mead cohen berger shevtsova garfinkle michta grygiel blankenhorn
Limping to Paris
Kerry: Climate Deal Won’t Be a Treaty
Features Icon
Features
show comments
  • Andrew Allison

    The results of the Paris Conference are a foregone conclusion. Let’s move on.

    • Fat_Man

      Andrew, mais non. The Paris conference will be Très amusant. Pass me the plate of brie and biscuits, and pour me a nice cold Chablis.

      • Andrew Allison

        I wouldn’t mind if TAI were reporting on such extravagances and the folly of the endeavor, but the breathless daily “it there hope of something” posts are tedious.

        • http://www.the-american-interest.com/ Damir Marusic

          Andrew, is that really how we’re coming off? It’s a big story, and we’ve been following it for a while, consistently pointing to the structural issues that any such pie-in-the-sky treaty would face.

          • Andrew Allison

            Damir, as I and others have made clear, the big story is that Climate Conferences are meaningless extravaganzas. There won’t be a treaty, and the noises made by participants are just that.

      • Andrew Allison

        I wouldn’t mind if TAI were reporting on such extravagances and the folly of the endeavor, but the breathless daily “it there hope of something” posts are tedious.

  • Blackbeard

    The writer of this piece doesn’t understand how air pollution regulation works in the U.S. In 2007, in USEPA vs Massachusetts (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Massachusetts_v._Environmental_Protection_Agency) the Supreme Court held that the EPA had both the power and the responsibility to regulate CO2 emissions. Note that the President at the time was George Bush and that the EPA under Bush did not want to regulate CO2. Didn’t matter. On remand the EPA found that six GHGs would endanger human health and the environment. This triggered GHG regulation under the Clean Air Act (CAA).

    Once a substance is determined to require regulation under the CAA neither the President nor Congress have much to say about it. For example, remember when changing mileage standards for cars (CAFE) required congressional action? Did you notice that the latest change in CAFE standards (54.5 mpg by 2025) was implemented by EPA fiat alone? Congressional action is no longer required since cars emit CO2, CO2 is a GHG, and GHGs are regulated under the CAA. The same is true of the recent Clean Power Plan which will ultimately shut down every coal fired power plant in the US and probably double electricity costs.

    Ah you say, but suppose we elect Trump president, surely he could rescind these regulations. Not really. Suppose some future Republican president changed the leadership at the EPA and they did change all these regulations. A galaxy of plaintiffs (blue states, Sierra Club, Greenpeace, etc.) would spring up and sue the EPA and win. Once you determine that CO2, and other GHGs, require regulation under the CAA the game is basically over. Of course, if we elected a Republican president, and the Republicans held their majority in the House, and gained at least 60 seats in the Senate, then the CAA could be amended. Don’t hold your breath.

    • Fat_Man

      “Once a substance is determined to require regulation under the CAA
      neither the President nor Congress have much to say about it.”

      Really? I was under the impression that Congress could change the laws it has enacted. Or did my law school professors mislead me?

      • Blackbeard

        Read my post. As I said if the Republicans can elect a President, hold the House, and win 60 seats in the Senate then they can indeed amend the CAA. Good luck with that.

        • iconoclast

          So the only solution is to defund the EPA, ideally using a reconciliation process that cannot be filibustered.

          Got it

  • Jim__L

    “But this president cannot commit the United States to any, repeat any, future actions or policy with respect to climate and energy.”

    But this president has shown nothing but contempt for Constitutional limits to his executive power.

    What makes you think he’ll be content with the bully pulpit on this one?

  • Mike_Hohmann

    Knowing that there is no escape from THE FOUR LAWS WITHOUT WHICH NOTHING WHATSOEVER IN THE UNIVERSE THAT HAPPENS, HAPPENS – and cannot be overruled by edicts from whoever, be it Dalai Lama, Pope, Obama,
    Merkel, IMF, UN, EU, IPCC, PIK, the Supreme Court, EPA, or anyone, it is high time to remember Alexius Meinong: TRUTH IS A PURELY HUMAN CONSTRUCT BUT FACTS ARE ETERNAL. My result of following this tenet is: http://tinyurl.com/qjxakew

© The American Interest LLC 2005-2016 About Us Masthead Submissions Advertise Customer Service