Can Trump Unilaterally Withdraw from International Climate Agreements?

[Anti Federalist]

Lot's of disinfo being spread around...

tl;dr answer - Yes.



Can Trump Unilaterally Withdraw from International Climate Agreements?

http://reason.com/blog/2017/06/01/can-trump-unilaterally-withdraw-from-int

Here's what the law says.

Ronald Bailey|Jun. 1, 2017 9:15 am

According to several anonymously sourced stories, President Donald Trump has decided to withdraw from the Paris Agreement on climate change. Activist groups have reacted with rage (if against) or glee (if for). After a day of this online angst, the president tweeted, "I will be announcing my decision on Paris Accord, Thursday at 3:00 P.M. The White House Rose Garden. MAKE AMERICA GREAT AGAIN!"

Can the president withdraw from international agreements at his whim? A comprehensive legal analysis by the Congressional Research Service (CRS) basically concludes that he can. The analysis, published in February, observes that presidents have historically closed three types of deals with other countries: treaties, executive agreements, and political commitments.

Under the Constitution, a treaty does not enter into force until it is endorsed by a two-thirds majority of the Senate and is subsequently signed by the president. The United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) is a treaty, and the Senate approved it in 1992.

Executive agreements are legally binding pacts that the president enters without seeking the advice and consent of the Senate, based on his sole authority to negotiate with foreign nations. The Obama administration treated the Paris Agreement as an executive agreement subsidiary to the UNFCCC. Political commitments are not legally binding, but they may include other inducements that encourage parties to honor them.

The CRS concludes that since the Obama administration regarded the Paris Agreement as an executive agreement, a new president has the authority to "unilaterally withdraw from it without seeking approval from the legislative branch."

There is one wrinkle. Under the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, termination or withdrawal from treaties can take place only "in conformity with the provisions of the treaty" or by mutual consent of the parties. Although the United States does not consider an executive agreement to be a treaty, under public international law executive agreements do count. As it happens, the Paris Agreement does not allow parties to withdraw until three years after it has come into force. So under the Vienna Convention, the Trump administration would have to wait until November 2019 to complete its withdrawal from the agreement.

On the other hand, although the U.S. signed the Vienna Convention in 1970, the country is not actually a party to that treaty, since the Senate has not given its advice and consent to it. The State Department does note, "The United States considers many of the provisions of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties to constitute customary international law on the law of treaties."

If the Trump administration wanted to speed up the process of getting out of the Paris Agreement, the president could withdraw from the underlying UNFCCC. If the president chose this option, the CRS analysis notes, "Withdrawal from both the UNFCCC and the Paris Agreement would become effective one year later."

But surely if it takes the consent of two thirds of the Senate to approve a treaty, it must take a similar vote to withdraw from one, right?

"The Constitution sets forth a definite procedure for the President to make treaties with the advice and consent of the Senate, but it does not describe how they should be terminated," observes the CRS analysis. "In most cases, this unilateral presidential action has not generated significant opposition in either chamber of Congress." On those rare occasions that members of Congress have challenged the right of presidents to unilaterally terminate ratified treaties, the federal courts have basically stepped aside, letting the other two political branches to fight it out.

Given the highly polarized public debate over the Paris Agreement, a presidential withdrawal from the UNFCCC would surely provoke some members of Congress to challenge that decision in federal court. One way to avoid this legal wrangling would be for the president to submit (with or without a recommendation for ratification) the Paris Agreement to the Senate as a treaty, seeking its advice and consent. After all, the vast majority of other Paris Agreement signatories have formally ratified it.

[oyarde]

Yes he can and other treaties and probably about anything else he wants if congress and the senate had no hand in it .

[oyarde]

Hopefully he will know that he can reinforce other treaties as well . I encourage him to start with the Treaty of Greenville . Returning half of Ohio to the rightful owners .

[Danke]

US should withdraw from the UN.

[shakey1]

Can Trump Unilaterally Withdraw from International Climate Agreements?

... or will he just change his mind next week?

[donnay]

US should withdraw from the UN.

I couldn't agree more.

[oyarde]

US should withdraw from the UN.

Absolutely . It is criminal having taxpayers pay for that shit . america cannot be great again as long as the UN is here .

[Origanalist]

... or will he just change his mind next week?

It's all so exciting isn't it? Are we entertained?

[dean.engelhardt]

The whole Paris Climate Agreement is so much ado about nothing. Obama signed a piece of paper that was not ratified, it is meaningless. The only thing that will effect human contribution to greenhouse gas emissions effectively is the free market and consumer choice. People that look to government for solutions must have took the short bus.

[William Tell]

It's all so exciting isn't it? Are we entertained?


Framing his decision as “a reassertion of America’s sovereignty,” Mr. Trump said the U.S. could try to re-enter the deal under more favorable terms or work to establish “an entirely new transaction.” But he indicated that was hardly a priority. “If we can, great. If we can’t, that’s fine,” he said.

http://www.post-gazette.com/news/politics-nation/2017/06/01/I-was-elected-to-represent-the-citizens-of-Pittsburgh-not-Paris-Trump-to-pull-U-S-out-of-Paris-climate-agreement/stories/201706010198

[dean.engelhardt]

http://www.post-gazette.com/news/politics-nation/2017/06/01/I-was-elected-to-represent-the-citizens-of-Pittsburgh-not-Paris-Trump-to-pull-U-S-out-of-Paris-climate-agreement/stories/201706010198

There is a poll at the end of the story. Right now 90% believe pulling out of the agreement was good for our country.

[William Tell]

There is a poll at the end of the story. Right now 90% believe pulling out of the agreement was good for our country.

I'm with them. Just hope he doesn't decide to make globalism Great Again.

[Lamp]

Not likely.

[Anti Federalist]

A Pat on His Orange Head

https://ericpetersautos.com/2017/06/02/pat-orange-head/

By eric - June 2, 2017

At last, something.

Trump “pulled out” of the Paris Climate Change Agreement – agreed to by his predecessor back in 2015 and awaiting a majoritarian 55 of the earth’s nations to agree before it becomes binding within those countries.

That is to say upon the people within those countries – who had no say in the matter whatsoever beyond the gauzy connection between a Dear Leader, who may have received the electoral support of a minority of the citizenry at some distant election, claiming to “represent” them when he says Aye.

Trump’s saying Nay – regardless of the reasons why – is (yes) huge.

Especially as regards your car.

New – and old.

This has not been much discussed but ought to be.

Both, you see, “emit” carbon dioxide. Not much – the total atmospheric concentration of C02 is less than half a percent of the “air” we breath. Which is mostly nitrogen – almost 80 percent – the remaining almost 20 percent being oxygen and lesser gases.

There is much more Argon in the “air” – almost one full percent of the total! – than C02. But because Argon does not come out of the tailpipes of cars, it is not regarded as an agent of “climate change.”

But C02 is, we’re told – and the Paris Agreement would have cemented its regulation as a “pollutant,” just like gasses you can smell and which make you sick or even kill you – none of which carbon dioxide, in the fractional amounts produced by motor vehicles, could even possibly do to you.

Keep in mind that the grand total of all the carbon dioxide from every source, natural as well as man-made, that is floating around in the “air” is less than half of one percent of the total.

What percentage of that less-than-half-a-percent do you suppose is produced by motor vehicles?

You may perhaps have noticed a pattern.

VW was crucified over the fractionally higher amounts of an actual pollutant – oxides of nitrogen (NOx) which are reactive and potentially harmful to people – emitted by its diesel engines.

It was implied that the amounts at issue were huge and catastrophic – “up to 40 times the legal maximum!” it was endlessly screeched. But in fact, the amounts were minuscule – of relevance only insofar as they were higher than an arbitrary government standard. There was no burden of proof upon the government to establish that, in fact, these fractionally higher/minuscule increases in N0x emissions caused any harm to anyone.

It is the same – but much worse – with this carbon dioxide/“climate change” business.

First, because the amounts at issue are almost immeasurable. People in the mass have been taught by TeeVee to believe – and that is exactly the right word, in the religious sense – that “human activity” (not just the activity of motor vehicles) is pouring immense volumes of carbon dioxide into the air.

And yet, ask any of them how much of the earth’s atmosphere is composed of C02 and how much of that amount is produced by man-made sources. You are likely to get answers considerably higher than fractions of a whole number.

Second, because carbon dioxide – unlike oxides of nitrogen and other actual pollutants that choke you or give you cancer or otherwise represent a menace to health – is an inert gas. It does not make it hard to breath – not in fractional amounts, at any rate – and while it is indeed a “greenhouse gas,” the failure of the Experts tub-thumping “climate change” (nee, “global warming,” which didn’t market well) to honestly state how small the amount at issue is in the scheme of things, along with the claim that fractions of fractions of a percent produced by “human activity” are triggering catastrophic change, is either witch-doctoring or something much more malevolent.

Certainly, the climate is changing. It does that. One of the great idiocies of our age is that the public, a large percentage of it, has come to believe it is unnatural for the climate to change. And that any change they find disquieting or unpleasant – such as a particularly hot summer or a hard winter – is unnatural and more than that, caused by man and his infernal machines.

This fear is egged on by the political apparat and the media that is attached to it like a lamprey to the flanks of a shark. They both have much to gain. Also crony capitalists such as Elon Musk – whose entire “business” depends on the government mandating the manufacture and subsidizing the sale of his (cough) “zero emissions” electric cars and on the “carbon credit” extortion racket that provides his operating capital. Musk is quite understandably furious about Trump’s decision; see here.

As the Church Lady used to say on Saturday Night Live, it is all very convenient.

The shuck-and-jive that’s been performed is to convince people a Dire Threat looms. And Dire Threats – which seem to pop up very conveniently whenever a prior one disappears – see, for instance the Dire Threat of Radical Islamic Terrorism, which popped up after the old excuse for everything, the Soviet Union, disappeared – always require Dire Solutions.

In this case, punishing regulation of motor vehicles.

Just ours, of course.

We will be required to pay more for new “compliant” ones, and their use will probably be limited or taxed, in order to “encourage” us to self-limit. This is already being done in Europe.

The older cars – “gross polluters” in the argot of climate change – may be banned outright. Also already happening in Europe.

Neither the Dear Leaders nor their Praetorians (e.g., the military and also the lesser Praetorians in law enforcement) will suffer much, if any diminishment.

Dear Leader will not be driven around in a Prius. Just as Dear Leader – and the lesser leaders – will remain armed to the teeth even as they urge us to believe that guns offer no protection and only exacerbate violence.

But this Dear Leader has given us a respite. He will inherit the wind for it.