Posted on 09/17/2017 10:30:01 PM PDT by 2ndDivisionVet
The terms of the Paris Agreement are set in stone, the EU, China and Canada agreed at a summit in Montreal this weekend, while Washington was forced to deny that the US is planning to stay in the accord.
Ahead of a UN General Assembly meeting in New York this week and the COP23 climate summit in Bonn in November, EU, Chinese and Canadian officials met in Montreal on Friday and Saturday (15-16 September) to present a united front against the United States on climate action.
The US was represented at the meeting by an observer who, according to EU Climate Commissioner Miguel Arias Cañete, said “[the US] will not renegotiate the Paris accord but they will try to review the terms on which they could be engaged under this agreement.”
This was quickly refuted by a White House spokesperson on Saturday, who insisted that President Donald Trump’s decision to withdraw the US from the international agreement still stands.
(TWEET-AT-LINK)
But there was more confusion on Sunday, when US Secretary of State Rex Tillerson told American television that Trump is actually open to staying in the agreement under the right conditions.
“The president said he is open to finding those conditions where we can remain engaged with others on what we all agree is still a challenging issue,” Tillerson told CBS News. He added that the terms should reflect the US economy’s needs in relation to China’s in particular.
(VIDEO-AND-TWEET-AT-LINK)
EU climate boss Cañete also told reporters that there would be a meeting with senior US officials on the sidelines of the UN Assembly “to assess what is the real US position”, adding that “it’s a message which is quite different to the one we heard from President Trump in the past.”
Despite Trump’s 1 June speech signalling his intention to leave the accord, 4 November 2020 is the earliest date the US can actually exit under the terms of the deal. Other countries are concerned that the US will, as a result, look to influence and water down the agreement from within.
At the first Ministerial Meeting on Climate Change (MMCA), Canadian Minister of Climate Change and Environment Catherine McKenna said that co-hosts Canada, China and the EU, as well as other countries in attendance, agreed the “agreement is irreversible and non-negotiable. We are also in full agreement on the full implementation [of the deal].”
Cañete, echoing European Commission boss Jean-Claude Juncker’s State of the Union address, added that “with the collapse of ambition in the United States, Europe will ensure we make our planet great again. Our ambitious climate policy agenda has the most important backing of all.”
The meeting took place 30 years to the day since the signing of the Montreal Protocol on protecting the ozone layer, an agreement which has been hailed as the most successful environmental accord in history.
Xie Zhenhua, China’s Special Representative on Climate Change, called the protocol “very effective and efficient” and called on all parties to the Paris deal to decide “how we should combine climate actions with economic growth, the protection of people and job creation.”
China turned up at the meeting in the wake of making public its plan to ban the internal combustion engine, which sent shockwaves through the automobile industry.
A former senior executive of US firm Chrysler told The Economist that “if China says no more fossil-fuelled cars, global carmakers must follow”, in order to keep a slice of the largest car market in the world.
The EU is hoping to make its own impact on the same sector with an upcoming proposal on cutting transport emissions. It was the only tangible environmental measure cited by Juncker in Strasbourg last week, among a raft of migration and institutional reform proposals.
Timeline
•December 2015 Paris climate conference
•22 April 2016 Paris Agreement signed
•4 November 2016 Agreement comes into force
•1 June 2017 US President Donald Trump announces intention to withdraw from deal
•6-17 November 2017 COP 23 summit in Bonn
Utter BS from EU weenies.
They can pound sand.
We are out. Period.
And show me where we cannot say we will no longer honor a treaty, and that we are done with it. Show me where treaties are binding forever and we can never exit one.
The Senate never approved it. Therefore it is just Obama’s word. If he wants to personally meet all of the obligations he agreed to, he is more than welcome to do so. But, he never had the authority to commit the United States of America to that agreement. It doesn’t matter what the rest of the world says, we are not subject to their decrees.
Screw that... Getting out of this phoney baloney Paris Climate agreement will stand as one of Trumps greatest accomplishments.
In fact, if he doesn’t do another thing while in office this one act of courage will stand as day that sanity prevailed in a world full of gullible, foolish and pigheaded politicians who refuse to accept that global warming and climate change is the biggest fake news story of the past decade and a half.
Sure, the agreement is irreversible and non-negotiable under terms of some obscure international “laws” that are irrelevant and unenforceable.
In other words, screw the rest or you, we’re out effective today and there’s nothing you can do about it ... and that’s exactly what I hope Trump says.
Lol
Trump can do whatever he wants with regard to the Paris Accords, as long as there are not two thirds of the senators in opposition.
Of course, there were never two thirds of the Senate in favor in the first place. Else it would have been a treaty. But the Muslim Traitor knew that, so he never dared go that route.
Thus, Trump's pen is sufficient to abrogate whatever agreement may have existed.
Yet these same people claim that the Constitution “changes and ebolves” to suit any whim, that it isn’t set in stone.
Chamberlain had an irreversible deal with Hitler too.
How exactly is the UN going to force us to send $100B a year to them? Send in the blue helmets?
well nice moviesonline.ac
Well in that case...
Oh yeah?
Gotcha "Written in Stone" eraser right here.
“Similarly, the government of the United States does not have the authority to enter into an agreement with a foreign nation in any way that cannot be undone by a future government of the United States. To think otherwise is to grant power to the government which is nowhere to be found in the Constitution. “
This is why I am surprised at this “notion” that the US is “obligated” to stay in the agreement until 2020. It isn’t a treaty under our law, so I don’t know why Trump doesn’t just say, “we’re out as of today,” and close up our checkbook. Then again I tend to see the simplest way to solve a problem.
Tillerson has been acting like an independent operator, oblivious to the wishes of President Trump. President Trump states his various policies, but Tillerson goes ahead and does his own thing.
This is true from "global warming" to "refugees" to Israel. Tillerson is up to his eyeballs in the Deep State, and would have easily fit in with an Obama or Bush administration.
Perhaps the most destructive item on Tillerson's agenda is his failure to purge the State Department of Obama appointees and lifers still doing Obama's business, and not Preident Trump's.
Welcome aboard... I think
Tough cookies, babe. Not your call.
When Canada pays its fair share of its national defense instead of relying on its "older brother", the US, to take care of it, maybe then you will have a say.
Canada has all sorts of social programs that they can pay for because they know the US will protect them.
The Canadian military is awesome and does a fantastic job, but the government doesn't fund it enough, because they know they don't have to.
I think a Canadian sniper received a medal from the US for some incredible shot he made in Afghanistan. Again, the soldiers, sailors, airmen, etc., are great. The political will in this leftist country, not so much.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.