• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Climate Deal: Up to 170 Nations Poised to Sign Landmark Agreement

MrT

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Jun 4, 2015
Messages
5,849
Reaction score
2,426
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Liberal
Climate Deal: Up to 170 Nations Poised to Sign Landmark Agreement - NBC News

As many as 170 countries are expected to sign the Paris Agreement on climate change Friday as the landmark deal takes a key step toward entering into force years ahead of schedule.

U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry joins dozens of world leaders for a signing ceremony that is expected to set a record for international diplomacy: Never have so many countries signed an agreement on the first available day. States that don't sign Friday have a year to do so.

After signing, countries must formally approve the Paris Agreement through their domestic procedures. The United Nations says at least 13 countries are expected to do that Friday by depositing their instruments of ratification.

The agreement will enter into force once 55 countries representing at least 55 percent of global emissions have formally joined it. The United States and China, which together account for nearly 40 percent of global emissions, have said they intend to join this year.

This agreement does have plenty of issues, not the least of which is the fact that the agreement is not a legally binding treaty. However, we should remember that non-binding does not mean meaningless. Keep in mind that international agreements are made in good faith. When a country agrees to abide by certain conditions and then re-neg on those conditions, even if they were not legally bound originally, then the likelihood that country will be able to accomplish future goals that also rely on international cooperation decreases significantly. In fact, most international agreements rely on countries’ desire to continue having good relationships with their counterparts.

A key aspect of this deal will depend upon the United States and the next administration. Obama already plans to treat this deal like an executive only treaty such that congressional approval will not be necessary, but it will be possible for the next administration (although made more difficult once Obama approves), to unwind that treaty.

Just another reason to ensure that a Democrat wins the White House.
 

chuckiechan

DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 2, 2015
Messages
16,568
Reaction score
7,253
Location
California Caliphate
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
And that's 170 countries with their hand in America's pocket encouraging us to continue industrializing so their crappy little economies can somehow buy time.
 

ludin

DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 3, 2013
Messages
57,470
Reaction score
14,587
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
this will be rejected by the house and senate and have no legs to stand on.
which is a good thing. people complain about shipping our jobs overseas but
hey massive wealth redistribution is ok.

more so when it accomplishes absolutely nothing.
great idea. :lamo
 

MrT

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Jun 4, 2015
Messages
5,849
Reaction score
2,426
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Liberal
this will be rejected by the house and senate and have no legs to stand on. which is a good thing. people complain about shipping our jobs overseas but hey massive wealth redistribution is ok.

more so when it accomplishes absolutely nothing. great idea. :lamo

This will be an executive only treaty. The House and Senate are not involved.
 

VanceMack

MSG Benavidez TAB
DP Veteran
Joined
Feb 1, 2010
Messages
83,433
Reaction score
36,855
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
Climate Deal: Up to 170 Nations Poised to Sign Landmark Agreement - NBC News



This agreement does have plenty of issues, not the least of which is the fact that the agreement is not a legally binding treaty. However, we should remember that non-binding does not mean meaningless. Keep in mind that international agreements are made in good faith. When a country agrees to abide by certain conditions and then re-neg on those conditions, even if they were not legally bound originally, then the likelihood that country will be able to accomplish future goals that also rely on international cooperation decreases significantly. In fact, most international agreements rely on countries’ desire to continue having good relationships with their counterparts.

A key aspect of this deal will depend upon the United States and the next administration. Obama already plans to treat this deal like an executive only treaty such that congressional approval will not be necessary, but it will be possible for the next administration (although made more difficult once Obama approves), to unwind that treaty.

Just another reason to ensure that a Democrat wins the White House.
:lamo

Why? Clinton endorsed Kyoto with 4 years in his presidency and didnt once submit the treaty for passage. Probably because he knew the democrats in the Senate wouldnt buy off on it, starting with Sheets Byrd who offered and championed legislation that is still in effect today that GUARANTEES things like climate change treaties cant be passed
 

bubbabgone

DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 25, 2013
Messages
34,559
Reaction score
17,040
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
2 things stand out ...

"The Obama administration is expected to treat the deal as an executive agreement, which needs only the president's approval." - no surprise there but we'll see how that works out in practice.
and
"Global energy emissions, the biggest source of man-made greenhouse gases, were flat last year even though the global economy grew, according to the International Energy Agency." - so looks like no one needs this step toward global government.

Just another reason to ensure that a Democrat doesn't win the White House.
 

MrT

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Jun 4, 2015
Messages
5,849
Reaction score
2,426
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Liberal
2 things stand out ...

"The Obama administration is expected to treat the deal as an executive agreement, which needs only the president's approval." - no surprise there but we'll see how that works out in practice.
and
"Global energy emissions, the biggest source of man-made greenhouse gases, were flat last year even though the global economy grew, according to the International Energy Agency." - so looks like no one needs this step toward global government.

Just another reason to ensure that a Democrat doesn't win the White House.

The second quote that you brought up only supports the need for more action. Basically, they are noting that we did not increase CO2 emissions last year, even though the Global GDP grew, so that effectively helps to kill the argument that regulating CO2 production will harm the global economy. However, our CO2 emissions still needs to be reduced. It is akin to accelerating a car toward a cliff and then taking the pedal off the accelerator. We still need to slow down by applying the brake. Coasting alone will not do it.
 

eohrnberger

DP Veteran
Joined
Nov 20, 2013
Messages
56,084
Reaction score
38,844
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Other
This will be an executive only treaty. The House and Senate are not involved.

Is there such a thing as an 'executive only treaty'? Didn't think that this was possible, and that at least the Senate had to vote on treaties.

How does this square up with the 'balance of power' / 'separation of powers' within the US government? 'Cause it doesn't seem like it does.
 

Beaudreaux

Preserve Protect Defend
Supporting Member
DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 13, 2012
Messages
18,233
Reaction score
15,861
Location
veni, vidi, volo - now back in NC
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
[...]
Just another reason to ensure that a Democrat wins the White House.

Read the Constitution - Article II, Section 2, Clause 2 - "..., by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, ..."

The Democrats, even with control of the White House, do not have the power to negotiate away our nation sovereignty or economic stability, without first taking control of the Senate as well.
 

Beaudreaux

Preserve Protect Defend
Supporting Member
DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 13, 2012
Messages
18,233
Reaction score
15,861
Location
veni, vidi, volo - now back in NC
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
This will be an executive only treaty. The House and Senate are not involved.

Please show me the citation from the US Constitution wherein the power to negotiate and enter into "an executive only treaty" is empowered upon the Executive Branch?
 

American

Trump Grump Whisperer
Supporting Member
DP Veteran
Monthly Donator
Joined
Mar 11, 2006
Messages
94,484
Reaction score
32,309
Location
SE Virginia
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
The second quote that you brought up only supports the need for more action. Basically, they are noting that we did not increase CO2 emissions last year, even though the Global GDP grew, so that effectively helps to kill the argument that regulating CO2 production will harm the global economy. However, our CO2 emissions still needs to be reduced. It is akin to accelerating a car toward a cliff and then taking the pedal off the accelerator. We still need to slow down by applying the brake. Coasting alone will not do it.

Horse****, you don't know what effect that had at all.
 

MrT

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Jun 4, 2015
Messages
5,849
Reaction score
2,426
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Liberal

American

Trump Grump Whisperer
Supporting Member
DP Veteran
Monthly Donator
Joined
Mar 11, 2006
Messages
94,484
Reaction score
32,309
Location
SE Virginia
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
Please show me the citation from the US Constitution wherein the power to negotiate and enter into "an executive only treaty" is empowered upon the Executive Branch?

Remember, you're dealing with a group of people that hate the Constitution as an equality killing contract written by rich, white, slaveowning racists.
 

Beaudreaux

Preserve Protect Defend
Supporting Member
DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 13, 2012
Messages
18,233
Reaction score
15,861
Location
veni, vidi, volo - now back in NC
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
[...]

Just another reason to ensure that a Democrat wins the White House.

Also, here's an example of how the Democrat's using their own "special kind of logic" on this issue have dealt with this issue so far from the current Democrat controlled White House (for those with a logical thought process, please be warned and try not to throw things at the screen in anger or laugh uncontrollably in amazed disgust):

 

MrT

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Jun 4, 2015
Messages
5,849
Reaction score
2,426
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Liberal
Horse****, you don't know what effect that had at all.

Follow me with this one:

The argument from those who do not wish to support AGW policies (particularly reducing CO2 emissions) claim that it will hurt the economy. The fact that we have seen a flattening of CO2 emissions and yet the Global GDP still grew helps to effectively kill that argument, or at least makes the argument much much weaker.
 

bubbabgone

DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 25, 2013
Messages
34,559
Reaction score
17,040
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
The second quote that you brought up only supports the need for more action. Basically, they are noting that we did not increase CO2 emissions last year, even though the Global GDP grew, so that effectively helps to kill the argument that regulating CO2 production will harm the global economy. However, our CO2 emissions still needs to be reduced. It is akin to accelerating a car toward a cliff and then taking the pedal off the accelerator. We still need to slow down by applying the brake. Coasting alone will not do it.

HA!
Like I predicted on a different thread yesterday. The alarmists will claim credit for any change.

There was an obvious contradiction in the AP story, despite trying as they did to present it other wise.
on the one hand ...
The United States is a key concern for the Paris Agreement as other countries worry what the next president might do. Analysts say that if the agreement enters into force before President Barack Obama leaves office in January, it would be more complicated for his successor to withdraw from the deal, because it would take four years to do so under the agreement's rules.

and on the other ...
The Obama administration is expected to treat the deal as an executive agreement, which needs only the president's approval.

Leaving aside the notion that he can do something like this to begin with, a President can't enter the USA into an agreement like this all by himself and not expect to have it undone by another President all by himself regardless of what time frame the initial President agreed to.
 

MrT

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Jun 4, 2015
Messages
5,849
Reaction score
2,426
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Liberal
Please show me the citation from the US Constitution wherein the power to negotiate and enter into "an executive only treaty" is empowered upon the Executive Branch?

Given that 94% of all international agreements since the start of WWII are executive only agreements, I feel fairly confident in saying that such is legally permitted by the US Constitution.

Feel free to read the wikipedia page on the Treaty Clause though if you like.
 

VanceMack

MSG Benavidez TAB
DP Veteran
Joined
Feb 1, 2010
Messages
83,433
Reaction score
36,855
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
Please show me the citation from the US Constitution wherein the power to negotiate and enter into "an executive only treaty" is empowered upon the Executive Branch?
There is no such thing as an executive treaty. Executive AGREEMENTS arent treaties. They arent even executive orders. An executive agreement signed by a president indicates that presidents intent to roughly attempt to follow the things discussed in the treaty. Nothing more. The Paris Agreement states that emission reduction is an agreed upon goal and that each country can decide what that looks like or how they would go about accomplishing it. Essentially...this Paris talk is a gathering of world leaders to toss each other off and tell each other how wonderful they are. One can only imagine the amount of pollutants expelled by them all just to get there.
 

MrT

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Jun 4, 2015
Messages
5,849
Reaction score
2,426
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Liberal
HA!
Like I predicted on a different thread yesterday. The alarmists will claim credit for any change.

There was an obvious contradiction in the AP story, despite trying as they did to present it other wise.
on the one hand ...
The United States is a key concern for the Paris Agreement as other countries worry what the next president might do. Analysts say that if the agreement enters into force before President Barack Obama leaves office in January, it would be more complicated for his successor to withdraw from the deal, because it would take four years to do so under the agreement's rules.

and on the other ...
The Obama administration is expected to treat the deal as an executive agreement, which needs only the president's approval.

Leaving aside the notion that he can do something like this to begin with, a President can't enter the USA into an agreement like this all by himself and not expect to have it undone by another President all by himself regardless of what time frame the initial President agreed to.

Yes, Presidents can act on these types of treaties. And they have been doing such in 94% of ALL international agreements since 1939.

But yes, you are correct in that a future administration is not necessarily bound, and could reverse, an executive only treaty...but for the fact that it will hurt the U.S. credibility in terms of any other future international agreement.
 

American

Trump Grump Whisperer
Supporting Member
DP Veteran
Monthly Donator
Joined
Mar 11, 2006
Messages
94,484
Reaction score
32,309
Location
SE Virginia
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
Last edited:

VanceMack

MSG Benavidez TAB
DP Veteran
Joined
Feb 1, 2010
Messages
83,433
Reaction score
36,855
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
Given that 94% of all international agreements since the start of WWII are executive only agreements, I feel fairly confident in saying that such is legally permitted by the US Constitution.

Feel free to read the wikipedia page on the Treaty Clause though if you like.
Agreement. Not Treaty. Agreements are not legally binding and in fact cannot be submitted to the Senate because they arent treaties.
 

Beaudreaux

Preserve Protect Defend
Supporting Member
DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 13, 2012
Messages
18,233
Reaction score
15,861
Location
veni, vidi, volo - now back in NC
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Given that 94% of all international agreements since the start of WWII are executive only agreements, I feel fairly confident in saying that such is legally permitted by the US Constitution.

Feel free to read the wikipedia page on the Treaty Clause though if you like.

Seriously? Wikipedia? Since when did Wikipedia have sway over the US Constitution? I gave you the citation from the US Constitution. Did you read it?

Article II, Section 2, Clause 2 - "He shall have power, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate, to make treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur; ..."

Two thirds of the Senate have to concur, not Wikipedia, two thirds of the Senators present at the time of the vote.

Again, READ THE CONSTITUTION.
 

American

Trump Grump Whisperer
Supporting Member
DP Veteran
Monthly Donator
Joined
Mar 11, 2006
Messages
94,484
Reaction score
32,309
Location
SE Virginia
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
Follow me with this one:

The argument from those who do not wish to support AGW policies (particularly reducing CO2 emissions) claim that it will hurt the economy. The fact that we have seen a flattening of CO2 emissions and yet the Global GDP still grew helps to effectively kill that argument, or at least makes the argument much much weaker.

It kills nothing, because CO2 is only one of thousands of factors that affect an economy. Follow me with this one.
 

MrT

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Jun 4, 2015
Messages
5,849
Reaction score
2,426
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Liberal
It's an Executive Agreement, not an Executive Only Treaty. It's not a treaty at all. And the only reason you're pimping it, is because you want you loving messiah Obama to have the power to circumvent common sense checks and balances in our government like a ****ing tyrant.

And the only reason you're denigrating it, is because you want your obstructionist Republicans in the Congress and Senate to continue their track record of doing less than any Congress in history rather than actually take steps to deal with problems that our country and our globe faces.
 

MrT

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Jun 4, 2015
Messages
5,849
Reaction score
2,426
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Liberal
It kills nothing, because CO2 is only one of thousands of factors that affect an economy. Follow me with this one.

Yes...no ****. That's my point. Regulations to reduce CO2 emissions will not kill the economy specifically because there are thousands of factors that affect an economy.
 
Top Bottom