tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8216971263350849959.post2690125413912225713..comments2023-08-07T16:41:49.660+02:00Comments on Die Klimazwiebel: Paris: binding or non-binding?eduardohttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17725131974182980651noreply@blogger.comBlogger5125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8216971263350849959.post-47131641242781451822015-12-30T11:49:10.408+01:002015-12-30T11:49:10.408+01:00Here is a good comment on this problem of Paris be...Here is a good comment on this problem of Paris being a binding treaty or not, from a detractor's perspective:<br />http://www.globalwarming.org/2015/12/27/paris-agreement-is-a-real-tiger-lock-and-load/<br /><br />Here is the summary:<br /><br />Summary: The Paris climate agreement is “non-binding, underfunded, and unenforceable,” as one conservative commentator put it. However, Paris is a “paper tiger” only on paper. The treaty’s core purpose is not to impose legal obligations but to establish the multi-decade framework for a global political pressure campaign. The pressure will be directed chiefly at those who oppose EPA’s unlawful Clean Power Plan and other elements of the President’s climate agenda. Republicans will get rolled unless GOP leaders organize a political counter-offensive centered around a Byrd-Hagel 2.0 resolution. Key message point: Contrary to President Obama, the Paris agreement is a treaty, hence it is not a policy of the United States until the Senate ratifies it.@ReinerGrundmannhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12759452975366986236noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8216971263350849959.post-2551684987745568802015-11-15T09:04:50.273+01:002015-11-15T09:04:50.273+01:00Faced with an opposition majority unwilling to. ba...Faced with an opposition majority unwilling to. back him, Obama's approach has been to enhance or extend presidential powers, thus continuing the decay of the USA political system as an imperial presidency grows like a malignant cancer. If Obama does try to make believe the USA will be bound only because he says so he will deal another blow to the Republic. <br /><br />But Obama isn't unique in trying to turn himself into Cesar Augustus, Bush and Clinton were also guilty. Their ability to behave this way derives from the USA political and media elites' intelligence quotients, which appear to be dropping very fast. It's like Rome in the dying days of the Republic. Fernando Leanmehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16085680730729620836noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8216971263350849959.post-86247430459630238872015-11-15T04:30:49.672+01:002015-11-15T04:30:49.672+01:00As the other commenters said. The president may do...As the other commenters said. The president may do as he sees fit (even without a treaty); probably no one will stop him. But that is in no way binding, and the next president can do just the opposite. The US Constitution has very clear definitions of a treaty and how it is ratified, and anything else is not going to mean much.MikeRhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00127456522803816485noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8216971263350849959.post-63589063778969964242015-11-14T20:39:50.947+01:002015-11-14T20:39:50.947+01:00There of course is a problem here even if Obama si...There of course is a problem here even if Obama signs an agreement. It is unlikely, I think, that a meaningful emission reduction can be accomplished without additional statutory authority. That issue would be adjudicated by the courts. The recent appeals court ruling that Obama's immigration executive order is illegal is a sign that people may be growing tired of executive over reach in the U. S. Stan's point is also valid. Even if the courts rule in Obama's favor, any future President can in an instant decide to rescind any such agreement. David Younghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17029429374522399227noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8216971263350849959.post-65264169795215332752015-11-14T00:57:58.831+01:002015-11-14T00:57:58.831+01:00Without Senate ratification, Obama's executive...Without Senate ratification, Obama's executive action (even if somehow upheld as binding under the Constitution) could be rescinded by the next president with a stroke of a pen.stanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05644362748723516825noreply@blogger.com