Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Science

Paris Climate Change Agreement Enters Into Force (theguardian.com) 137

Posted by msmash from the paris-climate-agreement dept.
The Paris agreement on climate change enters into force on Friday, marking the first time that governments have agreed legally binding limits to global temperature rises. From a report on The Guardian: The passage of the accord -- the fruit of more than two decades of often tortuous international negotiations on combating climate change -- was hailed by nations and observers around the world. Under the agreement, all governments that have ratified the accord, which includes the US, China, India and the EU, now carry an obligation to hold global warming to no more than 2C above pre-industrial levels. That is what scientists regard as the limit of safety, beyond which climate change is likely to become catastrophic and irreversible. Countries have put forward commitments on curbing carbon emissions under the agreement, but a report on Thursday found those pledges would see temperature rises significantly overshoot the threshold, with 3C of warming. Environmental groups urged governments to do more.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Paris Climate Change Agreement Enters Into Force More

Paris Climate Change Agreement Enters Into Force

Comments Filter:

  • Force (Score:1, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward

    I honestly read that as farce.

  • Paris Climate Change Agreement Enters Into Force (Score:5, Informative)

    by Anonymous Coward on Friday November 04, 2016 @09:44AM (#53212543)

    This article is incorrect, if I recall correctly, the U.S. Senate needs to approve all treaties before they take effect in the United States.

    • No force on the USA.

      Yes, all treaties need ratification by the senate.
      This is just an Obama wish list.

      The next president (Trump I hope) can disagree and undo any executive action to go along with it.

    • Comment removed (Score:5, Interesting)

      by account_deleted ( 4530225 ) on Friday November 04, 2016 @09:51AM (#53212599)
      Comment removed based on user account deletion

      • No legal force = no ratification needed (Score:4, Informative)

        by sjbe ( 173966 ) on Friday November 04, 2016 @10:24AM (#53212845)

        The Executive Agreement is an end-run around the Constitutional requirement for Senate approval for treaties. It's a violation of the Constitution that a compliant Supreme Court agreed to.

        How do you figure? Executive agreements [wikipedia.org] do not legally bind the US to anything. Basically they are figuratively handshake deals with no consequences for reneging. As long as nothing in the agreement requires an act of Congress or is legally binding to the country the president is under no obligation to consult Congress about the agreement. If Congress has an issue with the agreement they are able to pass legislation forbidding the president from performing to meet the agreement.

        • Comment removed (Score:5, Insightful)

          by account_deleted ( 4530225 ) on Friday November 04, 2016 @10:41AM (#53212953)
          Comment removed based on user account deletion

          • I wish I could say that was true. But, I want to make clear to you the training that federal employees receive in terms of law: They are told there are four types of law: statute law, case law, treaties, and executive agreements.

            There is no distinction made at all, except for the primacy of treaties and executive agreements. So, whatever the actual status (and the Supreme Court made some decision back in the 70s validating Executive Agreements), the people working for the government think they are law.

            Well, it is the law that government employees are obligated to act in accordance with executive orders. What do you expect, some shmo at the EPA to decide that he can thumb his nose at directives from his boss unless Congress specifically ratifies them?

        • How do you figure? Executive agreements [wikipedia.org] do not legally bind the US to anything. Basically they are figuratively handshake deals with no consequences for reneging.

          That's exactly what the agreement is about in all countries. The agreement is politically binding, not legally binding anywhere. What did you expect? Who would you sue if the 2 Celsius target is not respected? Because that's what is in the agreement. Nothing more. The agreement has nothing to do with the law, therefore saying it is not legally binding in the US is moot.

      • As someone already pointed out, Executive Agreements are not legally binding - where as Executive Actions are.
        To your point, executive action issuance is on a huge rise and does erode the Constitution.
        Unfortunately, it's the do-nothing Congress that indirectly encourages their use since the impotent House and Senate are incapable of doing any job other than obstructionism, not limited to any party.
      • And just how can any system be allowed to exist that does not take action to eliminate a threat to human lives? Global warming is not a matter of opinion. It is a blatantly obvious reality. And yes we can all expect some pain and suffering to take place in order to reverse global warming. I am 72 years old and the ruin and destruction of the environment world wide is disgusting, in my lifetime alone. The most vital step is an absolute lock of birth control. No matter what science does for us the m

    • Re: (Score:2, Informative)

      by fred6666 ( 4718031 )

      It doesn't matter. The other countries couldn't care less on the internal mechanism for entry into force within the USA. What matters to the rest of the world is that the US ratified it. Now go ahead and sue your president for ratifying the agreement if he wasn't allowed to by your senate. The US is still a part of the agreement.

      • Re:Paris Climate Change Agreement Enters Into Forc (Score:5, Insightful)

        by sls1j ( 580823 ) on Friday November 04, 2016 @10:06AM (#53212707) Homepage
        Actually it's not. As the president does not have the authority to ratify a treaty for our country.

        • Re: (Score:2)

          by XXongo ( 3986865 )
          The Supreme court is the arbiter of whether it is a treaty or an executive agreement. If the Supreme Court rules it's not a treaty but an executive agreement: then it's an executive agreement.

          That's the constitution.

          • Right: It's either a treaty and not ratified or an executive agreement and has no authority.

            In any case: it's meaningless toilet paper.

            • Re: (Score:2)

              by XXongo ( 3986865 )
              I have a question: why would you think a prostitute would do a better job on taxes than an accountant? Wouldn't it have been simpler to just hire a different accountant?

        • Your internal affairs don't matter. Other countries think you are part of the agreement. That makes you part of the agreement, like it or not.
          Let say there was a clause (there isn't) that if the USA didn't reduce CO2 emissions by 50% in 2050 other countries can apply a 50% tax on everything imported from the USA. That clause could be invoked even if you say your president didn't have the authority to ratify the treaty, because international judges will say that the USA is part of the treaty.

          • International judges would not say that, because the US didn't ratify it. All countries have to follow their own internal mechanisms to actually, legally join agreements.

            • Yes they would. And the US did ratify it. Only "it" isn't considered a treaty within US laws. Worldwide it's still a treaty/agreement/whatever you call it. And the US is part of it, like it or not.

              • False. Just because Obama said "yeah sure, we'll sign this" doesn't mean it's considered binding domestically or abroad.

                • Yes it is exactly how it works. When you send your head of state to sign an agreement, other countries aren't supposed to read all your laws to make sure he has the right to do it. Just like some dictators decided on their own to sign the agreement, if rule of law isn't applied in your country and that makes you sign it, then too bad for you, but you are politically bound by it.
                  But anyways as multiple people said in this discussion, it is not a treaty but an executive agreement within US law and senate appr

                  • Other countries absolutely are supposed to figure out if you're following your own rules, because that's the only way they can know whether you're taking it seriously or not. You can be politically bound, but not legally, and international judges wouldn't rule against you.

                    Rule of law has been respected only if you agree that it's not legally binding. The Senate would need to approve it otherwise.

                    • There is nothing legally binding in the agreement to begin with therefore it doesn't matter if US Senate approval was required or not. It's a goodwill agreement in which all signatories agree that the temperature increase should be kept well under 2 Celsius. How will this be achieve? By reducing CO2 emissions, but countries are free to set their own target and there is no penalty for countries not reaching their goal. Except name and shame, of course.

                      So again, what should the US Senate have to approve in th

        • You might have had a point, except it's not even a treaty under the laws of your country.

      • It's meaningless without ratification. The US will not make any effort to comply with it and the courts will throw out any attempt to force such an effort until it is ratified. The US is not part of the agreement, because the agreement will not be enforced in any way until it is ratified.

      • If the POTUS didn't follow the internal mechanisms, then the US *didn't* ratify it, and thus, it's not part of the agreement. That's how things work.

    • This article is incorrect, if I recall correctly, the U.S. Senate needs to approve all treaties before they take effect in the United States.

      Not necessarily true for executive agreements [wikipedia.org]. It's not a legally binding agreement so no ratification by the Senate is apparently required.

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by olau ( 314197 )

        I read that Wikipedia page, and I think you should be careful with using the term "legally binding" as it seems to have a very specific meaning. As I understand it the treaty/agreement is in fact binding - the question is probably who it binds.

        • I read that Wikipedia page, and I think you should be careful with using the term "legally binding" as it seems to have a very specific meaning.

          Yes it does have a specific meaning and I'm quite confident lawyers have been pouring carefully over that very fact. This is not some novel legal construct we are talking about here. Executive agreements have been used quite often in the past.

    • Only the headlines matter when it comes to the ClimateChange scam.

    • And if the Koch brothers via their surrogate Donald Trump win the presidency, Donald will insure that the USA will not be part of the other 99 countries, which, including China, India, Malaysia have signed on. The 99 other countries know what harm global warming is doing to the crops, the size of Hurricanes, Tornadoes, Oceans, and more. Pretty soon, a lot of Florida will be below sea-level.

  • The problem with this agreement (Score:5, Informative)

    by fred6666 ( 4718031 ) on Friday November 04, 2016 @09:50AM (#53212589)

    Is that there is no hard target. What happens if a country emits twice as much CO2 as they pledged? Nothing.
    Therefore it is worse than Kyoto, even if the US didn't ratify it.

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by Maritz ( 1829006 )
      You won't get much reaction on slashdot, it's a climate change denial echo chamber.
      • ...but there are plenty of Warmunists too.

      • Re:The problem with this agreement (Score:5, Insightful)

        by slew ( 2918 ) on Friday November 04, 2016 @12:35PM (#53213891)

        You won't get much reaction on slashdot, it's a climate change denial echo chamber.

        Oh I don't deny there is climate change. Is it AGW? I don't know, and I don't care. I'm a realist. Either way if the stats are true, it is politically impossible to do anything about it (short of a war and/or massive decimation of either population or economy which I don't favor).

        IMHO we should stop wasting time/money trying to stop it because that is simply a quixotic goal. We should simply spend our time/money to adapt. If you want to call me a denier, fine. Even if we caused it (and I'm agnostic on the "A" part of it), it doesn't really matter and we shouldn't argue about it. Go sue me.

        • It's the same fallacy all over again.
          Just because something is bad (in this case global warming) and even assuming there is nothing we can do to avoid it doesn't mean we should make it even worse by not making any effort to limit the damage. Global warming is not binary. There can be little warming, a big one, or anything in between.

          Yes we must adapt, but we should also reduce our emissions. If we can't limit the raise to 2 C then let's try to keep it under 2.5 C or 3 C.

          Being fallacious is not being realist

          • Re: (Score:3)

            by slew ( 2918 )

            It's the same fallacy all over again.
            Just because something is bad (in this case global warming) and even assuming there is nothing we can do to avoid it doesn't mean we should make it even worse by not making any effort to limit the damage. Global warming is not binary. There can be little warming, a big one, or anything in between.

            Yes we must adapt, but we should also reduce our emissions. If we can't limit the raise to 2 C then let's try to keep it under 2.5 C or 3 C.

            Being fallacious is not being realist. It's just being stupid.

            The fallacy is that we have any control over it at all.

            It's like when you have a company that's losing a million dollars a day. You could attempt to save some money cut some salaries and somehow reduce your burn rate and hope for some good fortune that could turn your situation around, but at some point you have to plan for a post-bankruptcy existence. I'm afraid that we have gotten to the point that we should be planning for that post bankruptcy existence, when you are hoping if everyone takes a 10% paycu

            • Except that you're planning for bankrupsy of something that is many years away in a company that can innovate it away. The fact you refuse to do it and instead aim to make money not by increasing efficiency or looking for alternate ways of generating revenue but rather by reducing output and cutting everything makes your example just utter garbage, especially on the face of what has happened in the past few years.

          • The vast majority of what humanity does to fend off disease and death, modern progress, depends on technological advancement, not sea levels.

            Slowing this down is no friend of humanity.

            Its conceivable even the worst part, moving back from the sea over 100-300 years, will become trivial with things like robots and more advanced manufacturing.

            It is sillier for us to bust our balls than it would be for those in 1900 to bust their balls, delaying year 2016 tech by a few decades, when they had no clue what was to

            • The point is that sea level rise and other adverse effects of global warming are going to cost more to humanity than not doing anything about it and continue the exponential growth of CO2.
              There is a sweet spot somewhere between unlimited emissions and zero emission. We should try to achieve it. The problem is that the current system of the polluter externalizing the damages of his pollution to the rest of the world is intrinsically broken.

        • Adapt, adapt ... the Unwort of this 'debate' ... I'm tired about it.

          Lets look at the USA. A country basically consisting of one big land mass. Or Canada for that matter, same situation.
          If sea levels are rising lets say 5meter/5yards you lose on both sides of the country a stripe of dozens if not hundreds of kilometers. So: you want to adapt to a situation where 80% of the population has to be resettled? How exactly?

          Then again we have desertification, loss of water supplies to your farm lands etc.

          So you need

        • The flaw is that at a certain point it will be impossible to adapt or survive. Winning the battle against global warming is not optional. It is a do or die situation.

        • Re: (Score:1)

          by tfmg_b ( 4684755 )
          If there were less people like you, the goal would be realistic. http://thinkprogress.org/clima... [thinkprogress.org] "the exposure—response between CO2 and cognitive function is approximately linear across the concentrations used,” [500 ppm - 1500 ppm]"

      • You won't get much reaction on slashdot, it's a climate change denial echo chamber.

        Not so much denial as.....don't care.

        I mean, I'll be dead and in the ground long before it really causes any problems, so, I'm gonna enjoy myself to the max now while i'm here and processing oxygen.

        :)

  • Laws (Score:5, Informative)

    by sls1j ( 580823 ) on Friday November 04, 2016 @10:07AM (#53212713) Homepage
    The world is about to discover that man made laws cannot override nature.

  • "Do more, but not anything really effective." (Score:5, Interesting)

    by interkin3tic ( 1469267 ) on Friday November 04, 2016 @10:09AM (#53212721)

    ...a report on Thursday found those pledges would see temperature rises significantly overshoot the threshold, with 3C of warming. Environmental groups urged governments to do more.

    Oh, you mean like climate engineering to take positive steps to reduce the temperature and soak up excess carbon already up there and maybe prevent the damage already on track to happen? No? [edf.org]? That's so evil that we shouldn't even consider it [theverge.com]?

    How about nuclear energy? That doesn't fart out carbon, and then we can still use, you know, electricity rather than... "Unequivocally no" again? [sierraclub.org] Oh, right, because Chernobyl happened that proves it can't work. I'm sure a similar nuclear disaster now is just as likely and would be much worse than a silly little 3 degree temperature rise.

    So the solution is... wishes, everyone riding around on bikes, and moral superiority? Because it looks to me like we're stuck between a rock and a hard place. The rock of fossil fuel interests keeping us from actually doing anything before it's a crisis, and naive environmentalists groups who rule out actual solutions on the grounds that they might not be completely perfect.

    • Yes to nukes, say climate scientists (Score:5, Interesting)

      by XXongo ( 3986865 ) on Friday November 04, 2016 @10:25AM (#53212855) Homepage

      How about nuclear energy? That doesn't fart out carbon, and then we can still use, you know, electricity rather than... "Unequivocally no" again? [sierraclub.org]

      Actually, environmentalists are very split on this. Some still are anti-nuke, but a large number of enviornmentalists actually do endorse nuclear power because it doesn't emit carbon dioxide. That group notably includes James Hansen, the climate scientist that the deniers most love to hate.

      Some links:

      https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/nuclear-power-must-make-a-comeback-for-climate-s-sake/
      http://thehill.com/policy/energy-environment/189068-climate-scientists-to-green-activists-embrace-nuke-power
      https://cna.ca/news/prominent-environmentalists-embrace-nuclear/
      http://www.ucsusa.org/nuclear-power/nuclear-power-and-global-warming#.WBynCeErLOQ
      https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2015/dec/03/nuclear-power-paves-the-only-viable-path-forward-on-climate-change

      • How about nuclear energy? That doesn't fart out carbon, and then we can still use, you know, electricity rather than... "Unequivocally no" again? [sierraclub.org]

        Actually, environmentalists are very split on this.

        No, they're actually not. Actual environmentalists (people who actually care about the environment) are 100% pro-nuclear power. 100%.

        Leftist kooks who use faux "environmentalism" as their weapon to push their anti-human agenda on the world tend to be anti-nuke. But they're not actually environmentalists (if they were, they would be pro-nuke).

        • Meh.

          Yeah, it's really easy to just tag anybody who disagrees with you as "anti-humanist" and "faux-environmentalist" and "not actually environmentalists."

          That really doesn't get anywhere, and certainly doesn't engage discussion or change anybody's mind, but I guess it makes you feel good.

      • Those appear to be people who would label themselves scientists rather than environmentalists first and foremost, and individual environmentalists.

        Environmental organizations still seem categorically opposed to nuclear power. The Sierra club is, if I'm not mistaken, the biggest and most influential environmentalist group (at least in the US), and their stance, as I linked to, is:

        Nuclear is no solution to Climate Change and every dollar spent on nuclear is one less dollar spent on truly safe, affordable and renewable energy sources.

        They're not only opposed to it, they discount it as a solution (despite it factually BEING a solution and the most affordable o

  • Not so much... (Score:5, Insightful)

    by argStyopa ( 232550 ) on Friday November 04, 2016 @10:19AM (#53212803) Journal

    The "hot air" we should worry about are the empty promises, as always.

    From TFA
    "The carbon emission curbs put forward by countries under Paris are not legally-binding but the framework of the accord, which includes a mechanism for periodically cranking those pledges up, is binding. " ...to which I'd add: while the framework is allegedly 'binding', I can't for the life of me find any consequences for breaking the pledges, so is a "legal framework" meaningful without punishment?

    (Recognizing, of course, that a lack of actual enforcement mechanism is precisely why this 'agreement' exists in the first place...it's just nice words with nothing behind it.)

    • Well, to have actual enforcement for climate rules you'd need something like a world government or something. And what happens when China and / or India says "fuck off" (hint: they already have)?

      • And, honestly, the US says it even more loudly, in even more contexts.

        The US is uninterested in handing over any sovereignty to organizations that aren't nominally American. So should any country be, if it's responsible to its citizens.

        If Denmark, for example, is willing to hand over its sovereign choices as a state to the EU (wherein, say, the tiny population of Denmark can be outvoted completely by Germany), then literally the question is: how is Denmark even a state anymore, and not just a bureaucratic

  • Under the agreement, all governments that have ratified the accord, which includes the US, China, India and the EU, now carry an obligation to hold global warming to no more than 2C above pre-industrial levels.

    Except, there's no penalty for failing to meet the stated goals...

    • Good point, why even set goals at all? We landed people on the moon because all those scientists and engineers were afraid of getting thrown in jail if we didn't, right?

  • People are SO naive (Score:5, Interesting)

    by Danathar ( 267989 ) on Friday November 04, 2016 @10:38AM (#53212925) Journal
    I'm sorry, I totally believe that man is contributing to climate change but this story is so rosy eyed its downright dumb. We have NOT made progress. It's going to cost trillions and trillions of dollars to get where people want to go and not billions. The idea that major powers will voluntarily give up percentage points of GDP to reach even the low percentages of what scientists THINK will be needed is naive. Politicians that crave power and have made it are not dumb. They know this full well which is why I'm suspicious that these agreements are nothing more than power grabs to screw us all over. If it was a SERIOUS agreement that was ENFORCEABLE I'd think less so, but this one? Please! A carbon tax that effectively got what they wanted would drive up the cost of electricity in places like the UK by 50-75%. That's the sort of numbers that politics will now allow. Attempting to Modify human behavior is not going to solve this problem. Technology is the only way out.

    • We have NOT made progress.

      Haven't we? I mean yet it looks like it if you run around with your eyes closed, but really haven't we? Cars are getting more efficient, processes are getting more efficient. We're coming up with new ways of harnessing energy, improving refining and chemical reactions, generating greener forms of power, wasting less heat, recovering more emissions, all the while creating cleaner products (even cleaner fuels) at an ever increasing rate boosting the GDP as we go.

      Yes the problem is not solved. To say that ther

    • What about atmosphere that does not make drowsy.
      http://thinkprogress.org/clima... [thinkprogress.org] "the exposure-response between CO2 and cognitive function is approximately linear across the concentrations used” (500 ppm - 1500 ppm)
      There is >400 ppm of atmospheric CO2 already.

  • It doesn't need to be ratified. (Score:2, Interesting)

    by Anonymous Coward

    https://www.nrdc.org/experts/david-doniger/paris-climate-agreement-explained-does-congress-need-sign

    TL;DR everything in the paris agreement is already covered by a UN climate change framework that was ratified by the Senate.

  • Paris Climate Change Agreement

    Do they really need everyone else to help handle climate change in Paris. It's just one city.

  • Let me first provide a bit of context. I'm no fan of fossil fuels or being dependent on them. Even IF they are not messing up the atmosphere as some are apt to claim, they are not a renewable resource and sooner or later we are going to run out of them , how much later again a point of debate but nobody debates it will happen. To me it make sense to find a way to do something better 'just in case' most the majority of scientist who study climate happen to be correct AND because why be dependent on a limi

  • Well its about time. (Score:3)

    by jimbob6 ( 3996847 ) on Friday November 04, 2016 @12:05PM (#53213585)
    Oh good. We have now stopped global warming and all it took was an executive order.
    Take that science.

    • Are you saying a law would be any different? It's illegal for the planet to warm by more than 2 Celsius! That sounds a lot more effective than an executive order!

  • So... (Score:1)

    by Anonymous Coward

    Obama will be removing the "anti-dumping" duties on Chinese solar so normal people can get solar easier? The UN/US/EU will stop w/ their ridiculous shipping restrictions on li-ion batteries so we can have a practical option other than a $15k NiFe battery systems or towers of 260lb saltwater batteries or Lead? Or are we going to continue pretending that having solar systems installed for nearly 10x what they should cost by Solar City is a good thing? Perhaps we just need more carbon credits so people can fee

  • Anybody that believes that China growing their coal plants by 35-50GW each year, with no real cuts, and only the western world to make huge cuts, will cause CO2 to drop, is a total FOOL.
    Sadly, there are many all around.

Slashdot Top Deals

"The vast majority of successful major crimes against property are perpetrated by individuals abusing positions of trust." -- Lawrence Dalzell

Close