One of the greatest obstructors to an international treaty on reducing carbon emissions, the USA, will probably not advocate that the next such agreement, set to be agreed on in Paris in December 2015, shoud be legally binding. The American Congress would have to ratify such a treaty with a 2/3 majority and climate scepticism is too prevalent in the US for this to be feasible. Therefore, the Obama administration may seek a politically binding agreement, so as to avoid Congress ratification. There is perhaps no other way to include the US. However, if the price is that unlike the current climate agreement (the Kyoto Protocol), this new agreement is not legally binding and all countries will thus be more tempted to break it, is it worth including the US at all?
Posted on: Wed, 03 Sep 2014 16:56:48 +0000
Trending Topics
Recently Viewed Topics
© 2015