Changes

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.

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 name="heritage.org">https://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 name="heritage.org">https://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><ref>Delingpole, James (November 6, 2019). [https://www.breitbart.com/politics/2019/11/06/lawsuit-obama-took-u-s-into-paris-climate-accord-illegally/ Delingpole: Obama Dragged U.S. into Paris Climate Accord Illegally, Claims Lawsuit]. ''Breitbart News''. Retrieved November 6, 2019.</ref>

==U.S. withdrawal==

==U.S. withdrawal==