“When the climate science is brought into the courtroom it will result in the judge finding that the government is committing constitutional violations.”Phil Gregory
The Juliana v. United States plaintiffs “seek nothing less than a complete transformation of the American energy system — including the abandonment of fossil fuels — ordered by a single district court at the behest of ‘twenty-one children and youth,’ ” Solicitor General Noel J. Francisco wrote in a brief to the Supreme Court. They demand that the courts compel the government to “cease their violation of plaintiffs’ rights, prepare an accounting of the nation’s greenhouse gas emissions, and prepare and implement an enforceable national remedial plan to cease the constitutional violations by phasing out fossil fuel emissions and drawing down atmospheric CO2.”
Meanwhile on June 1, 2017, United States President Donald Trump announced that the U.S. would cease all participation in the 2015 Paris Agreement on climate change mitigation. Trump stated that “The Paris accord will undermine economy,” and “puts at a permanent disadvantage.” Wikipedia
Statement by President Trump on the Paris Climate Accord
Jun 1, 2017 – Statement by President Trump on the Paris Climate Accord … Thus, as of today, the United States will cease all implementation of the … Not us. India makes its participation contingent on receiving billions and billions and …. In 2015, the United Nation’s departing top climate officials reportedly described the …
New York Magazine’s The Intelligencer reports regarding the Paris Climate Agreement, “Trump Deals New Blow to Paris Climate Accord Ahead of Conference“,
Business Standard has revealed that U.S. negotiators sought to undermine climate financing further still, at an October meeting in Bonn, Germany. Specifically, the U.S. — which has declared its intention to exit the Paris Agreement, but cannot formally do so until 2020 — raised objections to the very concepts of “developed” and “developing” countries:
The US, at first, demanded that the [2018 Biennial Assessment and Overview of Climate Finance Flows] be approved only after inserting a caveat that there was no agreement on the meaning and definition of the phrases ‘developed and developing countries’. This meant, it said, one could not map which country belongs to which category when measuring fund flow. By implication, it would have meant that there was no credible way to measure how much funds developed countries are providing to developing countries.
When developing countries’ representatives vehemently argued against this, the US instead asked for scrubbing out all references to ‘flows from developed countries’. It asked that the term ‘climate finance providers’ be used — which could imply both developed and developing countries. In other places in the report it insisted that the report cite only hyper-technical terms to classify countries. These terms, such as ‘Countries that are not members of the Development Assistance Committee of the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development’, developing country representatives at the meeting warned, would render the report unreadable.
But as the report had to be approved by consensus, developing countries were wary of a US veto and settled for what they considered lesser of the two evils: not explicitly opening the classification of ‘developing and developed countries’ to review.
“That would have meant leaving the door open for countries such as the US to wreck parts of the Paris Agreement from the inside out at a later stage. Given the options, it was better to be hyper-technical, avoid opening the phrases to definitional challenge and pay the relatively much smaller price of the report being less reader-friendly,” said a developing country negotiator aware of the arguments.
The U.S.-mandated revisions will, ostensibly, have little concrete impact on the Paris Agreement. But the fact that the world’s most powerful nation has chosen to signal its hostility to climate finance could embolden other developed countries to shirk their commitments to the global South, while eroding the latter’s commitment to a rapid transition off of fossil fuels.
Which is to say: The deal-maker-in-chief is doing his level best to save the U.S. a few billion dollars in foreign aid in 2020, at a cost of several trillion dollars (and the risk of sending human civilization to a premature death) by century’s end.Trump Deals New Blow to Paris Climate Accord Ahead of Conference — The Intelligencer
“Biennial Assessment and Overview of Climate Finance Flows | UNFCCC.” Accessed November 27, 2018. https://unfccc.int/topics/climate-finance/resources/biennial-assessment-of-climate-finance. Levitz, Eric.
“Trump Deals New Blow to Paris Climate Accord Ahead of Conference.” Intelligencer, November 26, 2018. http://nymag.com/intelligencer/2018/11/trump-deals-new-blow-to-paris-agreement-ahead-of-conference.html.
“Statement by President Trump on the Paris Climate Accord.” The White House. Accessed November 27, 2018. https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefings-statements/statement-president-trump-paris-climate-accord/.