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.

Comments

Paris Climate Agreement

[Anonymous Coward]

You mean the same 'Paris Climate Agreement' that we ARE NOT A PART OF??

The OP seems to have forgotten that part.

Re:Paris Climate Agreement

[higuita]

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!!)

Re:Paris Climate Agreement

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

We withdrew from the Paris agreement

[XXongo]

I don't understand the article.

The U.S. has no commitments to the Paris agreements; we withdrew from them in 2017.

Re:We withdrew from the Paris agreement

[presidenteloco]

"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/...

Re:We withdrew from the Paris agreement

[borcharc]

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.

Re:We withdrew from the Paris agreement

[Chris Mattern]

The US government didn't agree to it. Obama agreed to it. Without any backing from Congress. And now Obama's gone.

Re:We withdrew from the Paris agreement

[Wrath0fb0b]

President of the United States Obama agreed to it, and by the laws of the United States, the United States agreed to it.

The law in the United States is that the President may agree to treaties only with the consent of the Senate.

[The President] shall have Power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, to make Treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur;

Re:We withdrew from the Paris agreement

[HornWumpus]

Only complied with the 'laws of the United States' because it _wasn't_ a binding treaty.

So either it's not binding or it's moot. Pick one.

Re:We withdrew from the Paris agreement

[Anonymous Coward]

Take your racism elsewhere.

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/

Article II, Section 2 of the Constitution gives the President the power “to make Treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur.”

And, as such, please stop commenting on political discussions because you clearly have no educated place in them.

Re:We withdrew from the Paris agreement

[sexconker]

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.

Re:We withdrew from the Paris agreement

[ole_timer]

the senate never ratified the treaty - we have absolutely no commitments...zer0 nada nil

Re:We withdrew from the Paris agreement

[PolygamousRanchKid]

And now Obama's gone.

Obama's not gone. He's in the TV business now.

Maybe he can make a show about the Paris Accord . . . ?

It sure worked out well for Al Gore . . .

Re:We withdrew from the Paris agreement

[jwhyche]

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.

Re:We withdrew from the Paris agreement

[quantaman]

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.

You really expect a developing economy, responsibly for almost none of the accumulated CO2 in the atmosphere and very little of the new CO2, to be held to the same standard as rich developed economies who got rich by doing exactly the thing we want those developing nations to avoid?

Of course any climate deal is going to involve wealth transfers to developing countries.

Re:We withdrew from the Paris agreement

[jwhyche]

China is a developing country and it as of 2018 puts out more CO2 than the US does as a total. India is also a developing country and it is second on the chart, expecting to pass the US soon. So, yes developing countries are putting CO2 into the are at a ever increasing rate. Don't hand me that tired line "developing countries are not responsible."

The Pars agreement was nothing more than a attempt to grab money from developed countries, while forcing them to hobble their economies at the same time. That money would be paid to developing countries while at the same time mostly absolving them from current CO2 emission and future emissions.

Nothing wrong with transferring wealth to developing countries as long as it is done in fair nature to both parties.

Re:We withdrew from the Paris agreement

[jwhyche]

u? Are you really that retarded?

If you can't have a discussion with out having to use personal insults then you have no discussion to bring to the table. You are not here to debate you are here to argue. Change your tone and I'll answer your question. Till then you are not worth my time.

Re:We withdrew from the Paris agreement

[jwhyche]

China is NOT a developing nation anymore than America was in 1950

Since you put it that way, what you have said it truth. I accept your reclassification of China.

You will not find me arguing with you about coal. I'm in total agreement. Coal has to stop, it's a filthy fuel. I'm not debating about needed change. Change is needed. What I'm mostly debating is sudden change will end in nothing but disaster.

Using coal as an example. It needs to go, has to go. But we can't just shut them all down over night. We have to gradually phase them out as we bring newer and better systems online. In some cases we will have to build new coal plants because that is the best option.

Re:We withdrew from the Paris agreement

[slack_justyb]

The President did get consent from Senate to the agreement. In 1992. The Senate consented to membership with the UNFCCC on June 4th, 1992. In their consent they gave the President, who was then Bush #1, the ability to agree to whatever, so long as it was within the framework of the UNFCCC.

Fast forward a lot, the Paris Agreement is drafted within the UNFCCC framework. Which, oh looky there, the Senate already gave the President broad authority to agree to whatever under that framework. Huh, funny how giving away power so broadly usually isn't good for the Senate. Gee, maybe the Senate ought to rethink the last 40 years of slowly giving the President the ability to do everything without their say.

The Senate got bamboozled, they need to man up and perhaps while they are at it, strip some of the power they've given the President over the last four decades. They can start with national security tariffs, the WTO memberships and judgeship, NATO bylaw changes, and UN special diplomatic mission assignments for starters. The Senate bemoans pretty much everything the President does when it doesn't serve the majority's interest. Well how about not letting the President have that power? Ya think?!

I'm more pissed at crybaby nation that is the Senate than anything else within the US government. I mean seriously, you're the upper house, grow some damn balls people!

Re:We withdrew from the Paris agreement

[mysidia]

In their consent they gave the President, who was then Bush #1, the ability to agree to whatever, so long as it was within the framework of the UNFCCC.

The Senate's action did not give Bush and successors any ability to bind the US to whatever agreement came from UNFCCC as a treaty --- another act by the Senate would be needed to confirm the actual text of the agreement. The constitution requires the senate confirm the exact treaty being agreed to: there is no procedure by which the senate can provide a "vague" confirmation that automatically approves whatever document the president comes up with.

Re:We withdrew from the Paris agreement

[jwhyche]

Please stop posting now. There are smarter people than you reading this. Your contributions are only serving to lower the over all IQ of the tread and distract them from the real topic.

Re:We withdrew from the Paris agreement

[jwhyche]

I'm in total agreement again. This is a problem that nobody wants to talk about. People want to phase out old nuclear plants with out addressing what to replace them with. Most often the answer is a coal burning plant because it's cheap to throw one up and walk away.

While we need to cut our reliance of fossil fuels as low as we can I would accept natural gas as a short term solution. It's 10 times cleaner than coal and in many cases easier to get too.

Re:We withdrew from the Paris agreement

[slack_justyb]

You know what? You take that up with your Senator. You tell them that they ought to have an strict reading of the Constitution. Let me know how that goes. Till then, that's the legal basis the Obama admin went into the Paris Agreement with, that position was never challenged in a court of law, and Trump pretty much legitimized that thinking by pulling out of the agreement in the exact manner that the UNFCCC dictates.

So you can feel a certain way about what the Constitution "says", but if everyone is doing things counter to your viewpoint on what is written, it just might be that it's not actually written the way you think it is written. Or at the very least, no one elected cares that it is written that way. But it's mostly the former.

Oh also, if that's the case, the Senate hasn't signed off on any of the tariffs the most recent admin, nor is the travel ban been agreed to by the Senate, but they are all happening none the less and the SCOTUS gave the President the thumbs up on the travel ban. Again, that's just the President unilaterally acting, which (I know this is going to be hard for you to swallow) the Senate has kind of given that power to the President and he doesn't have to check with them.

So just once more to hammer it home. You can say that, and I'm not going to call you wrong, just, no one is doing it (it being govern) the way you are talking about. Have fun on that letter to your Senator.

Re:We withdrew from the Paris agreement

[swillden]

President of the United States Obama agreed to it, and by the laws of the United States, the United States agreed to it.

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.

Re:We withdrew from the Paris agreement

[bongey]

No idiot way to draw out a long explanation that is 100% WRONG. A "treaty" has a special meaning the constitution,which has to be confirmed by the senate. Obama specifically got them to call it the Paris Climate AGREEMENT as a way to work around the constitution. There is NO such thing as a "executive treaty".

Re:We withdrew from the Paris agreement

[boundandgaggedwomen]

Treaties have to be confirmed by the Senate. This was not, so it has no actual basis in US law.

Re:We withdrew from the Paris agreement

[jwhyche]

I guess I search for the original text, as you privided only american anti Paris *news papers*

Are you insane? Vox.com, while not a legitimate news site, is one of the most anti American sites on the web. Scientific American is widely regarded as one of the best magazines in the field, I don't know about brooking.edu so I'm not going to comment. NPR is about as left leaning, and still be kind of fair, as you can get with out falling over. Dfat,gov,au isn't even an American site. It's Australia . An well Reuters.com is well Reuters, one of the best news organizations in the world.

You didn't even look at the links he provided.

Re:We withdrew from the Paris agreement

[jwhyche]

Vox.com is a news site.

The vox.com is no more a legitimate news site than the onion is. At least the onion they don't claim to be any thing more than what they are, a satire site.

The vox is the very definition of bad journalism. They go out of their way to twist the truth to be as inflammatory as possible. They will only show one side of the story, usually not the correct side, and write the other side to be as negative as they possibly can. They are what is called in the field "yellow journalist."

Re:hmm

[Austerity Empowers]

Sometimes when you pull out you get left with 20 years of trouble

This is a surprise?

[rnturn]

Since the current administration's opinion on the matter can be summed up with "fake news!", "climate change? what climate change?", and "we're bringing back coal". And whose appointed head of the EPA has those same attitudes but in all caps?

Re:This is a surprise?

[Solandri]

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.

Re:This is a surprise?

[Anonymous Coward]

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."

Re:You mean, on paying for everyone else?

[Anonymous Coward]

Quick - throw money at the Chinese to make solar panels for other people for... environment!!

The source, Rhodium group, is a very pro-China, pro-China monopoly on alternative energy think tank.

Don't take my word for it. Look at the Rhodium group staff profiles and see what other paid positions they hold. It's not hard to see that this is a poorly veiled arm of the Chinese state propaganda wing.

hardy har har

[Archfeld]

Why should the US give a fsck about the climate in Paris... I predict severe smug storms, with heavy condescension.

Re: Not a surprise

[jwhyche]

The proposed "solutions" to climate change would lead to the deaths of millions of people right now instead of the theoretical deaths of millions of people a century from now.

This is something that "climate warriors" leave out of the conversations. They want change NOW, no mater what the cost. Well the cost would be millions of lives in third world countries. We are completely dependent on mechanized farming to feed the 7B people in this world. Not to mention transportation and storage of food. We cut this back NOW as they want and we will not be able to feed so many people.

An these deaths will occur in the third world because they are most dependent on food shipments from first world countries. So is it will come down to countries feed themselves or feeding them. I can't imagine any country picking to feed another population over its own.

Re:Not a surprise

[tbannist]

You know, that's not the entire truth...

Quite a few of the deals that Trump actually made for himself are also a bad deal for Trump... As evidence by his lifelong history of breaking contracts because he didn't want to honour them.

Re:Not a surprise

[jeff4747]

Why should the US be expected to pay for everything for the rest of the world?

We aren't.

The agreement involved developed nations, including the US, that had generated an enormous amount of wealth via burning fossil fuels.

We'd like developing nations to not go down that same path, because we fucked up the atmosphere when we did it.

In order to get them to not go down the same path we did, we're going to have to help them skip over the "burn shitloads of fossil fuels" stage in their development.

Compromise is built from negotiating parties looking out for their own self interests, then giving in on some items to get others. You want win-win agreements

They get help building non-polluting energy sources, we get Miami and New Orleans continuing to exist. The deal was is win-win. It was just negotiated by that dark-skinned fellow, so it must be awful.

Iran deal are two prime examples

Oh really?

Let's compare negotiations. Iran stopped enriching uranium, sent what they had enriched to Russia, and submitted to inspections by the UN. Yes, the Iranians are allowed some lead time when the UN wants to inspect a new site, but you can't hide an enrichment plant in 20 days. They leave around detectable levels of radioactivity that take far longer than 20 days to clean up. Iran stopped it's nuclear program, and everyone, including the US has produced zero evidence that Iran violating the agreement now.

And now: North Korea. Trump just negotiated a "deal" with North Korea to stop their nuclear program in return for the US no longer conducting military exercises in South Korea.....with zero enforcement mechanisms. We stopped our exercise, and North Korea is upgrading their nuclear research facilities instead of closing them.

If you are looking for terrible negotiators, I suggest you take a gander at the person who went bankrupt running a casino. Twice.

Re:It's morally binding

[WindBourne]

and the treaty is a FUCKING joke.
It will not solve anything since as fast as America drops our emissions, China is adding 2-3x as much. Unless ALL nations are dropping their emissions, this will never work. EVER. At the very least, it requires that nations quit building new coal plants, if not new fossil fuel plants. Yet, China, Germany, Japan, S. Korea, most of Eastern Europe, continue to build new coal plants.
America has stopped with coal and will likely continue to cut our CO2 by cutting coal (way too expensive).

BTW, the report assumes that our EVs continues to grow slowly. Just this year alone, America will leap into #1 position of buying EVs, or just behind China. Why? Tesla model 3.

Re: Not a surprise

[jwhyche]

hy would climate change solutions kill people? There's a fairly clear path forward on fixing climate change now. The first step doesn't even touch oil or other farm chemicals.

There are some well developed plans to fight climate change that don't involve people starving, or economies collapsing. Looking at what you posted and it looks like the start of a good plan.

The problem is these plans take time to put in place. You stated if put in place "aggressively." There in lies the problem. Such radical changes can not take place over night. Infrastructure has to be developed, people educated, and equipment built. We can't not just flip a switch and change the nature of the beast.

People don't think about this and want change Now. They don't think about the consequences of rapid change.

Re:China and India

[higuita]

Both china and india are improving, china is simply the faster grower in renewable energy production... Per capita, the USA is #7, but only because in the top are the middle east petrol producers, where petrol is cheaper than water... but their total emissions are way lower... even russia have lower per capita CO2 emissions and they produce petrol and gas!

All this and the US, the #2 in pollution, is lagging behind...

finally, india is in #4, behind the EU, so the USA really dwarfs everyone except china

Re:It's morally binding

[fish_in_the_c]

Morally. I would agree that God wants us to take care of the planet and His creation and reducing pollution is part of that, the specifics of how to do that are probably something that need a great deal of consideration. I'd be happier if the republicans at least embraced the principle then maybe there would be a better chance of working out specifics. Just because you don't believe climate change is real , doesn't mean burning coal and oil is good for the environment. Reducing smog alone is a good reason to move away from it. Anything in large enough levels is a pollutant and if we can start there maybe there is a place for the middle ground.

Re: It's morally binding

[WindBourne]

and yet, America's CO2 has fallen more than any others over the last 10 years.

Re:hmm

[Jane Q. Public]

We didn't even have to "pull out". We were never in.

Obama unilaterally agreed to this accord (which by definition, being an international agreement, is a "treaty"), but it was never ratified by Congress, which treaties must be in order to obligate the United States.

You can't pull out of something you were never in.

Re: Not a surprise

[jwhyche]

Before I answer with something more thought out first tell me what AGW means. I'm drawing a blank on this one.

Re: Not a surprise

[jwhyche]

Considering that I started the discussion then it's safe to assume that I have plenty of business posting in this discussion. I deal with dozens of 3 letter acronyms daily. I think that I can be forgiven if one doesn't ring a bell right off that bat. Just like I would forgive you for not knowing what HD, CHR, or TT means.

An for the record, I looked it up and figured it out before you decided to chime in with your brand of enlightenment.

Re: Not a surprise

[jwhyche]

what does AGW and cutting back on CO2 have to do with mechanized farming? Absolutely NOTHING

I'm going to respectfully disagree with you on this. I believe it has a great deal to do with the issue, if not the lions share.

Granted the tractor in the field as little to do with the issue. But take it out to all the other causes and effects mechanized farming have. Transportation and storage, theses require energy and most of that energy comes from fossil fuels. Then there is CO2 emissions from livestock. Yes, cow farts. Then there is the clear cutting of carbon sinks, forests and the like.

If you add all these up the CO2 contributions from mechanized farming are staggering.

Obama said fuck you to a lot of people too

[cheekyboy]

like all the cannabis smokers, he didnt legalize it.
He didnt free all people in prison under pointless drug possession charges put there by over zealous career seeking prossecuters who love to ruin peoples lives and get rich.

Re:Incorrect

[Jane Q. Public]

Not incorrect.

Hahahaha. You use Snopes as your "authoritative" source? That's funny.

Look it up, man. Treaties have to be ratified by the Senate. Paris never was. It doesn't get much simpler than that.

Re:hmm

[Jane Q. Public]

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.