Guest essay by Eric Worrall
Greens are complaining that lack of US financial support is impacting progress. But a closer look at Green Climate Fund documents in my opinion opens serious questions about how that money was being spent.
How Trump Could Slow Climate Change Projects Around the World
Justin Worland
Much of the fallout from President Trump’s withdrawal from the Paris Agreement has centered on the symbolism of losing the world’s largest economy and second largest emitter of greenhouse gas emissions as a leader in the fight against climate change. Now, scientists, advocates and officials around the world are becoming increasingly concerned about the tangible effects it will have on the rest of the globe.
In addition to pulling out of Paris, which will not take effect until 2020, Trump has reneged on $2 billion in unpaid commitments to the Green Climate Fund (GCF), which was created in advance of the Paris Agreement to support projects to address climate change in the developing world. Climate finance experts fear it could be a sign of further cuts to other programs that depend on American resources.
“There’s a whole slew of things where the U.S. has become such an important supporter of other countries,” says Rachel Kyte, CEO of United Nations-backed initiative Sustainable Energy for All and former World Bank climate envoy. “Certainly there will be cuts. Exactly where the cuts call will be is something we don’t know.”
…
For many countries, losing funding means the difference between an aggressive and a limited effort to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. Nearly 190 countries representing more than 90% of global greenhouse gas emissions submitted plans to address climate change in advance of Paris Agreement negotiations. Developing countries by and large offered two commitments, one of which was contingent on financing.
…
U.S. withdrawal has not led other countries to pull back on their GCF commitments—at least not yet. “We’re on track as long as everybody sticks to the commitments that they made,” says Leonardo Martinez, global director of the sustainable finance center at the World Resources Institute. “We still don’t know what percentage of those commitments is going to be in jeopardy.”
Read more: http://time.com/4813115/paris-agreement-climate-change-trump-green-climate-fund/
Why am I concerned about how Green Climate Fund money is being spent? Page 12 of a green climate fund progress report (2016) contains a list of countries titled Annex I: List of countries with national designated authorities/focal points. The list includes Iran, Yemen, Libya, Somalia and Syria – countries listed in Executive Order 13769 – President Trump’s Travel Ban.
Time got it wrong about timing. The only way to escape the Green Climate Fund obligations under UNFCCC Article 4(3) is to exit UNFCCC. That is 1 year under UNFCCC Article 25(1) and (2). And by Paris Article 28(3), that is also an automatic exit in 1 year.
OR
… totally ignore it all and do absolutely nothing in regard to it. What are they gonna do? — arrest a whole country? There are no formal sanctions, as I understand it. Just do nothing. And we’ve already indicated why we would be doing nothing — because we plan to be/ will be formally out of the thing in a few years. Meanwhile, I say again, we simply do NOTHING.
But doing nothing might be grounds for green groups to sue the administration for non-compliance. Formal withdrawal might be needed. What do you think, Ristvan?
But doing nothing might be grounds for green groups to sue the administration for non-compliance. Formal withdrawal might be needed.
https://www.epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/press-releases-republican?ID=59BD6386-5E65-4A22-81BE-352770A6FFCB
“The news remains the same. This agreement is no more binding than any other ‘agreement’ from any Conference of the Parties over the last 21 years. Senate leadership has already been outspoken in its positions that the United States is not legally bound to any agreement setting emissions targets or any financial commitment to it without approval by Congress.”
That being said, assuming this is a solid claim, compliance does not seem to be written into any American law; hence, I’m finding difficulty in seeing where any litigious green group would have a leg to stand on.
As for any chance of messing up our international reputation, which seems to be a major contention by those opposing withdrawal, I think this is bunk. If anything, we are setting a higher standard upon which international law should be based — science, NOT mythology based on “fruit salad” data handling.
I believe that you hit the nail on the head with “Exit the UNFCCC”. Since the UNFCCC has recognized Palestine as a member Nation, and since the USA CAN’T be a party to any organization which recognizes Palestine as a legitimate government entity, the USA MUST exit the UNFCCC
RK and RK, I actually researched this as a lawyer. The UNFCCC Pact was approved by Congress under Bill Clinton in 1994. It is legally binding on the US until we exit. The GCF was set up under UNFCCC Article 4.3 in 2010. It is separate from Paris. Article 4.3 MANDATES that annex 2 countries (developed, US representing about 25% of annex 2 GDP) SHALL pay all ‘climate damages’ of the rest. Damages include adaptation and mitigation costs plus climate ‘harm’ whenever the rest present an accounting. All Paris did was estimate the bill to be $100 billion per year by 2020– US on hook for ~$25 billion/year. The only way to prevent Tuvalu suing the US for desalination units (mitigation) alleging its fresh water problem is ‘climate related’– and winning— is to exit UNFCCC.
As per the UN Climate Change Newsroom from Dec 2015
http://newsroom.unfccc.int/unfccc-newsroom/state-of-palestine-joins-convention/
Then in March 2016 from Climate Policy Observer
http://climateobserver.org/depth-palestines-full-membership-unfccc/
Then this from the WAPO back in April 2016
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/2016/04/19/palestinians-trigger-federal-provision-for-defunding-of-u-n-climate-organization/?utm_term=.a781d3e3cd8c
So, as per
The US is required to immediately defund both the UNFCCC and the UN
With all due respect, ristvan, I think that you might be overlooking this:
http://www.childrightscampaign.org/why-ratify/how-does-the-united-states-ratify-treaties
The President…shall have Power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, to make Treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur … Constitution of the United States, Art. II, Sec. 2
_______________________________________
http://unfccc.int/paris_agreement/items/9444.php
The United States of America is officially listed with an (A), which means “Acceptance” of the Paris agreement, which although an extension of the bigger, Senate-ratified UNFCCC, does NOT appear to indicate formal “ratification” of this particular EXTENSION of that treaty, which the United Nations obviously indicates a separate need for its “ratification”, as well.
The language of the Paris Agreement clearly speaks of “ratification” with respect to this specific “Paris Agreement” extension of the UNFCCC.
Why is the Paris Agreement extension of the UNFCCC treaty NOT ratified by the indicated (A)=”Acceptance”? — because, if you read the United Nations definition of “Acceptance”, then you will see a critical requirement noted:
Acceptance and Approval
The instruments of “acceptance” or “approval” of a treaty have the same legal effect as ratification and consequently express the consent of a state to be bound by a treaty. In the practice of certain states acceptance and approval have been used instead of ratification when, at a national level, constitutional law does not require the treaty to be ratified by the head of state.
[Arts.2 (1) (b) and 14 (2), Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties 1969]
See the key phrase? — when, at a national level, constitutional law does not require the treaty to be ratified by the head of state.
United States constitutional law requires, BEFORE the “head of state” can ratify a treaty, two thirds of the Senate must agree to allow the ratification. THIS DID NOT HAPPEN, and so the Paris Agreement is NOT LEGALLY ratified by the USA.
____________________________________________________
Note how the United Nations specifically defines “Ratification”:
https://treaties.un.org/pages/overview.aspx?path=overview/glossary/page1_en.xml
Ratification
Ratification defines the international act whereby a state indicates its consent to be bound to a treaty if the parties intended to show their consent by such an act. In the case of bilateral treaties, ratification is usually accomplished by exchanging the requisite instruments, while in the case of multilateral treaties the usual procedure is for the depositary to collect the ratifications of all states, keeping all parties informed of the situation. The institution of ratification grants states the necessary time-frame to seek the required approval for the treaty on the domestic level and to enact the necessary legislation to give domestic effect to that treaty.
[Arts.2 (1) (b), 14 (1) and 16, Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties 1969]
See the key phrase here? — The institution of ratification grants states the necessary time-frame to seek the required approval for the treaty on the domestic level and to enact the necessary legislation to give domestic effect to that treaty.
Well, in the case of the Paris Agreement, no such time frame was allowed to seek the required approval on the domestic level nor to enact the necessary legislation to give domestic effect to the treaty, since the Senate was NEVER approached to give the “ratification” legal meaning by USA law. Rather, the president (Obama) acted independent of the Senate, thereby NOT following USA ratification procedures as dictated by law. Hence, the Paris Agreement was and is, for the USA, just that — an AGREEMENT — which does NOT have the binding effect of a RATIFICATION.
Wikipedia flat out contradicts itself about the Paris Agreement:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paris_Agreement?sample_rate=0.01&snippet_name=6746#utm_source=desktop-snippet&utm_medium=snippet&utm_campaign=learning-area&utm_term=6746&utm_content=rel
First, it says, This structure is especially notable for the United States — because there are no legal mitigation or finance targets, the agreement is considered an “executive agreement rather than a treaty”.
Then, in the very next sentence, it says, Because the UNFCCC treaty of 1992 received the consent of the Senate, this new agreement does not require further legislation from Congress for it to take effect.
But an “agreement” is NOT a treaty, Wiki, so why are you speaking of the UNFCCC treaty as if this “agreement” that is NOT a treaty IS a treaty or part of a treaty that needs no further ratification?
Again, the language of the United Nations, in relation to this Paris whatever, distinguishes the word, “agreement” from the word, “ratification”. The word, “ratification”, in USA law involves the Senate, which the Paris Agreement did NOT.
The United Nations obviously thinks the Paris whatever requires “ratification” to be legally binding, and yet people are trying to confuse the issue (as if the UN hasn’t confused it enough) to make it look as though the AGREEMENT is more legally binding for the USA than it actually is.
http://www.heritage.org/environment/report/the-paris-agreement-treaty-and-should-be-submitted-the-senate
http://thehill.com/blogs/congress-blog/energy-environment/276668-president-obamas-signing-of-the-paris-agreement-is
I keep finding stuff:
https://fas.org/sgp/crs/row/withdrawal.pdf
I hope it becomes clear to all Americans that:
1) All the Nouveau Monde neomarxbrothers international orgs are aggressively anti
-American and always have been.
2)The Democrats in recent decades have sought to curry favor and dissociate themselves from the internationally perceived bumpkin, uncultured, uneducated American (never mind that they won 80% of Nobels in science, literature, medicine, economics, peace.. ) . They lost themselves in the effort to be loved going so far as to become anti-American, too – “We aren’t like those deplorables, dahling. We know what you mean!” Their constituency is now outside the US. And, Republicans we’re already beginning to follow suit.
3) Now it should be clear that the world is absolutely dependent on the US. The US are the enablers of unsustainable persistent иеомагжisм around the world.” Sophisticated” Europe is run by no better talent than the leaders of the other 170 countries. UK Brexit was a step out of the world’s basket cases, but only by a couple of percent and it looks like they are doing their best to bu55er it up.
4) Trump is going to fix the rest of the world that can fix itself up by forcing them out of the enabled style they have become used to.
Perhaps studies designed to fuel alarmism will slow as well.
And perhaps in another generation or so, people will have just forgotten all about it, other than to remark how ridiculous OUR generation to get ourselves in such a twist.
Perhaps it might even become a generational lesson as to how paranoia can create monsters that only exist in the mind… or virtual reality.
It might even head off the next big psychological scare before it happens.
One can hope.
Without my money my spending will slow too. What a discovery!
But what will the 45 million citizens of the U.S. that are below the poverty line do now that $2B isn’t being sent to Western European aristocrats to be spent on projects in Libya and Iran? Surely we’re killing poor children and puppies, and soon there will be no unicorns left.
Trust me, it’s for the good of the planet.
It’s always about the money.
How much money do they figure they need to make the climate stop altogether?
$50,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 give or take over the next 83 years to stave off .2C by 2100
It is like the “if a tree falls in the woods…” thing –
if we get rid of all the people, no one will notice if the climate changes.
/grin
China has all of our money, why are they not funding this?
By definition in the UNFCCC, China is permanently a developing country entitled to Article 4.3 aid from the GCF.
There are a few other countries on page 12 that may be worse.
130. Uganda – Robert Mugabe is still looting the country.
114. South Africa – The Whites in South Africa project that they will be ejected within 5 years because government corruption requires resources to continue and the Whites have a fair share of the resources they want.
Imagine a city of Climate Grifters suddenly realizing that the Sugar Daddy has gone for good.
It turn into a Ghost Town:
Griff will learn something by going to Dr Susan Crockford’s site to learn and understand the reasons for the heavy ice and bergs off the East Coast of Canada specifically Newfoundland and Labrador
Europe had such a good thing going before Trump with minimal defense spending effort and cutting deals in third world countries with money from the U.S.
“Time Magazine: Without US Money Global Climate Progress Will Slow”
Yet I have been thinking all the extra money has generally done is slow progress of science down because they are forced to find something that is not there.
It doesn’t matter if you fund trillions of dollars into going back in time, no amount of money can make the impossible happen when it is not there.
All it does is waste funds in to something that nobody can find and should have funded causes more worthwhile.
A significant cut will lead to proper science being done because some scientists may actually do some research on natural causes not just the CO2 obsession.
There should be plenty of US money available to support the Paris Agreement even if the US federal government isn’t funding it. Multi billionaires such as Michael Bloomberg (said to be worth $40-$50 billion) is in agreement with continuing the Paris Agreement, as is Elon Reeve Musk (net worth about $17 billion). I’m sure each of them will be willing to add a billion or two to funding the Paris Agreement.
Then there’s all the US cities, counties and states still supporting the deal, New York, Washington State, California, Connecticut, Delaware, Hawaii, Massachusetts, Minnesota, Oregon, Rhode Island, Vermont, Virginia, and Puerto Rico. New York and California alone have lots of financial clout and lots of rich residents such as Elon Musk and Michael Bloomberg. I’m sure the states will see fit to add in a few hundred million dollars each to make up for the loss of federal government funding. The citizens of these states will also probably want to contribute themselves.
There’s now at least 311 US city mayors supporting the continuation of the Paris Agreement for their cities. Surely these mayors and residents of their cities will be willing to kick in the billions of dollars the US federal government would have contributed? Or not.
While all of these people, cities and states may want the Paris Agreement to continue it’s unlikely there’s going to be any mass infusion of funds from the people, cities or states. In fact it’s very unlikely that billionaires such as Musk and Bloomberg are going to personally lower their carbon emissions by selling off some of their mansions and/or fleet of cars and aircraft. All in all Trump is saving the US from contributing billions of dollars a year to an Agreement (not a treaty because the Senate didn’t ratify it) that would have done nothing to help the environment.
https://qz.com/999142/paris-agreement-all-of-the-us-cities-counties-states-universities-companies-and-investors-defying-trumps-stance-on-climate-deal/
https://medium.com/@ClimateMayors/climate-mayors-commit-to-adopt-honor-and-uphold-paris-climate-agreement-goals-ba566e260097
I ageee with your assessment. The problem is that individuals and individual states cannot make independent deals with other countries agreements, because they are not part of the Federal Government that they gave those Constitutional Powers to when they joined the Union and people are only allowed to make personal deal’s with businesses and not governments.