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

[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: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: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.

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.