Posted on 06/07/2017 1:23:03 PM PDT by Oldeconomybuyer
Last week, President Trump announced that the United States would withdraw from the Paris climate agreement. But it will take more than one speech to pull out: Under the rules of the deal, which the White House says it will follow, the earliest any country can leave is Nov. 4, 2020. That means the United States will remain a party to the accord for nearly all of Mr. Trump’s current term, and it could still try to influence the climate talks during that span.
So the next four years will be a busy time for climate policy. Mr. Trump’s aides plan to keep working to dismantle domestic climate programs like the Clean Power Plan. And the world’s nations will meet regularly to hash out details of the Paris agreement, even as the United States’ exit looms. Here is what comes next.
November 2017
Negotiators for 195 nations will meet in Bonn, Germany, to discuss how to carry out the Paris agreement. Every country has already submitted an initial pledge for curbing greenhouse gas emissions. But officials now have to write rules for monitoring and verifying those pledges.
Technically, the United States is still the co-chair of a key committee on transparency measures. In the past, American officials have taken a keen interest in this topic, pushing for robust oversight of emissions. By contrast, countries like China have argued for looser scrutiny for developing nations.
“The question is whether the Trump administration still shows up for those discussions,” said Andrew Light, a senior climate change adviser at the State Department under President Barack Obama. “If they really are pushing to ‘renegotiate’ the deal, as they say, I don’t see why they wouldn’t go.”
(Excerpt) Read more at nytimes.com ...
Well, whether the “International Community” considers us part of the agreement until then, or not, matters very little.
Because we will not contribute, report on or adhere to ANY of it’s structure or demands.
Sorry - but one “President’s rules” have no binding mechanism on the next President - no formal ratification = no compulsion for compliance. They can “deem” Trump as still in, but the effect is the same....
The rest of the word calls it a treaty and there were mechanisms for getting out of it.
HOWEVER, the USA never ratified it. We are not bound by it. The whole world is very familiar with what it takes for America to be bound by a treaty. It is nothing more than an Obama promise and we can walk away cold turkey.
We are not obligated in any way to remain in it.
But nice try.
Settled science from the Marxist organ of truth!
Did the Senate ratify a treaty or did the former executive make deal? One is binding the is not. Pull out not Mr. President!
Obama never submitted the Paris scheme to the Senate to confirm so we were never in it.
We have nuclear weapons. We can walk whenever we want.
This is such B.S.
The president goes and signs an “agreement” not a congressionally approved treaty, that forces the country to spend 10’s of billions per year in marxist redistribution to people who hate us. The Constitution does not give the President the power of the purse. Trump should just tweet - “Naaaahh. We’re out. What’s for lunch”
Why? Why follow a non-ratified treaty that you have promised not to be part of?
It’s the NYT. Ignore
Pawned!
“Leaving” is different from not showing up!
These countries won the lottery and they want the US to pay up,LOL
I don’t think the ‘fake news’ label is sufficient here.
* the US cannot leave a non-binding deal (also not ratified by congress)
* the US cannot leave a deal where NO other country has paid $1 of their commitment to date or has plans to meet their stated CO2 reduction commitments
* Obama had no plans to meet the commitment he made but Ds want to bind the next president to the commitment without a technically feasible path (except planed blackouts in much of the country every hour of the day)
* even if Paris commitments to date are met it won’t come close to reaching the Paris target for CO2
* even if the Paris target is met there will be no significant change to future climate
The entire story is pure (bad) fiction - Hitchcock, Wells, & Asimov could not get together and make it a believable story even with advise from today’s best fictional BS’er, Elon Must. This is more of a Lewis Carroll book, but Gore, Musk, and others have actually convinced 1/2 the country to get in line to be the next to go down the rabbit hole into a fantasy world.
They are banking on a democtrat being elected in 2020.
Then they can claim that President Trump’s resignation hasn’t become effective yet and making it easy for a democrat president to restore our membership.
Probably with a good faith contribution from the US of another few billion dollars.
It's more likely the NYT is one of the fifth-column leftist media traitors.
Really?
Just watch...
You and what army has stopped us?
Well, now Hillary is in the home, Obama is in parts unknown, and light-in-the-loafers is a nothing, so he/she/it can piss off!
Ummmmmm...yes. We can.
Leave or stay, call it what you want... but not one more penny for these f*ers.
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.