Changes

The '''Paris climate agreement''' (also known as the '''Paris accord''') is an international agreement intended to fight [[climate change]]. It is described as "the first universal, legally binding deal to tackle [[global warming]]."<ref name="Gosden">Gosden, Emily (December 12, 2015). [http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/earth/paris-climate-change-conference/12047909/Paris-climate-change-agreement-a-major-leap-for-mankind.html Paris climate change agreement 'a major leap for mankind']. ''The Telegraph''. Retrieved June 6, 2017.</ref>  

The '''Paris climate agreement''' (also known as the '''Paris accord''') is an international agreement intended to fight [[climate change]]. It is described as "the first universal, legally binding deal to tackle [[global warming]]."<ref name="Gosden">Gosden, Emily (December 12, 2015). [http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/earth/paris-climate-change-conference/12047909/Paris-climate-change-agreement-a-major-leap-for-mankind.html Paris climate change agreement 'a major leap for mankind']. ''The Telegraph''. Retrieved June 6, 2017.</ref> Despite this, the actual substance of the agreement was specifically worded to be non-binding, presumably to allow it act in the United States as an executive agreement rather than a treaty, thus allowing President [[Barack Obama]] to circumvent Senate approval when adopting it.

 

Interestingly, the actual substance of the 'agreement' was specifically worded to be non-binding, presumably to allow it to 'count' as an [[executive agreement]] rather than a treaty, thus allowing Obama to circumvent Senate approval when adopting it.

==Origins==

==Origins==

==Goals and effects==

==Goals and effects==

The Paris climate agreement is intended to "limit" global temperatures at 1.5 Celsius (2.7 [[Fahrenheit]]) above pre-industrial levels.<ref name="Gosden"/> The deal requires developed nations to fund poorer nations so they can develop [[Alternative energy|"green" energy]] and adapt to the supposed effects of climate change, which is achieved through a new organisation called the "Green Climate Fund".<ref name="Rothwell"/> Numerous developing countries took advantage of this by committing to more anti-pollution/emission efforts if they are paid.<ref name="Wolfgang">Wolfgang, Ben (June 5, 2017). [http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2017/jun/5/paris-climate-agreement-shares-nations-wealth/ Developing nations in Paris climate accord threaten to keep polluting unless they’re paid]. ''The Washington Times''. Retrieved June 6, 2017.</ref><ref>Delingpole, James (June 7, 2017). [http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2017/06/07/delingpole-paris-trump-just-dodged-a-2-5-trillion-bullet/ DELINGPOLE: Paris – Trump Just Dodged A $2.5 Trillion Bullet]. ''Breitbart News''. Retrieved June 7, 2017.</ref>

The Paris climate agreement is intended to "limit" global temperatures at 1.5 Celsius (2.7 [[Fahrenheit]]) above pre-industrial levels.<ref name="Gosden"/> The deal requires developed nations to fund poorer nations so they can develop [[Alternative energy|"green" energy]] and adapt to the supposed effects of climate change, which is achieved through a new fund called the "Green Climate Fund."<ref name="Rothwell"/> Numerous developing countries took advantage of this by committing to more anti-pollution/emission efforts if they are paid.<ref name="Wolfgang">Wolfgang, Ben (June 5, 2017). [http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2017/jun/5/paris-climate-agreement-shares-nations-wealth/ Developing nations in Paris climate accord threaten to keep polluting unless they’re paid]. ''The Washington Times''. Retrieved June 6, 2017.</ref><ref>Delingpole, James (June 7, 2017). [http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2017/06/07/delingpole-paris-trump-just-dodged-a-2-5-trillion-bullet/ DELINGPOLE: Paris – Trump Just Dodged A $2.5 Trillion Bullet]. ''Breitbart News''. Retrieved June 7, 2017.</ref>

China's emissions are expected to increase until 2030, while the [[European Union]] is attempting to decrease emissions by 40 percent by the same year.<ref name="Wolfgang"/>

China's emissions are expected to increase until 2030, while the [[European Union]] is attempting to decrease emissions by 40 percent by the same year.<ref name="Wolfgang"/>

==Legality under U.S. law==

==Legality under U.S. law==

The 'agreement' was specifically worded to use non-binding language for much of its contents, including the actual emissions level that the nations are meant to cut.<ref>https://www.climatecouncil.org.au/your-top-5-questions-about-the-paris-climate-agreement-answered</ref> The use of non-binding language was likely intended to allow the agreement to 'count' as an [[executive agreement]] rather than a treaty, as the Constitution stipulates that ratification of a treaty requires the supermajority consent of the Senate.  

The Paris climate agreement was specifically worded to use non-binding language for much of its contents, including the actual emissions level that the nations are meant to cut.<ref>https://www.climatecouncil.org.au/your-top-5-questions-about-the-paris-climate-agreement-answered</ref> The use of non-binding language was likely intended to allow the agreement to 'count' as an [[executive agreement]] rather than a treaty, as the Constitution stipulates that ratification of a treaty requires the supermajority consent of the Senate.

However, binding executive agreements are only allowed within the President's authority. The Paris Agreement does not entirely fall into the President's authority, so its binding articles are problematic. As a result, some analysts and commentators have argued that the binding articles of the Paris Agreement (such as its 4 year exit period) make it a treaty that cannot be ratified without the consent of the Senate, which would make the agreement unratified and Obama's executive order unconstitutional.<ref>http://www.heritage.org/environment/report/the-paris-agreement-treaty-and-should-be-submitted-the-senate</ref><ref>https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/2017/06/01/the-u-s-cant-quit-the-paris-climate-agreement-because-it-never-actually-joined/</ref>

However, binding executive agreements are only allowed within the President's authority. The Paris Agreement does not entirely fall into the President's authority, so its binding articles are problematic. As a result, some analysts and commentators have argued that the binding articles of the Paris Agreement (such as its 4 year exit period) make it a treaty that cannot be ratified without the consent of the Senate, which would make the agreement unratified and Obama's executive order unconstitutional.<ref>http://www.heritage.org/environment/report/the-paris-agreement-treaty-and-should-be-submitted-the-senate</ref><ref>https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/2017/06/01/the-u-s-cant-quit-the-paris-climate-agreement-because-it-never-actually-joined/</ref>

Although many environmentalists opposed the Paris agreement for not being strong enough, they opposed the U.S. withdrawal, with some accusing President Trump of committing "environmental racism."<ref>Williams, Thomas D. (June 6, 2017). [http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2017/06/06/trump-accused-of-environmental-racism-in-withdrawal-from-paris-agreement/ Trump Accused of ‘Environmental Racism’ in Withdrawal from Paris Agreement]. ''Breitbart News''. Retrieved June 6, 2017.</ref>

Although many environmentalists opposed the Paris agreement for not being strong enough, they opposed the U.S. withdrawal, with some accusing President Trump of committing "environmental racism."<ref>Williams, Thomas D. (June 6, 2017). [http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2017/06/06/trump-accused-of-environmental-racism-in-withdrawal-from-paris-agreement/ Trump Accused of ‘Environmental Racism’ in Withdrawal from Paris Agreement]. ''Breitbart News''. Retrieved June 6, 2017.</ref>

Some, such as EU Commission President [[Jean Claude-Juncker]],<ref>https://www.politico.eu/article/trump-climate-juncker-you-cant-leave-paris-deal-overnight/</ref> said that Trump's decision to leave the agreement was illegal because the supposedly non-binding agreement had a clause that does not allow countries to leave until 4 years after its ratification.<ref>https://www.snopes.com/2017/06/01/authority-paris-agreement/</ref> As stated earlier in the 'legality' section, the argument that the clause is binding would defeat the argument that Obama had the authority to enter the agreement without the consent of the Senate. Some respond that the authority for the legally binding elements of the agreement are derived from the UNFCCC, a prior agreement that was ratified by Congress,<ref>https://www.snopes.com/2017/06/01/authority-paris-agreement/</ref> but the UNFCCC does not mention many of the binding elements in the Paris Agreement, such as the requirement for emission 'targets'.<ref>http://www.heritage.org/environment/report/the-paris-agreement-treaty-and-should-be-submitted-the-senate</ref>

Some globalists, such as EU Commission President [[Jean Claude-Juncker]],<ref>https://www.politico.eu/article/trump-climate-juncker-you-cant-leave-paris-deal-overnight/</ref> said that Trump's decision to leave the agreement was illegal because the supposedly non-binding agreement had a clause that does not allow countries to leave until 4 years after its ratification.<ref>https://www.snopes.com/2017/06/01/authority-paris-agreement/</ref> As stated earlier in the 'legality' section, the argument that the clause is binding would defeat the argument that Obama had the authority to enter the agreement without the consent of the Senate. Some respond that the authority for the legally binding elements of the agreement are derived from the UNFCCC, a prior agreement that was ratified by Congress,<ref>https://www.snopes.com/2017/06/01/authority-paris-agreement/</ref> but the UNFCCC does not mention many of the binding elements in the Paris Agreement, such as the requirement for emission 'targets'.<ref>http://www.heritage.org/environment/report/the-paris-agreement-treaty-and-should-be-submitted-the-senate</ref> A very small minority believe that President Trump's decision to leave the agreement was illegal due to the fact that it was performed unilaterally with an executive order. Even ignoring the [[Liberal hypocrisy]] in their beliefs, the Supreme Court essentially legalized the unilateral withdrawal from any agreements by refusing to hear a case against President Carter's decision to withdraw from the China-US Mutual Defense Treaty, which was a binding agreement ratified by the Senate.<ref>https://www.bloomberg.com/view/articles/2017-06-02/trump-paris-climate-change-and-constitutional-realities</ref>

 

A very small minority believe that President Trump's decision to leave the agreement was illegal due to the fact that it was performed unilaterally with an executive order. Even ignoring the obvious hypocrisy in their beliefs, the Supreme Court essentially legalised the unilateral withdrawal from any agreements by refusing to hear a case against President Carter's decision to withdraw from the China-US Mutual Defense Treaty, which was a binding agreement ratified by the Senate.<ref>https://www.bloomberg.com/view/articles/2017-06-02/trump-paris-climate-change-and-constitutional-realities</ref>

According to a [[Washington Post]]–[[ABC News]] poll, 59% of Americans opposed the decision to withdraw from the agreement versus 28% in support.<ref>Savransy, Rebecca (June 5, 2017). [http://thehill.com/policy/energy-environment/336408-poll-public-opposes-trumps-withdrawal-from-paris-deal-by-21-margin Poll: Public opposes Trump's withdrawal from Paris deal by 2:1 margin]. ''The Hill''. Retrieved June 6, 2017.</ref> However, a Rasmussen poll found that 41% of Americans believed the Paris agreement would have increased energy costs versus 20% thinking the opposite and 23% saying it would have no effect.<ref>Starr, Penny (June 6, 2017). [http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2017/06/06/poll-americans-agree-with-trump-on-paris-agreement-41-say-deal-would-increase-energy-costs/ Poll: Americans Agree with Trump on Paris Agreement: 41% Say Deal Would Increase Energy Costs]. ''Breitbart News''. Retrieved June 6, 2017.</ref>

According to a [[Washington Post]]–[[ABC News]] poll, 59% of Americans opposed the decision to withdraw from the agreement versus 28% in support.<ref>Savransy, Rebecca (June 5, 2017). [http://thehill.com/policy/energy-environment/336408-poll-public-opposes-trumps-withdrawal-from-paris-deal-by-21-margin Poll: Public opposes Trump's withdrawal from Paris deal by 2:1 margin]. ''The Hill''. Retrieved June 6, 2017.</ref> However, a Rasmussen poll found that 41% of Americans believed the Paris agreement would have increased energy costs versus 20% thinking the opposite and 23% saying it would have no effect.<ref>Starr, Penny (June 6, 2017). [http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2017/06/06/poll-americans-agree-with-trump-on-paris-agreement-41-say-deal-would-increase-energy-costs/ Poll: Americans Agree with Trump on Paris Agreement: 41% Say Deal Would Increase Energy Costs]. ''Breitbart News''. Retrieved June 6, 2017.</ref>