« Open Thread - 1 June 2017 | Main | al-tanf is a growing problem »

02 June 2017


Feed You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.


The Paris Climate Agreement is not a treaty and the states have a right to join in any alliance they want to, unless it is a legal treaty. What has now been done, is that the US has given international leadership to others in one of the most important areas for the future.

Once proven new technology is needed, it will have to be imported. Unless, some states promote development within their own or allied states.


The Paris Accord is not a treaty. The non-treaty aspect of the accord was a specific point that was lobbied for and included in the agreement at the behest of the Obama administration.



In reading through reporting on their statements, I am not finding any proposals to sign treaty level agreements with foreign entities. It is reported that they will use a forum to facilitate coordination of actions intended to support the goals of the Paris Agreement. Could you provide links to those statements?

Hood Canal Gardner

FWIW (yet) another diversion.

The Logan Act/surrounding 1799 'events,
Paris Climate Agreement particulars,
and/or upcoming Scotus brawling,

it still is about: infrastructure, health care, student loan debt,

and the incredible amounts of money being pissed away in the Middle East and 0% interest rates charged banks and 4% home loans rates they charge with 0% Fed Reserve money.

William Fitzgerald

This post by Decameron doesn't hold together very well. Any state or coalition of states can set carbon emission policies in accordance with target figures and , even if they are the same target figures as specified by the Paris agreement, the policies would not violate the specific provisions of the Logan Act.

Also, individual states can and do send and receive trade delegations and enter into economic arrangements with other countries, such as welcoming the establishment of manufacturing facilities or the export of commodities, without violating the Logan Act.

Since the federal government's withdrawal from the Agreement isn't a policy, rather an absence of a policy, there isn't a requirement that any state could violate. Also, I'm assuming that CA, NY, et.al. are not planning to conclude a treaty with 194 nations who are party to the agreement as I've not read anything to the contrary.

I conclude that the governors and members of the legislatures, in the specific instance of carbon policy, are not in danger of being fined or imprisoned for governing their states in accordance with the interests of those states.



Brown's wording is unfortunate (foolish?) but it is well within the rights of a state to enact stricter environmental (local) policies. CA has often lead the nation in doing this and they don't need to speak to foreign agents to do it.

but yes his wording was idiotic and Trump would be crucified and impeached for saying something like that


It is an accord, not a treaty. If those states want to regulate themselves in accordance with the goals of the accord, they can do so to the extent of their powers within the Consititution.


I think they know that entering into a treaty would be illegal which is why they're saying they'll "uphold the Paris Climate Agreement" - just means they've agreed they'll adopt the principles but it doesn't mean they'll sign any treaty. As states, I don't see how Trump can object after he gave the states the right to decide on transgender toilets.

Pat. Many happy returns for yesterday.



Just take the Mexico City office of the State of Texas. (https://texaswideopenforbusiness.com/international/state-texas-mexico-city-office) They try to influence the Mexican federal, regional and municipal governments all day long, to the benefit of the Texas economy. And it's entirely fitting that they do so.

The Logan Act is poorly worded and vague. That's why it's never been enforced. It's ridiculous on its face.



Oh, and put this guy in prison, right?



You may want to re-evaluate your statements after a closer reading of the statements in the links you provide.

The net effect of the US Climate Alliance is that like-minded States will commit to meeting the carbon reduction targets in their States, to the extent they can. It's not like they are going around the Federal government and cutting side deals with other countries.


It seems officia enough. DJT is pulling the USA out of the Globalization NWO bandwagon. First action in this direction was the pulling out from the Trans Pacific Trade Pact Agreement followed now with the pulling out from the Paris Climate Agreement. No wonder the NWO chief Globalists like Obama, Merkel, Soros and Musk are up in arms against him. What is DJT's next target?


For what it is worth, any state can decide on its own to pay attention to a treaty's guidelines...It's a "we won't back down" response and perfectly fine. Obviously, when states (for any response) come into conflict with federal policy, there will be litigation -- nothing new!


1) It will take four years to withdraw from the Paris Accords. The treaty is still in effect. Trump said he wouldn't enforce the standards. 2) You say that Brown "now says that California, New York, Washington state and others will join together to override the President of the US, and join the Paris Climate Agreement independent of the decision of the United States government. That, folks, is not legal." But they didn't say they would "join the Paris Climate Agreement independent of the decision of the United States government." They said they would make "a formal commitment to upholding the targets of the Paris agreement" in their respective states. Absolutely nothing illegal about that. Much ado about nothing. (http://abcnews.go.com/Technology/wireStory/california-york-washington-unite-back-climate-pact-47778881)


South Carolina, December, 1860. Here we go again.... Trump is the new Lincoln (and I don't necessarily mean it the way most people might imagine it to mean).

Old Gun Pilot

I don't read it that way Decameron. The governors' alliance isn't "..carrying on any correspondence or intercourse with any foreign government..". They are simply agreeing that in their respective States they will attempt to adhere to the standards of the Paris Accords, specifically to reduce carbon emissions 26 to 28 percent of the 2005 levels. That seems to me to be a laudable enterprise. Just because the President is behaving like a reckless juvenile doesn't mean the States can't act responsibly.

different clue

Trump ran on several promises. One of those promises was to withdraw America from the Paris Climate Accords. It is not a promise I liked. I didn't vote for Trump beCAUSE of that promise. I voted for Trump deSPITE that promise. But still, Trump has kept a campaign promise.

Keeping a campaign promise is setting a precedent in terms of what recent Presidents have done. It would make it harder for the next President Whomever to go back to the recent tradition of making promises with zero intent of honoring them in order to trick voters into voting for President Whomever. Hopefully the next round of candidates in 4 or 8 years would include one making the campaign promise to bring America back into the Paris Accords. If he/she got elected on that (among other) promises, he/she would be pressured to follow the Trump Precedent of actually KEEPing a campaign promise.

What of the now and the meantime? Is there a way for pro-conservation jurisdiction-loads of Americans to conduct de-carbonization operations without flouting or undermining Presidential authority breaking the Logan Act and other relevant laws? I hope that there is, because I would like to see de-carbonization proceed within the limits of the law.


With respect, this is hogwash. What the announcement actually said was:

"New York, California, and Washington, representing over one-fifth of U.S. Gross Domestic Product, are committed to achieving the U.S. goal of reducing emissions 26-28 percent from 2005 levels and meeting or exceeding the targets of the federal Clean Power Plan."

There is nothing criminal about states working to reduce emissions, even if the President throws a fit and withdraws from a treaty. If Trump withdraws from the Migratory Bird Treaty tomorrow, will states be required to destroy nesting grounds? Of course not.


Please California secede. Please, please, please. Any kind of truce between the Yankees and their subjects in fly over land has been thrown on the pile of dead corpses left in the wake of unbridled Yankee lust for power and hegemony. The destruction of the Confederate heritage and trampling on the honor of their hero's is the last straw. Its just a matter of time and their will not be any chance for meaningful change until a lot more people have a lot more to lose.

David O White

Climate change will become real to many people when insurance companies withdraw coverage for coastal property and refuse to issue new policies on vulnerable areas.



So it does not have the force of law and is nothing more than a giant virtue signal be the Left?


It is Jerry Brown, BTW.

And if you want to get wound up about Logan Act violations, why don't you start with McCain?


You are correct. Trump's action is meaningless and just another bone thrown to his cult members. Unfortunately, the US will be less and less trusted internationally because of this stunt.


But, but, Obama bought a big house.

Nancy K

Gov Brown is amazing. Only wish he could move to NC and run for senator here.

The comments to this entry are closed.

My Photo

February 2021

Sun Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat
  1 2 3 4 5 6
7 8 9 10 11 12 13
14 15 16 17 18 19 20
21 22 23 24 25 26 27
Blog powered by Typepad