A few minutes past 9 a.m. on Wednesday, President Donald Trump sent out a tweet that had much of the world on the edge of its seat:

I will be announcing my decision on the Paris Accord over the next few days. MAKE AMERICA GREAT AGAIN!

— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) May 31, 2017

Soon after Trump posted that tweet, the New York Times reported that he is expected to pull out of the 195-nation climate pact, according to three U.S. officials. One senior official told the Times that the decision was not final, and that specifics had yet to be hammered out.

But still, if the president makes good on one of his signature campaign pledges–he said he would “cancel” the agreement–the government’s commitment to combating climate change would essentially vanish–a symbolic blow that could lead other countries to withdraw.

The climate accord–an effort spearheaded by President Barack Obama and signed in Paris in December 2015–has split many of the key actors in Trump’s orbit; Congress has also taken opposing sides on the matter largely, but not exclusively, among party lines.

Leading the charge to abort the accord is Steve Bannon, Trump’s chief strategist. Bannon, a highly influential force in Trump’s ascendance to the White House, sees it as making good on a central campaign promise. Despite reports that Bannon was losing sway with the president in recent weeks, his “don’t forget who got you here” line seems to resonate with Trump.

Scott Pruitt, the EPA director, has also lobbied Trump to withdraw from the pact. In an interview on “Fox & Friends” in April, Pruitt said: “It’s a bad deal for America. It was an America second, third, or fourth kind of approach.”

But there are competing voices as well, with some of Trump’s aides arguing to remain in the agreement or to work on re-tooling it. Secretary of State Rex Tillerson and Ivanka Trump have argued that leaving the climate deal could jeopardize relationships with allies–like Europe–and leave the U.S. in a less powerful position in setting the rules for the global climate change discussion in the future.

Tillerson is expected to meet privately with Trump on Wednesday afternoon–perhaps to deliver a final plea to remain in the pact.

Several major corporations–including oil and natural gas giants like ExxonMobil–support remaining in the agreement. Darren Woods, Exxon’s CEO, recently wrote a letter to Trump, saying that the U.S., by being part of the accord, “will maintain a seat at the negotiating table to ensure a level playing field so that all energy sources and technologies are treated equitably in an open, transparent and competitive global market so as to achieve economic growth and poverty reduction at the lowest cost to society.”

Congress, like the White House, is breaking along a few different fault lines–some GOP representatives and senators have urged Trump to remain in the agreement, while dozens of others have implored him to withdraw. Sen. Susan Collins (R-ME) is one of the more vocal Republican voices supporting the pact. In a letter to Trump earlier this month, co-signed by Sen. Ben Cardin (D-MD), she wrote:

Climate change is a significant environmental challenge that requires global solutions to reduce greenhouse gas pollution and to address the effects already being seen worldwide. For international climate efforts to advance, is is essential that the United States keep a seat at the table.

Lindsey Graham and Bob Corker, GOP Senators from South Carolina and Tennessee, respectively, have also argued that staying in the accord would benefit the United States. Graham recently said leaving it “would be bad for the party, bad for the country.”

Other Republican senators have either remained mum on the subject, or have lobbied Trump to exit the deal. A letter sent last week to Trump, signed by 22 GOP members of the Senate, argued that remaining in the agreement “would subject the United States to significant litigation risk that could upend your Administration’s ability to fulfill its goal of rescinding the Clean Power Plan,” an Obama-era initiative that has yet to go into effect.

“Accordingly,” the senators wrote, ” we strongly encourage you to make a clean break from the Paris Agreement.”

Alec Siegel

Alec Siegel is a staff writer at Law Street Media. When he’s not working at Law Street he’s either cooking a mediocre tofu dish or enjoying a run in the woods. His passions include: gooey chocolate chips, black coffee, mountains, the Animal Kingdom in general, and John Lennon. Baklava is his achilles heel. Contact Alec at ASiegel@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Where Do the Trump Team and Congress Stand on the Paris Climate Accord? appeared first on Law Street.

Despite spending his campaign extolling the devilish scourge of globalism, international blocs, pacts, agreements, clubs, and any other united, transnational body, President Donald Trump’s actions in office thus far have done little to renege on any U.S. commitments with the wider world. Sure, Trump has hung up the phone on Australia’s prime minister; he has issued threats to North Korea, Iran, China, and a number of other bad actors or fragile allies. Trump promised a number of things during the campaign when it comes to existing international agreements–rip, tear, shred, renegotiate, etc. But he has yet to act on any of those impulses.

Here is a look at two international accords and one trade deal Trump has, at one point or another, promised to withdraw from or drastically alter. Instead, Trump has largely maintained the status quo as we approach the end of his fist 100 days in office.

Paris Climate Agreement

Trump once pegged climate change as a hoax invented by the Chinese. At a campaign stop last May, he pledged to “cancel” the 2015 Paris Climate Agreement, which the U.S. signed with nearly 200 other countries to combat climate change. Trump has since softened his questioning of climate change’s legitimacy and has largely ceased threatening to pull out of the agreement. And although EPA Chief Scott Pruitt favors withdrawing from the pact–Trump signed an executive order in March directing Pruitt to begin that process–he is reportedly questioning whether or not the political blowback of such a move would be worth it.

According to a recent New York Times report, Trump–a morally bankrupt man of few fixed beliefs in the eyes of critics, an open-mind in the eyes of his supporters–is split between two influencing camps within his administration. There is the Steve Bannon, anti-globalist school, and then there are those like Trump’s son-in-law Jared Kushner who support the climate pact. Trump is expected to make a final decision on the U.S. role in the Paris agreement by the end of May.

Iran Deal

During his campaign, Trump called the nuclear deal with Iran “the worst deal ever negotiated.” Engineered by the Obama Administration in 2015, the deal exchanged sanctions relief for a freeze on Iran’s nuclear program. Critics said the deal merely delayed the inevitable; once Iran’s economy was back on track, and once the 10-year deal expired, it would build up its nuclear arsenal. Supporters asked: “would you rather Iran start firing off nuclear bombs now?”

Trump, a fervent and vocal critic of the deal–which, along with the United States, was negotiated by China, Russia, France, Germany, and the U.K.–reprimanded Iran for a missile test in January. Secretary of State Rex Tillerson recently ordered a review to consider imposing additional sanctions on Iran–a move that could breach the nuclear agreement–just as Defense Secretary Jim Mattis said the deal “still stands,” confirming Iran was complying with it.

NAFTA

The Iran deal may be the “worst deal ever negotiated,” but in Trump’s eyes, NAFTA, or the North American Free Trade Agreement, is the “worst trade deal in history.” The 1994 trade deal between the United States, Canada, and Mexico has been the perfect straw man for the legion of Trump voters who had been disaffected and disproportionately affected by global trade (and of course by automation, but you can’t exactly renegotiate a deal with machines).

Last week, Trump hinted that “some very big changes” were coming to the trade agreement. But on Monday, during a speech in Mexico, Chamber of Commerce executive Thomas Donohue soothed concerns that the administration would drastically alter the deal, or scrap it altogether. “I want to assure you that despite what you may see in the news, or hear in the news, there is a constructive process underway behind the scenes,” he said.

Alec Siegel

Alec Siegel is a staff writer at Law Street Media. When he’s not working at Law Street he’s either cooking a mediocre tofu dish or enjoying a run in the woods. His passions include: gooey chocolate chips, black coffee, mountains, the Animal Kingdom in general, and John Lennon. Baklava is his achilles heel. Contact Alec at ASiegel@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Despite Rhetoric, Trump Hasn’t Abandoned Any International Agreements in His First 100 Days appeared first on Law Street.

President Donald Trump signed an executive order on Tuesday that could scrap former President Barack Obama’s Clean Power Plan. What does it mean for the future of U.S. environmental policy?

What is the Clean Power Plan?

In 2015, Obama introduced the Clean Power Plan (CPP) as an effort to cut down on carbon dioxide emissions. It gave each state a different quota for reducing its emissions, allowing states the independence to develop their own plans to meet these requirements. States would have had to submit their ideas by 2016, or 2018 if an extended deadline had been approved. If a state failed to do so, then the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) would implement its own plan in that state. States would have had until the year 2022 to actually put their plans in action.

What will happen to the Paris climate agreement?

The Obama Administration’s goal was to bring emission levels to at least 26 percent below 2005 levels by the year 2025. It was announced prior to the 2015 Paris climate talks to show the U.S. commitment to lowering emissions. Following the conference, the U.S. joined almost 200 other involved countries in a pledge to prevent the earth’s temperature from rising more than 2 degrees Celsius, or 3.6 degrees Fahrenheit.

Trump’s order gives the EPA the authority to rework the previous plan. But without the previous administration’s policy in place, the United States may not be able to carry out its end of the agreement reached in Paris. Though the White House hasn’t taken an official position on the Paris climate agreement, EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt recently called it a “bad deal” and Trump has considered removing the U.S. from the agreement over doubts about the existence of climate change. If Trump follows through with exiting the agreement, the U.S. could end up setting a precedent for other countries to back out of their pledges.

According to the New York Times, Trump’s inner circle is divided over whether or not to remain in the agreement. Trump’s daughter Ivanka and Secretary of State Rex Tillerson are reportedly concerned that withdrawing could damage the U.S.’s relationship with the other countries involved, but senior adviser Steve Bannon wants out.

Will the new policy bring back jobs?

The CPP was not popular with everyone. Two dozen states sued the Obama Administration over concerns that the policy would hurt their coal industries, because it urged states to transition from relying on fossil fuels to relying on natural gas and renewable energy. But Trump’s move won’t necessarily restore many of the jobs lost by coal miners; the mining industry has been on the decline for several years, and humans are being replaced by technology. While Trump’s executive order makes good on many of his campaign promises, it may not garner its intended results.

Victoria Sheridan

Victoria is an editorial intern at Law Street. She is a senior journalism major and French minor at George Washington University. She’s also an editor at GW’s student newspaper, The Hatchet. In her free time, she is either traveling or planning her next trip abroad. Contact Victoria at VSheridan@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Trump Signs Executive Order to Get Rid of Obama’s Clean Power Plan appeared first on Law Street.

While President Barack Obama’s time in office has now come to a close, his environmental legacy has the potential to last far beyond his eight years as president. The Obama Administration has worked tirelessly to protect and defend the environment, championing several initiatives. Some key accomplishments, however, include the establishment of more national monuments than any other president, signing the historic Paris Climate Agreement to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, banning drilling in parts of the Arctic and Atlantic Ocean, and unveiling the Clean Power Plan. Additionally, Obama raised fuel-efficiency standards, invested in green energy, and created the Federal Strategy to Promote the Health of Honey Bees and Other Pollinators. Whether these policies stand the test of time, however, may depend heavily on the actions of future administrations.

National Monuments

While Obama’s time in office was winding down, he was still designating sites as national monuments. On January 12, 2017, Obama named five new national monuments. That brought his total number during his presidency to 34—more than any other president. Moreover, in December 2016, he created two national monument sites in Utah and Nevada. The Bears Ears National Monument, which protects 1.35 million acres of land in southwest Utah and two geological formations, was particularly controversial; five Native nations had petitioned Obama to grant federal monument protections to the area.

“Bears Ears” Courtesy of Bureau of Land Management : License: (CC BY 2.0)

Over the course of his time in office, Obama utilized the Antiquities Act–a law signed by President Theodore Roosevelt in 1906–multiple times to create the monuments. The Act gives the President of the United States the authority to set aside land to protect important historic, cultural, and ecological sites without approval from Congress. In total, Obama protected more than 550 million acres. That is more than double the amount that Roosevelt, a well-known conservationist, conserved himself.

A large portion of the land Obama protected is covered by water. He created and expanded several large national marine monuments. One notable monument is the Pacific Remote Islands National Marine Monument, a large collection of coral reefs, underwater preserves, and tiny islands roughly 1,000 miles off the coast of Hawaii. Bush had originally established the monument in 2009 at 55.6 million acres; Obama then expanded it by 261.3 million acres in 2014. Obama also quadrupled the size of Hawaii’s Papahānaumokuākea Marine National Monument, which is home to more than 7,000 species of wildlife, many of which are endangered.

Ban on Arctic and Atlantic Drilling

In addition to the significant acreage of water Obama protected as national monuments, his administration also banned arctic drilling. Using the Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act, Obama withdrew hundreds of millions of acres of federally-owned land in the Arctic and Atlantic Ocean from new offshore and gas drilling in December 2016. The Act allowed for Obama to act unilaterally, but no president has ever utilized the law to permanently protect land. In particular, large portions of the Chukchi Sea and Beaufort Sea in the Arctic and canyons in the Atlantic from Massachusetts to Virginia are now off-limits to oil exploration.

“Sea Ice in the Chukchi Sea” Courtesy of NASA Goddard Space Flight Center : License: (CC BY 2.0)

The Atlantic Ocean already had a five-year moratorium in place, and the protection of the canyons means that most of the eastern seaboard will not be drilled for oil. The seas in the Arctic are a habitat for several endangered species, including species that are candidates for an endangered species listing, and the canyons protected are largely recognized as biodiversity hotspots. If the ban is upheld by the courts, about 98 percent of the waters in the Arctic would be protected from oil exploration and drilling. In a presidential memorandum, Obama stated that these areas are extremely vulnerable to oil spills and have irreplaceable value for marine animals, wildlife, wildlife habitat, and scientific research–making the Arctic Waters a prime area for protection

Paris Climate Agreement

The Paris Climate Agreement was the first of its kind–a global consensus to combat the effects of climate change. Its central aim is to strengthen the response to threats of climate change and keep the global temperature rise below 2 degrees Celsius. The agreement also aims to cut global greenhouse gas emissions by limiting the burning of fossil fuels and assist in preventing further floods, droughts, catastrophic storms, and rising sea levels.

In a rare moment of consensus, both the U.S. and China ratified the agreement, formally committing the world’s two biggest economies to curb climate change. The terms allow countries to determine independently which strategies will be most successful in attaining climate goals. While some of the aspects are binding and some are not, Obama’s ratification of the deal demonstrated a bold move by his administration to make protecting the planet a priority in years to come.

Clean Power Plan

President Obama’s most historic environmental initiative, perhaps, is the Clean Power Plan, which is designed to aggressively shrink America’s carbon footprint. The plan outlined the first national standards to specifically address pollution from power plants. In particular, the plan cuts significant amounts of carbon pollution and other pollutants from power plants that are responsible for soot and smog that have an adverse effect on human health. The plan is long-term, allowing companies to remain in business while making the changes needed to comply with the new standards.

The Supreme Court issued a “stay” in February 2016,  temporarily halting the plan from moving forward. However, it is set to be fully in place by 2030, with carbon pollution 32 percent below 2005 levels, sulfur dioxide pollution 90 percent lower, and nitrogen oxides 72 percent lower. This reduction in greenhouse gases is specifically aimed at combating the dangerous effects of such pollution on the climate. Additionally, the entire plan itself is expected to contribute a variety of positive economic effects–climate benefits of roughly $20 billion, health benefits in the $14-$34 billion range, and total net benefits of approximately $26-$45 billion.

“Power plant” Courtesy of Spiros Vathis : License: (CC BY-ND 2.0)

What’s Next?

Despite the great measures Obama undertook to protect the environment, it is quite possible that some of his environmental policies will be overturned by a new administration. The ban on drilling may or may not be able to be overturned by President Trump, but a Republican-controlled Congress could move to rescind the withdrawal of federal lands from oil and gas exploration. However, such a move might not be successful, given a close reading of the Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act.

National monuments have never been removed by a subsequent president, but President Trump has reportedly stated that he is open to the idea of doing so. As for the Paris Climate Agreement, Trump has made it clear that he wants to withdraw America’s participation in the historic deal. Arguments that the agreement will be disastrous for the economy and American industry are at the forefront of opponents’ minds. While Trump considers withdrawing the U.S. from the agreement, China, India, Germany, the EU, and the UK have all reaffirmed their commitments to curb emissions. China’s President, Xi Jinping, even stated that removing the U.S. from the agreement will endanger future generations. Furthermore, if other countries continue to invest heavily in clean energy, then money, jobs, and technology are sure to stream into those industries, perhaps leaving the U.S. behind.

The fate of the Clean Power Plan also hangs in the balance under the new administration. Many opposed to the plan have already urged President Trump to sign an executive order that rescinds the rule and tell the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) not to enforce it. However, attorneys general from a variety of states have noted that “history and legal precedent strongly suggest that such an action would not stand up in court.” The plan is also vulnerable to the Congressional Review Act, which would allow Congress to nullify the regulations. For now, the Clean Power Plan remains in limbo.

Overall, most of Obama’s environmental legacy will be decided by the courts, not by a particular administration. With more than 100 judicial vacancies across the country as Trump takes office, along with a vacant Supreme Court seat, the courtroom is going to be the arena in which environmental policies could be dismantled. In particular circuits with more than one vacant seat, specific areas of environmental regulation may be rolled back immensely; for example, the Second Circuit has become a critical arena for determining water regulation under the Clean Water Act and the Ninth Circuit has a profound impact on endangered specifies. Environmental groups are already preparing to take any anti-climate policies or actions to court, along with attorneys general from multiple states.

Conclusion

Obama’s presidency was clearly focused on environmental protection and combating catastrophic effects of climate change in the coming years. As commander-in-chief, Obama did an extensive amount of work to ensure the environment is viable and sustainable far into the future. Whether his efforts will be unraveled in the new Trump Administration and Republican-controlled legislative branch, however, is yet to be seen. Overall, Obama’s actions certainly elevated the environment and climate change to a much higher level of importance, and his environmental legacy may have him remembered as one of the top environmental presidents in history.

Nicole Zub

Nicole is a third-year law student at the University of Kentucky College of Law. She graduated in 2011 from Northeastern University with Bachelor’s in Environmental Science. When she isn’t imbibing copious amounts of caffeine, you can find her with her nose in a book or experimenting in the kitchen. Contact Nicole at Staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post A Look Back at the Obama Administration’s Environmental Legacy appeared first on Law Street.

It’s official–2016 was just named the hottest year on record. This is the third year in a row that Earth set a new record high, with average surface temperatures 1.69 degrees Fahrenheit above the 20^th century average. Actually, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) concluded that last year was the hottest year globally on both land and ocean since record keeping began in 1880. In a separate report, NASA officials also announced that 2016 was the warmest year they have on record. And if that’s not enough to scare you–what climate science may look like moving forward might.

Leading up to the inauguration of a climate skeptic president and his team, the Guardian is doing a 24-hour live reporting roundup, highlighting different climate facts. According to their numbers, the president-elect’s vacation home, Mar-a-Lago in Florida, will soon be in danger from floods. By 2045, a weak Category 2 hurricane could bring the seawater up to the main building. Just an hour south, the pace of the sea-level rise in Miami has tripled in the past ten years.

Many Americans have already been displaced due to climate change as they live in places that are vulnerable to rising sea levels. In August, residents in Shishmaref, Alaska, voted to move their village to avoid having their homes flooded by the sea. They had already lost 2,500 to 3,000 feet of land to coastal erosion in the past 35 years. Five out of the ten international cities that are most vulnerable to rising sea levels are American: New York, Boston, New Orleans, Tampa, and Miami.

2016 was the hottest year on record. Children are the first to suffer from the effects of #climatechange. @nytimes https://t.co/SXqecIGlv8

— UNICEF (@UNICEF) January 19, 2017

What’s more? Crops in the U.S. are estimated to be cut almost in half because of the warmer temperatures. The U.S. saw 15 natural disasters caused by climate change last year, which cost the country 138 lives and over $1 billion to fix. California has had a drought for several years, and just saw some rain that may provide some relief. But experts warn that this won’t end the longtime pattern of droughts, which are now just part of California’s climate, and may worsen in the future. Increasing temperatures will make the ups and downs more dramatic. It also makes it difficult to replenish the snow in the mountains that supplies water during the dry periods.

The scientific community is virtually unanimous: Climate change is a global crisis requiring bold action. Rick Perry? He doesn’t agree.

— Bernie Sanders (@SenSanders) January 19, 2017

Trump has talked about pulling out of the Paris climate agreement; a deal that 194 countries have signed that aims to limit the global warming to a 2 degree Celsius increase from what the average temperature was pre-industrialization. If Trump were to follow through with his promise, he wouldn’t be able to pull out for three years. But many countries still worry that he could make that move. That’s a problem–the U.S. historically has been the largest CO2 emitter globally. And if we don’t set an example and limit our emissions, then why should other countries make the effort?

In the rest of the world there is significantly less discussion about whether climate change is “real”—the question usually tends to be “what do we do?” Even China, which was named the worst climate polluter in the world in 2006, emphasized the importance of sticking to the deal when President Xi Jinping became the first Chinese leader to speak at the World Economic Forum in Davos, Switzerland, this week.

In a 2014 survey by market research group Ipsos Mori, America has a higher population of climate change deniers than any other country that participated in the survey. And another survey by Pew Research Center showed that the number of Americans who do not believe humans have contributed to climate change is about 50 percent. The results showed a big discrepancy between the opinions of the general public and those of scientists. Alan Leshner from the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS) collaborated on the survey. “It’s partly a function of the American educational system that does a terrible job… at educating young people in science, math and technology,” he said.

Emma Von Zeipel

Emma Von Zeipel is a staff writer at Law Street Media. She is originally from one of the islands of Stockholm, Sweden. After working for Democratic Voice of Burma in Thailand, she ended up in New York City. She has a BA in journalism from Stockholm University and is passionate about human rights, good books, horses, and European chocolate. Contact Emma at EVonZeipel@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Global Climate Crisis: 2016 Was the Hottest Year on Record appeared first on Law Street.

In a curious role reversal, a top Chinese foreign diplomat promised President-elect Donald Trump that no, climate change is not a hoax cooked up by the Chinese, and yes, it is indeed a problem that will affect the entire world. In an hour-long briefing with reporters after a climate meeting in Marrakesh, Morocco on Wednesday, deputy foreign minister of China, Liu Zhenmin, discussed the history of climate negotiations as a Republican-backed initiative, and the continued commitment of China to combat rising temperatures, “whatever the circumstances.”

Days before the 2012 election, Trump sent a tweet that targeted the Chinese as being the inventors of climate change:

The concept of global warming was created by and for the Chinese in order to make U.S. manufacturing non-competitive.

— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) November 6, 2012

Even though a vast majority of scientists agree that climate change is greatly accelerated by the actions of mankind, Trump has promised to “cancel” the Paris climate deal that was reached by the U.S. and 194 other countries last December. In another tweet from November 2012, Trump called global warming “nonexistent.”

And although China is the world’s foremost emitter of greenhouse gases–the U.S. ranks second–it is not the inventor of climate change, nor of the very real effects seen in coastal areas around the world. At the climate summit in Marrakesh, Liu reminded Trump that it was Republicans, some of whom continue to dismiss climate change, who first took carbon-cutting negotiations to the international stage.

“If you look at the history of climate change negotiations, actually it was initiated by the IPCC with the support of the Republicans during the Reagan and senior Bush administration during the late 1980s,” he said, referring to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Liu added that that was the moment China first acknowledged the very real threat that climate change posed to the world. He also said that Chinese President Xi Jinping reiterated the importance of global cooperation in fighting the threat during his phone call with Trump on Monday.

Regardless of Trump’s plans, other countries have signaled that they are committed to the Paris deal, with or without the U.S. But as one of the leading emitters of greenhouse gases, and a global leader in technology and influence, the U.S. is a major player in the effort. The deal was ratified recently, however, making the U.S. commitment binding for at least three years.

Alec Siegel

Alec Siegel is a staff writer at Law Street Media. When he’s not working at Law Street he’s either cooking a mediocre tofu dish or enjoying a run in the woods. His passions include: gooey chocolate chips, black coffee, mountains, the Animal Kingdom in general, and John Lennon. Baklava is his achilles heel. Contact Alec at ASiegel@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post China to Trump: We Didn’t Invent Climate Change appeared first on Law Street.

Donald Trump never included anything about his stance on climate change and global warming in his campaign platform. While Hillary Clinton featured the issue prominently on her website, Trump has previously said that climate change is a hoax created by the Chinese. Though he denied that odd stance in the first presidential debate, his tweet from 2012 was widely spread by the media.

The concept of global warming was created by and for the Chinese in order to make U.S. manufacturing non-competitive.

— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) November 6, 2012

He has also promised to go back to larger domestic coal, oil, and gas industries. And Trump has tweeted a whole lot about what he thinks of global warming…primarily that it doesn’t exist. You can find a list of all his tweets on the matter here. One example:

President Obama was terrible on @60Minutes tonight. He said CLIMATE CHANGE is the most important thing, not all of the current disasters!

— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) October 12, 2015

During a speech in May, Trump said that he would pull the U.S. out of the Paris Climate Agreement if elected, and said that it is “bad for U.S. business” and allows “foreign bureaucrats control over how much energy we use.” The U.S. has pledged to cut down greenhouse gas emissions by 26 to 28 percent below 2005 levels by the year 2025. We are the second-largest emitter of greenhouse gases in the world after China, so it is a pretty big deal.

But on Friday, the Paris agreement was ratified into international law, after 96 countries signed the deal. This happened way faster than expected, which is a positive sign. And it means that Trump cannot technically renegotiate any parts of the deal until three years in, and after that one additional year must pass before he could officially withdraw from it.

However, he could technically get out of the deal by disassembling and undermining the ways in which America reduces its greenhouse gas emissions, and by simply not living up to the goals of the agreement. There is also a more aggressive way to get out of the deal, namely by withdrawing from a climate treaty from 1992, which would automatically pull us out from the Paris deal as well. Though this is legally possible, doing so would definitely undermine how trustworthy other countries perceive the U.S. to be and not favor our own interests in the long run. And according to environmental think tank Climate Interactive, this would have a significant impact on the climate. These are pretty alarming things going on.

The “lesser of two evils” argument was BULLSHIT– Trump will repeal Obamacare, pull out of Paris climate deal, stack SCOTUS #NotMyPresident

— Emma Vigeland (@EmmaVigeland) November 9, 2016

Climate Interactive said that since the U.S. pledge is so large—the percentage translates to 22 billion tons of carbon dioxide—a withdrawal from the deal would directly impact the rest of the world. “Pulling out of the Paris agreement matters not just in leadership, but also in a direct impact on the climate,” said Andrew Jones, co-director of the group, to the Washington Post.

Also, if the U.S. chooses to not partake, other countries like India are less likely to do it too. Trump has also said he wants to reduce the EPA, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, by 70-80 percent. In September he picked Myron Ebell as head of environmental policy on his transition team—a climate skeptic who is a director of a conservative think tank and whose sponsors are some of the biggest polluters in the country.

Yet another depressing point is that the election on Tuesday resulted in a defeat of a Washington State initiative, Initiative 732, that would have been the country’s first revenue-neutral carbon tax. It would have imposed a $25-per-ton fee on carbon dioxide emitted in different sectors, money which then could be used to reduce the state sales tax. But looking at the bigger picture of what a Trump presidency will bring, this barely matters, according to Charles Komanoff, director of the Carbon Tax Center. “We’re in for many years of backsliding on climate at a time when we really had to ramp it up,” he said.

Emma Von Zeipel

Emma Von Zeipel is a staff writer at Law Street Media. She is originally from one of the islands of Stockholm, Sweden. After working for Democratic Voice of Burma in Thailand, she ended up in New York City. She has a BA in journalism from Stockholm University and is passionate about human rights, good books, horses, and European chocolate. Contact Emma at EVonZeipel@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Could Trump Reject the Paris Climate Change Agreement? appeared first on Law Street.

The Paris Climate Agreement, signed by 195 countries last December, was officially ratified into international law on Friday. “Today we make history in humankind’s efforts to combat climate change,” U.N. Secretary General Ban-Ki Moon said at the U.N.’s New York City headquarters. India, China, the U.S., the European Union and scores of other countries, totaling 96, have signed the agreement. Others, including Russia and Japan, signaled they will do so in the coming weeks and months.

“We are still in a race against time. We need to transition to a low-emissions and climate-resilient future,” said Ban, whose term ends in January. “Now is the time to strengthen global resolve, do what science demands and seize the opportunity to build a safer more sustainable world for all.”

For the agreement–which aims to limit the global temperature increase to 2 degrees Celsius, or 3.6 degrees Fahrenheit by 2100–to go from abstract idea to concrete law, it had to be signed by at least 55 participating nations (making up 55 percent of global greenhouse gas emissions), a goalpost that was met on October 5. Though the accord is not legally binding–meaning there is no legal ramification for not complying–there are abstract mechanisms in place to ensure each signing party meets its individual carbon-cutting vision.

Those abstract enforcement measures will be hammered out at the COP22 meeting in Marrakesh, Morocco next week, where scientists, engineers, and researchers will gather to discuss emission-reduction techniques and strategies. Each country that signs the Paris agreement shapes a carbon-cutting plan suited to their needs and realities, with the international coalition acting as a sort of watchdog.

Rising seas, warming temperatures, melting ice caps, and all of the other consequences of fossil fuel abuse led nearly all of the world’s countries to bind together to secure a safer planet for future generations. As the world’s second-largest emitter of greenhouse gases, the U.S. will play a vital role in shaping that future. But Donald Trump has pledged to withdraw the U.S. from the accord should he be elected to the White House next Tuesday.

It is an impossible promise however, because the U.S. is bound to the accord for three years. And even if Trump decides to renege on the U.S. commitment during his third year, another year must pass before an official withdrawal. Hillary Clinton supports the agreement.

Ratification of the Paris Climate Accord went much faster than most expected: 2020 was the initial target date. By comparison, the Kyoto Protocol, a similar international carbon-reduction measure, was adopted in December 1997 and ratified over seven years later. Friday’s achievement is an important step toward weaning the world off fossil fuels, which still provide much of the world’s power, and the flip to renewable energy sources–wind, solar, hydro–will be a slow, arduous process.

Alec Siegel

Alec Siegel is a staff writer at Law Street Media. When he’s not working at Law Street he’s either cooking a mediocre tofu dish or enjoying a run in the woods. His passions include: gooey chocolate chips, black coffee, mountains, the Animal Kingdom in general, and John Lennon. Baklava is his achilles heel. Contact Alec at ASiegel@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Paris Climate Agreement Officially Becomes International Law appeared first on Law Street.