That is what I am saying, the Kyoto Accords were not binding on the U.S. because the Senate never ratified them. In the same way, the Paris Accords are not binding on the U.S. (to whatever extent they would have been binding anyway).
Ultimately, the only promise that was made on the Paris Accords by the U.S. was that it would abide by them as long as Obama was President. Leaders of other countries need to learn that the President of the U.S. does not have the power to make a promise in an international agreement which is binding on the U.S. beyond his term in office. To do that, it requires the Senate to ratify the agreement. So, Trump did not break a promise made by the U.S..
Well, the U.S. government disagreed with you on that. Even though Bill Clinton never submitted it for ratification, the U.S. Senate voted 98-0 to reject it (while Clinton was still in office).
BTW, Canada withdrew their ratification of the Kyoto Accords.
The thing about the UNFCCC is that the precedent was previously established, with the Kyoto Accords, that these add-ons require Senate ratification. For that matter, considering the history of the Kyoto accord, no one has any excuse for being surprised that a succeeding President withdraws from one of these agreements.
Well, perhaps it would have helped if Obama had not unilaterally made that promise without consulting the legislative branch of government.
It is past time for other countries to realize that if the President does not get the Senate to ratify his promise, he is only committing the U.S. to it until the next election.
So, if it is not a binding commitment why do you care that Trump pulled the U.S. out? It did not mean anything anyway (since none of the signatories were actually bound to do anything).
Make up your mind! Either it is a completely non-binding agreement which was going to make no difference to anyone, or it is terrible that Trump has declared that the U.S. is not going to be bound by it.
No, not semantics. What you are attempting is semantics. By your logic the Kyoto Accords were part of that treaty as well. Yet the Kyoto Accords were explicitly rejected by the U.S. Senate and George W. Bush officially revoked the U.S. signature on them. For that matter, Canada officially ratified them and then revoked that ratification.
The only reason that President Trump has the power to unilaterally exit this agreement is because President Obama unilaterally entered into it. If President Obama had wanted this to be a binding treaty, he should have submitted it to the Senate for ratification.As it is, he entered into an agreement which was not binding on his successors. Admittedly the reason Obama did not submit this treaty to the Senate was because it had insufficient support among the American people for the Senate to actually pass it. It really would have been better for the rest of the world to know that the U.S. was not going to honor this agreement...of course, they were perfectly happy having the U.S. pretend to honor it because that was what they were going to do with it as well, pretend to honor it.
The original poster stated that saying that "8 in 10 are willing to change their standard of living if it would prevent future climate catastrophe" does not mean anything. That in fact 10 out of 10 are not willing to do anything unless forced to do something. mcalli used the fact that in the UK the politicians had forced people to do something as evidence that people were willing to do something without being forced.
I am not pissed, except at someone claiming that people support the government forcing people to do something is evidence that people are willing to change without being forced to change.
They moved that way to attract the votes of the people who are single issue voters on that subject. Most people do not care one way or the other on such issues. Of course the worst part is that recycling rules generally favor businesses which "recycle" over policies which improve the use of materials (that is, it puts money into the pockets of companies which collect recyclables, whether or not there is any use for the products so recycled, or any value to the environment from doing so).
I suspect it is more likely that they voted for people who made the rules, not that they voted for those people to make the rules. I think it unlikely that the politicians stance on this issue impacted their vote one way or the other.
rules brought in on recycling
In other words, people being FORCED to change their behavior. If people were truly WILLING to make changes to their lifestyle, you would not need rules, people would do these things without them.
How would it help to do that when the executives will be perfectly happy to follow the regulations which give them more power and make it hard for startups to compete with them?
The problem is that A) you do not realize that the FCC does not legislate, it regulates and B) you think that the FCC net neutrality rules will be that the ISP cannot interfere with what you can see on the Internet when in fact the regulation will require your ISP to interfere in what you can access on the Internet according to the whims of the bureaucrats at the FCC.
I have noticed that in those places where speech is regulated in order to make sure that it is "free' it is less free than in places where it is not regulated at all.
Oh, I see, since the government used its power to create monopoly ISPs, it needs to have even more power to ensure that the ISPs do not abuse the power which the government gave them. Who is going to make sure that the government does not abuse this power?
Let me see if I have this right: the key to an open and free Internet, and limiting mass surveillance, is empowering the government to thoroughly regulate the Internet?
The Justice Department ANSWERS to the President. They cannot "try him for treason". If the President has committed a crime, it is up to the House of Representatives to bring charges against him (it is called impeachment), which charges would be tried by the Senate.
Having the Justice Department try the President for treason (or any other criminal charge) is like a Vice President in a corporation firing the CEO. The Vice President can take whatever issues he has with the CEO's conduct to the Board of Directors, but he cannot fire him.
Slashdot Mirror
That is what I am saying, the Kyoto Accords were not binding on the U.S. because the Senate never ratified them. In the same way, the Paris Accords are not binding on the U.S. (to whatever extent they would have been binding anyway).
Ultimately, the only promise that was made on the Paris Accords by the U.S. was that it would abide by them as long as Obama was President. Leaders of other countries need to learn that the President of the U.S. does not have the power to make a promise in an international agreement which is binding on the U.S. beyond his term in office. To do that, it requires the Senate to ratify the agreement. So, Trump did not break a promise made by the U.S..
You may be correct, but my point stands that the U.S. government never considered the Kyoto Accords binding.
Well, the U.S. government disagreed with you on that. Even though Bill Clinton never submitted it for ratification, the U.S. Senate voted 98-0 to reject it (while Clinton was still in office).
BTW, Canada withdrew their ratification of the Kyoto Accords.
The thing about the UNFCCC is that the precedent was previously established, with the Kyoto Accords, that these add-ons require Senate ratification. For that matter, considering the history of the Kyoto accord, no one has any excuse for being surprised that a succeeding President withdraws from one of these agreements.
Well, perhaps it would have helped if Obama had not unilaterally made that promise without consulting the legislative branch of government.
It is past time for other countries to realize that if the President does not get the Senate to ratify his promise, he is only committing the U.S. to it until the next election.
So, if it is not a binding commitment why do you care that Trump pulled the U.S. out? It did not mean anything anyway (since none of the signatories were actually bound to do anything).
Make up your mind! Either it is a completely non-binding agreement which was going to make no difference to anyone, or it is terrible that Trump has declared that the U.S. is not going to be bound by it.
No, not semantics. What you are attempting is semantics. By your logic the Kyoto Accords were part of that treaty as well. Yet the Kyoto Accords were explicitly rejected by the U.S. Senate and George W. Bush officially revoked the U.S. signature on them. For that matter, Canada officially ratified them and then revoked that ratification.
Well, this was not a treaty.
The only reason that President Trump has the power to unilaterally exit this agreement is because President Obama unilaterally entered into it. If President Obama had wanted this to be a binding treaty, he should have submitted it to the Senate for ratification.As it is, he entered into an agreement which was not binding on his successors. Admittedly the reason Obama did not submit this treaty to the Senate was because it had insufficient support among the American people for the Senate to actually pass it. It really would have been better for the rest of the world to know that the U.S. was not going to honor this agreement...of course, they were perfectly happy having the U.S. pretend to honor it because that was what they were going to do with it as well, pretend to honor it.
The original poster stated that saying that "8 in 10 are willing to change their standard of living if it would prevent future climate catastrophe" does not mean anything. That in fact 10 out of 10 are not willing to do anything unless forced to do something. mcalli used the fact that in the UK the politicians had forced people to do something as evidence that people were willing to do something without being forced.
I am not pissed, except at someone claiming that people support the government forcing people to do something is evidence that people are willing to change without being forced to change.
They moved that way to attract the votes of the people who are single issue voters on that subject. Most people do not care one way or the other on such issues. Of course the worst part is that recycling rules generally favor businesses which "recycle" over policies which improve the use of materials (that is, it puts money into the pockets of companies which collect recyclables, whether or not there is any use for the products so recycled, or any value to the environment from doing so).
I suspect it is more likely that they voted for people who made the rules, not that they voted for those people to make the rules. I think it unlikely that the politicians stance on this issue impacted their vote one way or the other.
rules brought in on recycling In other words, people being FORCED to change their behavior. If people were truly WILLING to make changes to their lifestyle, you would not need rules, people would do these things without them.
That's true, sometimes government regulations have negative consequences for both the incumbents in the industry AND the consumer.
Obviously, you don't understand how government regulatory bodies work.
I understand what you mean by net neutrality, but I also know that government regulations always end up favoring the incumbents, not the consumer.
No, we should pressure the government to break up the semi monopolies which it created.
How would it help to do that when the executives will be perfectly happy to follow the regulations which give them more power and make it hard for startups to compete with them?
The problem is that A) you do not realize that the FCC does not legislate, it regulates and B) you think that the FCC net neutrality rules will be that the ISP cannot interfere with what you can see on the Internet when in fact the regulation will require your ISP to interfere in what you can access on the Internet according to the whims of the bureaucrats at the FCC.
No, that is what you want them to do, not what they will actually do.
I have noticed that in those places where speech is regulated in order to make sure that it is "free' it is less free than in places where it is not regulated at all.
So, since the ruling class has power, we should give them more power to keep them from acquiring more power.
Got it. Since the government created a problem it needs to be even more powerful to fix the problem which it created.
Oh, I see, since the government used its power to create monopoly ISPs, it needs to have even more power to ensure that the ISPs do not abuse the power which the government gave them. Who is going to make sure that the government does not abuse this power?
I see, so they won't regulate the Internet, just what my ISP is allowed to let me see on the Internet.
Let me see if I have this right: the key to an open and free Internet, and limiting mass surveillance, is empowering the government to thoroughly regulate the Internet?
The Justice Department ANSWERS to the President. They cannot "try him for treason". If the President has committed a crime, it is up to the House of Representatives to bring charges against him (it is called impeachment), which charges would be tried by the Senate.
Having the Justice Department try the President for treason (or any other criminal charge) is like a Vice President in a corporation firing the CEO. The Vice President can take whatever issues he has with the CEO's conduct to the Board of Directors, but he cannot fire him.