Follow Slashdot blog updates by subscribing to our blog RSS feed

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
×
Earth Government United States

US Begins Formal Withdrawal From Paris Climate Accord (cnn.com) 245

The Trump administration is formally withdrawing the U.S. from the Paris climate accord, "the first step in a year-long process to leave the landmark agreement to reduce emissions of planet-warming gases," reports CNN. President Trump first announced the intent to officially withdraw from the agreement in June 2017. From the report: "Today the United States began the process to withdraw from the Paris Agreement," Secretary of State Mike Pompeo said in a statement. "Per the terms of the Agreement, the United States submitted formal notification of its withdrawal to the United Nations. The withdrawal will take effect one year from delivery of the notification."

Under the framework of the agreement, Monday is the earliest date that the administration can notify the United Nations that the U.S. plans to leave. But the process cannot be completed until exactly one year later on November 4, 2020, which happens to be one day after the 2020 presidential election. Should Trump lose the 2020 election, a new president could rejoin the agreement, but would have to put forth new climate commitments to the UN.

This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

US Begins Formal Withdrawal From Paris Climate Accord

Comments Filter:
  • Wrong. (Score:4, Informative)

    by paralumina01 ( 6276944 ) on Monday November 04, 2019 @09:17PM (#59381662)

    Should Trump lose the 2020 election, a new president could rejoin the agreement, but would have to put forth new climate commitments to the UN.

    Presidents are not inaugurated until January 20th (usually), so they'd have no power to enact any kind of policy.

    • Re:Wrong. (Score:5, Insightful)

      by alvinrod ( 889928 ) on Monday November 04, 2019 @09:22PM (#59381688)
      The thing that's really wrong is that a single person can apparently make this kind of agreement for the entire country. I'm fairly certain we got rid of the king back in the day. Not that there's much teeth in the Paris accord anyway, but it's exactly the type of thing that should go through the legislature. Entirely too much power has crept into the executive branch over the years but neither party will ever do anything to curtail it because they know that sooner or later they'll regain control of the executive branch and can just abuse the power themselves.
      • Re: (Score:2, Interesting)

        by rtb61 ( 674572 )

        You obviously have no idea how the US political system works. The power lies with the US Congress and Senate, they can choose to turn the President into an empty figurehead, should they choose to craft the legislation to do so.

        How can you ignore the irony though, the country that stands to lose the most due to climate change, is the country that is leading the charge to climate change. The USA will have no one to blame but themselves with the pretty much the entire east coast of the USA becomes underwaterfr

        • Re:Wrong. (Score:5, Informative)

          by paralumina01 ( 6276944 ) on Monday November 04, 2019 @09:42PM (#59381744)

          The power lies with the US Congress and Senate

          Legislative power does only. Executive power lies totally within the Office of the President, just like Judicial Power lies totally within the Supreme Court.

          • Re:Wrong. (Score:4, Interesting)

            by Train0987 ( 1059246 ) on Monday November 04, 2019 @10:03PM (#59381806)

            The power to ratify a treaty lies SOLELY with the US Senate and it requires a 2/3 vote..

            • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

              by Jeremy Erwin ( 2054 )

              The power to break a treaty is the executive's own.

              Things will probably change after Trump is booted out-- so many arguments for a powerful presidency have been couched in giving a wise president freedom of action, it'll be nice when politicians can curb the institutional powers of the imperial presidency by framing their arguments thusly:

              "But what if the president is a fucking moron!"

              This, I hope, will be Bill Barr's legacy to the nation,.

              • "The power to break a treaty is the executive's own."

                The Constitution does not say either way and the Supreme Court has never spoken on such a case besides declining to.

              • Re:Wrong. (Score:5, Informative)

                by Jane Q. Public ( 1010737 ) on Tuesday November 05, 2019 @01:06AM (#59382190)
                The Paris Agreement was never ratified by the Senate.

                Therefore it was never an agreement the U.S. was actually party to. Trump doesn't have to "break" it. It never existed, as far as the U.S. is concerned.
              • Re: (Score:2, Interesting)

                The power to break a treaty is the executive's own.

                It's actually not quite that simple.
                Ratified treaties become law, with basically the force of a constitutional amendment.
                The President is in fact bound by them. When a President withdraws from a treaty, they use the provisions in the treaty to withdraw from it.
                Willful breaking of a treaty is quite possibly an impeachable offense.

                • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

                  by kenh ( 9056 )

                  The Paris Accord was not ratified, Obama acted unilaterally, and anything Obama could enact unilaterally, Trump can cancel unilaterally.

                  Like DACA.

            • Re:Wrong. (Score:5, Informative)

              by swillden ( 191260 ) <shawn-ds@willden.org> on Tuesday November 05, 2019 @10:53AM (#59383394) Journal

              The power to ratify a treaty lies SOLELY with the US Senate and it requires a 2/3 vote..

              This is very rarely true.

              Although only one is called out in the Constitution, the US actually uses three different processes for treaties, and the constitutionally-defined one is the least-used. This doesn't mean the other ones are unconstitutional; they just use constitutional processes defined for laws and executive authority, rather than the one defined for treaties.

              Specifically, the two others are:

              Sole executive treaties. These are used in cases where the president doesn't need any congressional participation because the treaty is about things that fall entirely within the president's power. The best example is military Status of Forces Agreements (SOFAs) that the US signs with countries which host its military bases. Because the president is commander-in-chief, he can simply order the military to abide by the terms.

              Congressional-executive treaties. These are used in cases where the president does not have power to enact the treaty terms, but does not want to use the Congressional process because the 2/3 vote requirement is onerous. Instead, the president proposes the terms to Congress in the form of a normal legislative bill, which is then passed by a simple majority of both houses and then signed by the president.

              In the case of the Paris Accord, Obama couldn't commit the country on his own authority, so he needed to use either the constitutional treaty process or the congressional-executive process. Had he done one of those, Trump couldn't leave the Accord without congressional approval (well, maybe he could have, but it might be illegal; SCOTUS has never said).

        • You obviously have no idea how the US political system works.

          The way it works is that people like Donald Trump save things like this for a rainy day.

          The news is full of stories about how your policies are going to ruin the country. Go on TV and tell the French that you don't want their stinkin' climate treaty.

          Everybody cheers: Hurrah! More Bald Eagles and Freedom Fries for us!

        • by AmiMoJo ( 196126 )

          The reason China is making less noise about it is for a few reasons.

          - Encouraging the US to take action just creates more competition in the rapidly growing clean energy market.

          - No point making diplomatic ties any more strained than they already are due to the trade war.

          - As you say, it will hurt the US the most.

        • Ironically Wladimir Putin (out of all people) has changed his mind on climate change and Russia formally joined the Paris accord last month: https://www.climatechangenews.... [climatechangenews.com] The damage Russia is taking from climate change is already having a major economic impact, e.g. in the mining industry, forcing Putin's hand: https://www.bloomberg.com/news... [bloomberg.com]
      • Re:Wrong. (Score:4, Insightful)

        by cirby ( 2599 ) on Monday November 04, 2019 @09:36PM (#59381724)

        Obama agreed to the Paris Climate Accord without the approval of the Senate - which means it wasn't actually a treaty, and since it wasn't a treaty, Trump could just as easily pull out of it. The actual agreement has zero enforcement written into it, so it was never going to accomplish anything.

        Meanwhile, out of all of the countries that "agreed," only one major industrial power is reaching the goals in that agreement. Sure, there are plenty with "plans" to reach the goals of the Agreement, but only one seems to be hitting the actual numbers instead of releasing happy-feely press releases.

        Guess which country that is?

        Now, guess what most of the others are doing. If you guessed "increasing emissions dramatically because they don't have to comply for another decade or so," you'd be right.

        • Re:Wrong. (Score:4, Informative)

          by jrumney ( 197329 ) on Tuesday November 05, 2019 @12:12AM (#59382102)

          There are two countries meeting their goals sufficiently to maintain temperature rise below 1.5 degC by 2100, Morocco and Gambia. The US rates as critically insufficient, with a trend that will give >4 deg C rise by 2100, along with Saudi Arabia, Russia, Turkey and the Ukraine. Trump's actions since he took office are projected to add the equivalent of another California worth of greenhouse gas emissions to the US output by 2030.

      • Re:Wrong. (Score:5, Interesting)

        by Anonymous Coward on Monday November 04, 2019 @09:37PM (#59381732)
        Just as how neither party will curtail the massive bribery scheme that they call "lobbying".

        The US is much more an oligarchy than a democracy, and speaking as a non-American in a much more democratic country, I find it hilarious that the US tries to pretend to be the world's paragon of democracy when the majority of US citizens don't even have a meaningful vote for president.

        I don't understand how the country that hosted the Boston Tea Party can accept a $5,000 fee for a 10 minute ambulance ride, $50,000 for a 2-day hospital stay, and $150,000 in debt to get a liberal arts degree that is required for a minimum wage job.

        The president unilaterally dropping out of a climate agreement to make $$Billions more for his buddies is the least of your problems, your entire government is owned by corporate interests and exists to maximize their profits. This is true of both parties and your election is a reality TV designed to distract you from that truth.

        And how the hell do Americans think it's a good idea to elect judges. Of all things, Justice should not be political.
        • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

          by phantomfive ( 622387 )

          and $150,000 in debt to get a liberal arts degree that is required for a minimum wage job.

          I don't know about the rest, but if you did this, you fucked up.

          • by rioki ( 1328185 )

            Well in many European countries, you can get a useless liberal arts degree for free...

        • speaking as a non-American in a much more democratic country

          The USA is "less democratic" by design. Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what's for supper. A republic is a well armed lamb.

          • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

            speaking as a non-American in a much more democratic country

            The USA is "less democratic" by design. Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what's for supper. A republic is a well armed lamb.

            -- I am armed because I am free. I am free because I am armed.

            And then the wolves ate the lamb while he was sleeping. Their belly was full and they had new weapons.

            It is your community, with the people, the laws, the institutions, that can assure, or not, your freedom. Not your weapons.

            Those who can remove your freedom always have better weapons...

            • And then the wolves ate the lamb while he was sleeping. Their belly was full and they had new weapons.

              No analogy is perfect, and you are just being stupid.

              It is your community, with the people, the laws, the institutions, that can assure, or not, your freedom. Not your weapons.

              Says the person that does not understand how it is that these people maintain the laws and institutions.

              Those who can remove your freedom always have better weapons...

              Have you not read of Afghanistan? Lots of people with "better weapons" went there only to lose to people with lesser weapons.
              Also, you have just made an excellent argument against any kind of government control on weapons.

            • It is your community,

              And that's where our problems all rise from. I wish I had points because you pretty much nailed the number one cause of where we are. Corporations destroyed most of our "community" for expedience. That was the original safety net that has been destroyed since the turn of the last century to keep workers compliant. Always the American exceptionalism and puritanical work ethic that got taken advantage. "Work hard" they say. Pull yourself up by your bootstraps! I did, they say. Yeah, most of them had at least some kind of community behind them even if it was only their parents with a couple of dollars.

          • A "Democracy" and a "Republic" are not mutually exclusive nouns.
            We are a representative democratic republic, as were almost all who came before us.
        • by Miser ( 36591 )

          Exactly. I say this more often than I should - but ban the bribing (sorry, lobbying) of politicians and you'll solve lots of the USA's political problems with minimal effort. The pols will actually have to represent the people for a change.

      • Re:Wrong. (Score:5, Insightful)

        by jrumney ( 197329 ) on Monday November 04, 2019 @11:55PM (#59382062)

        What's a president to do when the do-nothing Republicans controlling the Senate won't let anything past?

        • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

          by blindseer ( 891256 )

          What's a president to do when the do-nothing Republicans controlling the Senate won't let anything past?

          Saying no is as much of the job of our senators as it is to say yes. The US government was by design very inefficient. A monarchy is a very efficient form of government, and those that created this nation were quite wise to do away with such "efficiency".

      • I just wish he did it with Eric and Don Jr.
      • Re:Wrong. (Score:5, Informative)

        by Jane Q. Public ( 1010737 ) on Tuesday November 05, 2019 @01:04AM (#59382188)
        He couldn't and can't. That's the problem.

        What it boils down to is this: by definition, the Paris Agreement is an international treaty.

        Treaties, in the U.S., must be ratified by the Senate. Obama's representative signed the agreement unilaterally, without asking anyone's permission.

        It was Obama who acted like a king.

        Here's the rub: our Senate never ratified it. So it's a non-agreement. So the U.S. was never party to the Paris Agreement.

        Trump can "back out" of any agreement we were never IN, in the first place, any time he wants. It's a meaningless gesture, but he seems determined to make it.
      • by nomadic ( 141991 )

        The legislature explicitly granted the President the powers necessary to fulfill obligations under the Paris agreement. If Congress has a problem with it, they're welcome to withdraw them.

    • by Ksevio ( 865461 )

      Why would that be wrong? The new president could on January 20th of 2021 rejoin the agreement and put forth new climate commitments to the UN.

    • Should Trump lose the 2020 election, a new president could rejoin the agreement, but would have to put forth new climate commitments to the UN.

      Presidents are not inaugurated until January 20th (usually), so they'd have no power to enact any kind of policy.

      According to the NPR segment I heard today, a country can (re)join the Paris Accord at any time, but there's a 30-day waiting/processing period, so the new President can initiate a rejoin in January 2021 after being sworn-in and have it take effect a month later.

  • I thought we never signed the paris agreement. How can we be withdrawing from it now?
    • by Nicholas Schumacher ( 21495 ) on Monday November 04, 2019 @09:22PM (#59381686) Homepage

      Obama signed it, but never submitted it to Congress for ratification. So we signed it, but the government was never actually bound by it.

      • It was always voluntary anyway. It was toothless.

      • Obama signed it, but never submitted it to Congress for ratification. So we signed it, but the government was never actually bound by it.

        There was nothing binding in the agreement in the first place. Had it been ratified there would have been nothing to enforce it.

        Obama signed a check that he knew he would not have to cash. It cost him nothing to sign, but set up a nice little time bomb for Trump to deal with.

        • by Powercntrl ( 458442 ) on Monday November 04, 2019 @09:58PM (#59381788) Homepage

          It cost him nothing to sign, but set up a nice little time bomb for Trump to deal with.

          It was an absolutely harmless thing to leave it be (since as has been mentioned numerous times already, there was no means to force compliance), but Trump couldn't help himself - he just had to own them libs.

          It does prove that Trump is rather lousy at playing the politician game (or he doesn't understand the Paris Climate Accord, either), since do-nothing gestures such as these are typically touted as an show of bipartisanship. It wins over voters from the opposition and costs you nothing.

          • Trump couldn't help himself - he just had to own them libs.

            Not to mention them furriners, too.

          • It does prove that Trump is rather lousy at playing the politician game (or he doesn't understand the Paris Climate Accord, either), since do-nothing gestures such as these are typically touted as an show of bipartisanship. It wins over voters from the opposition and costs you nothing.

            In the normal case, that's true. In Trump's case, nothing is going to win over the opposition, and gestures like this do a lot to fire up his base. It's actually a winning political move for him. Note that I don't think he's really smart enough to understand this. It's just Trump being Trump, and Trump's base likes Trump to be Trump.

      • Obama never presented it to Congress, rather he never had a Congress that had a shot at ratifying it. Yes, that includes his first 2 years when Congress was packed with right wing "Third Way" Democrats from the Clinton camp.
  • Here's a surprising little fact. SCOTUS ordered the EPA to regulate greenhouse gases under the clean air act. Paris isn't needed for the US.

    The rule of law is.

  • by argStyopa ( 232550 ) on Monday November 04, 2019 @10:11PM (#59381830) Journal

    I know it's impolitic to point out that the Emperor has no clothes, but someone has to.
    The environment will improve when consumers and businesses find it in their interest to pursue this, it will not be mandated by intensely political, biased back-slapping and posturing by countries who have (at least as measured by previous promises) very little actual intent of fulfilling their promises.

    • Nope. Restriction of resources is good for capitalism. If you want to raise the price of drinking water, having less of it is a good start.
      • Except in the real world, these sorts of "for the good of everyone" restrictions tend to never apply to the people implementing them and their friends.*

        *except in Norway, and maybe much of Scandinavia. Not sure how or why, but they are a remarkably pragmatic and selfless bunch of people, generally. cf Norway's Government Pension Fund Global (where they dump their oil revenues)

  • Since he's not going to get re-elected next year, it'll be pointless, the next President will just have to sign on to it again.
  • by Alain Williams ( 2972 ) <addw@phcomp.co.uk> on Tuesday November 05, 2019 @03:11AM (#59382374) Homepage

    then the rest of the peoples on the planet should hurt the USA.

    Pollution is a global problem, CO2 and other wastes do not stay within national borders so a country that does not curb its emissions is exporting problems caused by its lack of responsibility. This is selfish. If a country will not listen, then one way of sending a message is to avoid buying goods & services from that country. Not necessarily what you want to do but please suggest other ways ?

    Some will say that other countries pollute as well. True but you don't let your lawn grow long just because your neighbour has not cut theirs.

    The problem is complicated but that should not be used as an excuse for inaction.

    I know that some will down vote this post because I criticise their country - before you do think: what do you love more: planet or country ?

"It might help if we ran the MBA's out of Washington." -- Admiral Grace Hopper

Working...