMETHING voluntarily toward achieving those goals. As time went on and some progress was made, the thought was that nations with stronger goals would inspire (or shame) others into complying more.

A more strict agreement would simply just lead to a lot of less developed countries refusing to even take part -- which means no ongoing discussion or negotiation, less monitoring and information from them, etc. Was it a perfect agreement? Absolutely not. But it was a diplomatic first attempt to at least get the vast majority of countries in the world TALKING to each other about this stuff, rather than having large parts of the world population just not even taking part in discussions to address the issue.

Re: International Laughing Stock

[religionofpeas]

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.

You don't think someone could do both ?

Re:Not *entirely* symbolic

[MobyDisk]

(And the US is already one of the least polluting nation

I keep hearing that we are one of the worst, or at least the worst per-capita. But maybe that depends on how you define pollution. In regards to the Paris agreement, CO2 is the relevant pollutant. The EPA claims that we are second to China which probably matches the worst per-capita statement, since we have a way lower population than China. Wikipedia has some good charts too.

Re:Not *entirely* symbolic

[BorisAmmerlaan]

(And the US is already one of the least polluting nations

Not according to wikipedia. You're #2 in absolute emissions and #7 per capita. The U.S. produces over 14% of the world's total emissions.

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:Woopie

[ShanghaiBill]

There are countries that will continue to fund those efforts and there are countries that won't.

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.

Re: Nerds provide the tools

[guruevi]

Actually it's a good thing because carbon credits are exactly that, credits you can exchange for carbon fuels. The goal was to have richer nation pay for renewables and the money they save on carbon fuels would go to poor nations so they can better themselves by paying for the cheaper carbon fuels and get themselves (hopefully) out of poverty, just like previous aid to Africa has helped them not be part of the third world anymore.

Re:Not *entirely* symbolic

[AthanasiusKircher]

it also requires developed nations to give $100 billion annually to the less-developed nations.

To be clear, yet again, all country contributions to this are voluntary. Obama committed the U.S. to $3 billion. (Not $3 billion/year -- $3 billion TOTAL, of which $1 billion has already been contributed.) There is no requirement for the U.S. to contribute more than that, unless it voluntarily says it will.

And the US is already one of the least polluting nations,

Sorry, but this is just absolute nonsense. Among developed nations, the U.S. emits more CO2 per capita that any country other than Luxembourg. It's emits roughly double the amount per capita compared to most developed nations. And almost all of 10 or so countries with higher per capita emissions are in the Middle East.

As for absolute emissions (i.e., total, not per capita), the U.S. is consistently 2nd the world, following China.

You are perhaps correct if by "pollution" you mean stuff like particulates, etc. -- yes, the U.S. has managed to cut down on smog and such in recent decades. But the Paris Agreement has mostly to do with carbon emissions, where the U.S. is one of the MOST "polluting nations." Claiming it is one of the "least" is misleading at best in this context.

Re:Woopie

[markdavis]

>"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.

Re: Not *entirely* symbolic

[sonicmerlin]

Our per capita pollution levels are the highest in the world. Don't be an idiot.

Re:Not *entirely* symbolic

[AmiMoJo]

People are in favour of it because the see that countries like China and India are taking it seriously and exceeding their goals by considerable margins.

The US is the only big polluter that doesn't want to clean up.

Re: Nerds provide the tools

[andre.gompel]

Like mandating catalytic exhaust in Los Angeles did not reduce the smog problem, right? Like for India to mandate cars to be electric by 2030 will not modify long term investments and R&D for the whole world?

Re:Trouble is, AGW's not real.

[Kohath]

Don't you have a car? What do you buy to make it go, who sells it to you and which side of the "debate" are they on?

Gasoline makes a car go. What's your point? It's not a philosophy. I don't buy it because I believe in someone's worldview, I buy it because it beats walking.

The groupthink is so strong that you guys can't even make coherent arguments.

Re:Woopie

[kenai_alpenglow]

Unfortunately the politicians do think of them as only purses.

Re:Woopie

[LinuxIsGarbage]

I thought USA introduced "Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007", the "Incandescent ban". While Compact Fluorescent meet the requirements (along with halogen), good manufacturers had given way to cheap Chinese CFL manufacturers, which people bought because they were cheap, then complained when they wouldn't work upside down in enclosed dimmer fixtures. As well concerns over mercury waste gives LED an advantage.

Right now LED still seems to be in the realm of quality manufacturers, though I'm sure cheap manufacturers will flood the market with garbage before too long.

I'm currently satisfied with the performance of my Philips LED screw in bulbs, as I was 15 years ago with my Philips screw in CFLs. First the Philips "flat" LED bulbs, now this lamp which is one of the best 2700K bulbs I've seen, and has run in my enclosed (but not recessed) ceiling fixtures. The other benefit of LED over CFL is they don't yellow shades from UV emissions.

It also doesn't hurt that my electrical utility gives away rebates twice a year for LED lights (but stopped a few years back for CFL).

We also are approaching diminishing returns: Incandescent-CFL-LED: 60W-13W-9W. I am amazed in the commercial world where a 400W Metal Halide can be replaced with a 200W LED with three times the life.

Re:Materialization

[MightyMartian]

I read this interesting article about how conspiracy theorists tend to be narcissists. I'm beginning to suspect it's true.

The Senate never ratified it...

[Karmashock]

... So we never entered into it in the first place.

Presidential agreements are not binding on future administrations.

https://www.washingtonpost.com...

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.

Re: Nerds provide the tools

[HornWumpus]

EFI did 90% of that. It was developed for racing.

Re: Woopie

[JWW]

Amen brother, totally correct. Laws do not create better technology...

Re:Trouble is, AGW's not real.

[Kohath]

This sort of thinking means that anything that you can't understand must be dismissed

Predictions of the distant future are like that. There should be a super high bar for believing them. Because they tend to be wrong.

Anyone who has spent their lives studying something highly complicated is disallowed

No, you go ahead and believe their predictions if you want.

Especially when you don't have the skills to debunk their work.

No need to "debunk" predictions of the future. They either come true or not.

And *especially* when the fate of humanity is at stake.

The only thing less believable than a prediction of the distant future is a dramatic prediction of the distant future.

Re:Woopie

[srmalloy]

Let me get this straight... It's a non-binding accord (other than we can't leave until 4 Nov 2019). So nothing changes.

An argument can be made that, if we can't leave the Paris Agreement for four years, that's binding on the US -- and if it's binding on the US, that means it's a treaty, which has to be ratified by the Senate, which it never was. So the provisions of the Paris Agreement, including the conditions on exit, are of no effect.

So? We still do SBIR, STTR, and research grants.

[scatbomb]

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.

Re:Nerds provide the tools

[swillden]

the US, China, and India (the latter two aren't even going to start their work until after 2020 anyway)

Actually, China has gotten very serious about the issue and is on track to be well ahead of its commitments by 2020. In January China announced that it is investing $360B in domestic low- or no-carbon power generation (wind, solar, hydro and nuclear), to be installed by 2020. China has already cut its consumption of coal sharply, and is on track to keep cutting it further. China is also investing heavily (about $1T over the next few years) in green energy production around the world. Much of that money counts as a donation to third world countries under the terms of the Paris Accord, but China is going to end up owning much of the energy infrastructure in Africa and elsewhere, which means it's going to end up with huge influence and economic power in those regions just as they start to modernize... and start buying lots of Chinese-made goods.

China has recognized that not only is Global Warming a problem to be solved, it's also a tremendous opportunity to create an economic empire and obtain concomitant political influence throughout the emerging markets of the world. While the US dithers and disengages, China is going to step up and establish a new Chinese-led world order to replace the one that America created after WWII.

Re: The US never joined the Paris agreement

[mindbuilder]

According to Wikipedia, the US didn't ratify the 1969 Treaty on Treaties. But even if it had, the President and the Senate cannot alter the Constitution even by a treaty and 2/3 vote. Altering the Constitution requires 3/4 of the states. Even a treaty on treaties duly ratified by the Senate, can't give away the Senate's obligation to ratify treaties. The Paris Agreement is a treaty regardless of whether it is called one or not. The words of the Constitution have a particular meaning. And something doesn't stop being what it is just because you label it something else. For example, if the Constitution requires 3/4 of the States for something, you can't just slap the label "State" onto a bunch of kindergartners and give them a cookie for their signature. A kindergartner is not a state. The Paris Agreement IS a treaty. The American people ratified the Constitution based on the plain meaning of the words. They expected the protection that comes from the Constitution denying the president the power to unilaterally enter the US into binding treaties. But even if the treaties on treaties was binding on the US, no country could reasonably claim that the American people were bound by the President's agreement, not after the House of Representatives voted to nullify the President's status as a representative of the American people.

Re:Obama can't bind Trump without Senate ratificat

[TemporalBeing]

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.