Hearts are palpitating in the news media about President Trump’s apparently imminent announcement of the U. S.’s withdrawal from the Paris climate accord. I have a question. What’s the difference between an international agreement that is unenforceable and with which you don’t intend to comply and withdrawing from the accord?
I’m serious. I really want to know.
Virtue signaling.
In the American system, what is happening is what the writers of the constitution meant to happen. What the executive does without any consent of the legislature with regards to foreign affairs can be undone by the stroke of the pen of the next executive.
It would have been a lot more work and a lot less satisfying to seek compromise with those who are effected negatively by government action on climate change, but it would be far more durable. We know which option the previous administration chose.
Call it the revenge of the coal miners, if you will.
I’ll second that. Virtue signaling.
@CuriousOnlooker, but the U.S. coal industry supported staying in the Paris climate accord:
“The coal industry was interested in ensuring that the Paris deal provides a role for low-emission coal-fired power plants and financial support for carbon capture and storage technology, the officials said. They also want the pact to protect multilateral funding for international coal projects through bodies like the World Bank.”
I think I read something similar about big oil. Better inside the tent working for “productive” outcomes than outside.
It was purely a political deal with political consequences for rejection and other signatories might feel justified in taking indirection action in response (or better phrased, taking actions they would have otherwise have preferred and blaming it on U.S. withdrawal). Staying in and going through the motions might have less consequences.
Is there a price to pay for national hypocrisy? On the individual level, I believe yes, there is. But collectively?
Energy companies’ pros and cons.
You and yours are okay, PD?
Good to see you here again PD.
Your point is noted PD, but I think it compliments mine. I separate the interests of energy company executives from those who work in the energy industry and the communities that depend on them. I’m sure energy company executives will do fine whatever happens — its the communities and the workers that will bear the weight of whatever action occurs.
Its analogous to how the interests of automakers and automaker workers diverge completely on the issue of trade with Mexico.
And my point is in our political system, and in this moment — its the workers and those communities that we need to work with if we are going to upend the economy for climate change. So far our approach is to sneer and ignore them; we need to do better.
By the way, the political calculations is this. If Trump walks away from Paris; and the Democrats vow to redouble their efforts to shut off the energy industry — its going to keep those energy workers in PA and TX firmly on his side — 2 states Democrats want.
Janis: Everybody’s good; thanks for asking. I like your link better than mine and it points to another issue:
This is still a treaty and all treaties contain an implied requirement of good faith. So even if there is no enforcement mechanism or specific requirements, there is a point at which contempt for the treaty will be considered a breach and the U.S. would face the same political ramifications as if the U.S. withdrew.
PD,
I’m not sure that point matters since the US hasn’t ratified the accord and likely never will.
@Andy,
Its true that under domestic law, this is merely an executive agreement, but under international law, all agreements btw/ states are considered “treaties” subject to the requirement of good faith. In advocating staying in the Convention without any intent to promote its goals, but to assist domestic coal and oil industry, it looks like bad-faith. If the consensus emerges that the U.S. is acting in bad-faith, the other states won’t invite them to the club meetings anymore.
Autocratic governments are better at concealing such motivations.
Thanks PD, it’s good to have you back.