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

[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

[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

[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]

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

[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:hmm

[Austerity Empowers]

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

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.

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: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: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: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.