Professor David Wirth on Lawfare discusses Trump’s intention to withdraw the United States from the Paris Agreement on Climate, noting there’s a cooling off period which will push the actual notification off right into the heated part of that wonderful season we’re already stepping into – Presidential election season:
In the context of the Paris Agreement, this structure provides a number of useful insights—all of which, as intended, exert a moderating influence on what might appear in retrospect to have been a rash decision in the heat of the political moment. They may also create quite a bit of unintended discomfort for the Trump presidency.
In terms of politics, this means that Trump’s abandonment of the Paris Agreement, not yet having taken effect and still subject to reconsideration, could well be a live issue during the next presidential campaign. It is not difficult to imagine that the timing of the effect of the U.S. withdrawal could well be a gift to aspiring presidential candidates from both parties, entirely contrary to Trump’s own interest in securing a second term.
Having watched this Administration boot the fumble right down the field, it’s not surprising that they didn’t think ahead here, either.
But in the presence of this incredible string of incompetent incidents, it’s also possible to credibly contend that Trump, along with the most of the GOP, truly believes the assertions of fake news. If so, then polls such as this one (left) from Gallup will not impact their thought processes – or perhaps they’re not even aware of them, seeing as Fox News is seen as a credible source in the White House these days.
Therefore, in the bubble of the GOP, as Andrew Sullivan & many others declared them years ago, they only hear themselves and think that’s the world – and everything else is the production of the enemy, even science. So perhaps Trump thinks he’s doing what the United States wants.
And that’s a useful way of thinking about this, because we can compare and contrast with another hypothesis – that being the GOP is simply out to erase the legacy of President Obama. The ACA is under assault, although watching the passing of the AHCA and the reactions of even GOP Senators puts me in mind of the great rubber hammers of the cartoons. President Obama also contributed to the Paris Agreement.
Now, whether this is endemic racism, not unbelievable given the presence of white supremacists in the White House, or GOP fear of Democrats taking full credit for the improving healthcare situation, as has been rumored, or the religious sensibility (a term I use with hesitant humor) of the GOP finding it unbelievable that their sworn enemies, the Democrats, could do anything good under the Sun, I don’t know.
Returning to Professor Wirth’s commentary, I found this interesting:
The modest requirements of the Paris Agreement have been largely overlooked during the Agreement’s transformation into a political football. Much of the Agreement is not legally binding, and those provisions that are involve primarily reporting and updating each country’s voluntarily identified “contribution”—purposely not a commitment that is legal enforceable. The Agreement’s generality and flexibility, in response to U.S. demands and experience with Kyoto, is a principal reason the deal was launched so quickly, less than a year after its adoption in December 2015.
Quite simply, the Paris Agreement puts “America First,” with our domestic policy agenda driving U.S. engagement with the Agreement and not the other way around. During the lengthy public debate leading to the President’s recent announcement, even the principal negotiator for the United States concluded that the existing agreement could accommodate a relaxation of the U.S. contribution of the sort anticipated by Trump’s recent domestic proposals.
Given this modest description, it becomes more and more a question of “why did you bother?“, just like their persecution of the ACA, than anything else – a ripe reason to go looking for skulking motivations.
