Prager: Paris Climate Agreement

Sorry, just saw this.

My short answer: Neither. (False Choice)

My medium answer: It is a stupidly shitty deal for the US, and which even if things work perfectly, won't have that great of an impact. As the video shows, what the Paris Agreement "hopes" to accomplish in 30 - 100 years or so is only a fraction of what private industry has / is doing right now in developing green energy. As far as I can tell, the US' withdrawal does nothing to prevent France, the U.K., China, Canada, et al from continuing to give $1B/year to the Green Fund, in order to finance the green energy / low emissions activities of underdeveloped countries. So, we'll keep developing our green technology here, while still perfectly capable of meeting / exceeding the target limits of the Paris Agreement, and everyone else can ship their money to all of the other places. Guess who wins in that deal? It begins with a "T" and ends in "he United States of America"...or "rump"...or both, as they're essentially synonymous at this point. Both are big winners for having withdrawn.

Long answer:Whether you stay in or pull out, the Paris Agreement isn't a binding legal agreement - any nation can adjust its targets at any time, without penalty, and unlike a treaty, nothing legally binds any nation to adhere or remain a part of it.

Had Obama approached it for what it legally was - a treaty - and had it gained the requisite approval of Congress, then it would have legally bound the US to not only remain in it, but to adhere to it....and Trump could not have simply pulled out of it, as he just did.

Instead, knowing that he'd never (N-E-V-E-R) have gotten Congressional approval to enter the Paris Agreement as a treaty, and ostensibly didn't want to even attempt it (because he didn't), he just skirted the problem by calling it something else, and unilaterally enjoined the US without Congress' input (much less an actual vote), and which was well beyond the necessary Constitutional bounds of the Executive Branch to do.

So, as Obama boasted that he "had a pen and a phone" and got it done, but the next guy had a pen, too, and just as easily wiped it out and undid it. Which is exactly why many on here have said is the danger of legislation via EO, and for several years - because it's all just as easily undone later. by the another POTUS, later. And Trump's doing so now runs the exact same risk, and will also be erased later.

That's French's point, and to which I agreed.

I hope that answers your questions.

 

LOL @ you.

 

Ah, so there was nothing binding and saying otherwise is a lie. Got it.

 

Educate me - what exactly was binding, either if we had remained and including the ability to pull out entirely, and without penalty?

 

Nothing. Several conservative pundits called it binding. The President referred to it as binding.

edit: He called it "nonbinding," but said it was imposing burdens. That doesn't make sense.

 

I'm not at all sure what every pundit - conservative or otherwise - has said about it, tbh. I do know that Trump called a presser on Thursday to pull the US out of it, and without any penalty or recourse. That sounds like the definition of non-binding.

Can't something be both voluntary and burdensome? Perhaps he should have just stayed in the Agreement, but simply stopped caring to meet any of Obama's previously promised commitments to it... exactly like Europe has been doing with NATO for years.

I prefer he simply pull out, believe that it was absolutely the correct choice, and am glad he made it.

 

It will be remembered as a seriously poor decision. While the agreement doesn't solve the problem, it does acknowledge the gravity and specifics of the problem. He denies there is a problem.

 

No, it won't be remembered that way, at least by anyone of consequence, if even at all.

If it isn't solving the problem...why would we continue to pay $1B/yr, and suffer immediate carbon cuts, while Russia, China and India won't do anything until 2030(IIRC)? Hell, no wonder they signed on.

Can't we acknowledge the gravity of the situation without writing a $1B check for it? Better, can't we acknowledge it and use that $1B to invest in green energy solutions in the US, where it's already doing exponentially more than the Paris Agreement even hopes to do?

Do you think that the rest of the world is still going to pony up $1B/yr? If not, where will it come from...considering how gravely the rest of the world is talking this? If they raise it without the US, wouldn't that prove that the US wasn't needed, to begin with, and the only "harm" in our pulling out is purely symbolic? If they don't raise it, what will that mean for how seriously they're taking it?

I defer to you on alll things climate-related, IP, but if you cannot come up with a better reason to have remained in the Agreement, then I'll just turn the other noise off and assume that Trump was perfectly right to withdraw.

 

Isn't the number 100B/year? That is total - IS wouldn't bed all of that. But where is 1B/year coming from?

 

No, the annual pledged amount of all participants to the Paris Agreement's "Green Fund" is $10B/yr, and Obama pledged $3B of that. As of its last (and final) payment, the US had paid $1B of that amount.

Link: https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2017/06/02/climate/trump-paris-green-climate-fund.html

 

The Green Fund is already in place. The 100 billion/year was reported to kick in in 2020. I haven't read the actual accord declarations but this is what was reported:

http://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-...o-what-exactly-is-in-the-paris-climate-accord

 

The Paris Agreement required donations to the Green Fund.

 

There is a kick up to a total developed countries contribution of 100B/year starting in 2020 and then ramping up from there, right? I've seen that multiple places - is it wrong?

 

I'm not sure, tbh.

 

Required?

 

Once voluntarily pledged.

I stand corrected.

 

The rhetoric doesn't match reality.

 

I'm just going to live a bubble.

 

Regardless of any thoughts on climate change or whatever this whole Paris agreement seems to be a bunch of politicians patting themselves on the back and saying "Look what we're doing!"

Nothing binding, no reason to hold to anything put forward

 

I'm enjoying out liberal governors and mayors declaring a revival of state and local rights over this.