Slashdot Mirror
America is Falling Behind On Its Paris Climate Pledge (technologyreview.com)
An anonymous reader shares a report: The US remains well behind pace to meet its commitments to cut greenhouse-gas emissions under the landmark Paris climate agreement. Under current policies, the nation will reduce climate pollution between 12 and 20 percent from 2005 levels by 2025, according to a Rhodium Group analysis published today. That's well below the 26 to 28 percent target agreed to under the Paris accords. The report estimates that total emissions between 2020 and 2030 could be 196 million metric tons lower than Rhodium projected last year. That's due to an increase in the number of planned coal plant closures, as well as the falling costs of natural gas, renewables, and electric vehicles. Slower economic growth forecasts were also a factor.
"In accordance with Article 28 of the Paris Agreement, the earliest possible effective withdrawal date by the United States cannot be before November 4, 2020"
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
Where are we going and why are we in a handbasket?
This was never ratified by the Senate, President Obama's signature was conditional on ratification. The US has no obligations under the Paris agreement and never did.
The law in the United States is that the President may agree to treaties only with the consent of the Senate.
Nice logic! Take your ignorant stupidity elsewhere.
The President of the United States -- whether they are black, white, or mellow yellow colored -- cannot ratify treaties without the approval of Congress. Then-President Obama tried to do an end-run around the US Congress and, because of it, a major part of his legacy was easily undone. It is the same reason that, for his legacy, the best thing that he did with the ACA was going through Congress to get it implemented.
https://harvardlawreview.org/2014/01/limits-on-the-treaty-power/
And, as such, please stop commenting on political discussions because you clearly have no educated place in them.
The vast majority of countries are missing their Paris agreement targets.
And globally, the increase in energy production by renewables has pretty much been canceled out by the reduction in nuclear power, meaning the percentage of energy produced by fossil fuels has remained about the same. So if you want someone to blame, blame the anti-nuclear activists.
The US never entered into any binding agreement. A former President made a personal promise. He had no authority to enter the US into such an agreement. The US is not a party to any such agreement.
We never had any commitments to this agreement. Obama made the agreement on his own accord and not with the backing of congress. This pretty much makes it worthless.
What we are seeing is people trying to guilt us back into the agreement so the money can keep flowing. This was nothing more than a thinly veiled attempt to transfer wealth to 3rd world nations.
I read at +2. If your post doesn't reach that level I will not see or respond to it.
Since it is a voluntary pledge made by your president as representative for the USA, you are still part of it, no congress approval needed...
As it is voluntary, you can still ignore it, but the treaty was signed anyway!
And as the current president only announced that they would exist it, but only in 2020, that pledge is still in effect (but again, you can ignore it without any problem other than destroying the planet where you and your family and friends live!!)
Higuita
The vast majority of countries are missing their Paris agreement targets.
Interesting article. They left out the US. Check out this article from Scientific American:
https://www.scientificamerican...
Especially this:
"Those increases stood in contrast to the United States, which posted the largest year-over-year decline in carbon emissions of any advanced economy. The decline was all the more notable given President Trump’s outspoken opposition to global attempts to curb greenhouse gas emissions and his plans to withdraw from the Paris deal."
Since it is a voluntary pledge made by your president as representative for the USA, you are still part of it, no congress approval needed...
As it is voluntary, you can still ignore it, but the treaty was signed anyway!
And as the current president only announced that they would exist it, but only in 2020, that pledge is still in effect (but again, you can ignore it without any problem other than destroying the planet where you and your family and friends live!!)
No SENATE [sic] approval needed?
WRONG
It's not a treaty if it's not ratified by the Senate.
The EU parliament RATIFIED the Paris Agreement.
The UK Parliament RATIFIED the Paris Agreement
The Japanese Diet RATIFIED the Paris Agreement.
Every other nation that has a domestic-legislature ratification requirement for a TREATY actually RATIFIED the Paris Agreement.
If domestic ratification isn't needed, why did every other nation with such a requirement that signed the agreement go through the trouble to ratify the Paris Agreement?
Barack Obama never submitted the Paris Agreement the the US Senate for a Constitutionally-REQUIRED ratification.
Ergo, the US is not bound by it own laws to follow the Paris Agreement.
Unless you want Trump's policy decisions that are outside of US law to be binding on his successors, you can't argue Obama's mere agreements outside of US law are binding.
The law in the United States is that the President may agree to treaties only with the consent of the Senate.
That's irrelevant in this case, because the Paris Agreement was specifically structured with the constitutional situation in the US in mind, so that Obama would not need ratification by the Senate.
To understand this, we first have to take a step back and look at how treaties are handled by the United States. The US actually enters into three different kinds of treaties, only one of which uses the constitutional process. No, this doesn't make the other two kinds unconstitutional.
The first kind is what you've described, per Article II. The US rarely uses this kind, because the Senate is a pain in the ass to work with.
The second kind is what are called "congressional-executive" treaties. These are treaties which the president (the executive part of the name) signs, but which don't directly obligate the US to do anything. They only represent an agreement by the president to seek legislation (the congressional part of the name) to enact the terms of the treaty. This enactment is performed via the same process that any federal law is made: majority vote of both houses plus the signature of the president.
The third kind is what are called "sole-executive" treaties. These are treaties signed by the president with no involvement of either legislative house. They are constitutional because they only obligate the president, not the country, and are written so that they cover only things that the president already has the authority to do. One very common example is a "Status Of Forces Agreement". These describe the terms under which US military forces in US bases on foreign soil will operate. Because the president is commander in chief of the armed forces, he can and does simply order the military to comply with the terms of the treaty.
The Paris Accord was a sole-executive treaty. When Obama signed it, he really only promised to do three things:
1. Meet every five years to make new, more aggressive goals on climate change reduction.
2. Meet every five years and publish how we're doing on our climate change reduction goals.
3. Track how we're doing on climate change reduction.
That's it. The president can easily order the relevant departments of the executive branch to do these things.
So, Obama could sign the treaty without Senate involvement. Then he needed to ask Americans to meet the specified goals, whatever that involved, but he could really only ask. Likewise, Trump could back out of the treaty without Senate involvement. That just means that the US isn't going to show up to the goal-setting and goal accomplishment review meetings. Nothing more.
Note to ACs: I usually delete AC replies without reading them. If you want to talk to me, log in.
You can't obligate the U.S. to a treaty by Executive Order.
FYI, here's how those work:
The President is head (chief executive officer, if you will) of the Executive Branch. Pretty much just like the CEO of a corporation.
He can use Executive Orders to tell his employees (people in the Executive Branch) what to do. That's all.
Executive Orders do not, and cannot by law, obligate anybody but Federal employees to do anything.