Debate Desk
Should America Bind Itself to the Paris Climate Agreement?
The Paris pledges are voluntary for others and never went to the Senate; binding the United States would cede control of energy policy for little effect.
The claim
Supporters of the 2015 Paris Agreement say that global warming requires global action, that America should lead by example, and that withdrawing damages its standing and gives other countries an excuse to do less.
The answer in three points
- The agreement was not submitted to the Senate. The Constitution says treaties require a two-thirds vote of the Senate under Article II, Section 2. A major international commitment that shapes domestic energy policy for decades should be made in that way, and not by executive action alone.
- The pledges are national and self-selected. The largest emitter, China, did not commit to peak emissions until 2030, and many developing countries made pledges that depend on aid. A country that cuts sharply while others keep rising may bear costs without changing the global outcome.
- Leadership is not measured by pledges. America reduced energy-related emissions through innovation and cheap gas without a binding treaty, and exporting gas, nuclear technology and efficient equipment may do more for the world than a document.
A commitment that will shape the economy for decades belongs in the hands of the people's representatives. If an agreement is worth making, it is worth sending to the Senate.
The numbers
- Article II, Section 2 of the Constitution provides that 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.
- The Senate voted 95 to 0 in 1997 on the Byrd-Hagel Resolution, which opposed a climate treaty that exempted developing countries, according to the Senate record.
- The Global Carbon Project reports that China's carbon dioxide emissions exceed those of the United States and the European Union combined.
What they will say next
"It is not a treaty, so no Senate vote is needed." That claim shows the problem: an agreement with long-term domestic effects, described as not binding enough to require a vote, is also described as binding enough to commit the country. It cannot be both.
"Withdrawal makes America look unreliable." Presidents of both parties have declined agreements the Senate would not ratify, and a commitment made without the people's representatives is less reliable, not more.
"The agreement lets us set our own targets." If so, the targets can be met by our own laws, which Congress can pass openly and debate on the merits.
"The climate will not wait." A policy that is not sustained by votes and public support will not last, and the Paris approach has changed with each election. A durable policy needs consent.
Climate policy that survives elections is made by Congress with the people watching.
"The agreement helped build global momentum." It brought nearly every country to the table, and critics note that many pledges have not been met. Whether momentum translates into results is the test, and a binding American commitment is not required to find out.