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

[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.

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: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.

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: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).

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: 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

[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: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: 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.