9 ms·
China and California sign deal to work on climate change without Trump
- muninn_ 9y agoGood. The states need to step up when the federal government isn't doing what they want.
- windsword 9y agoUS Constitution. Article 1, Section 10.
- octonion 9y agoIt's a research collaboration.
- mondoshawan 9y agoIt's a signed agreement to collaborate and adjust trade behind closed doors with a foreign power. Foreign trade is reserved as a power for Congress, and foreign policy a power for the executive, is it not?
- muninn_ 9y agoDon't see how that's relevant here
- mondoshawan 9y agoFTA: > Brown later held a closed-door meeting with the Chinese president, Xi Jinping, during which the two pledged to expand trade between California and China with an emphasis on so-called green technologies that could help address climate change, Brown said. From the Constitution, article 1 section 10: > No State shall, without the Consent of Congress, lay any duty of Tonnage, keep Troops, or Ships of War in time of Peace, enter into any Agreement or Compact with another State, or with a foreign Power, or engage in War, unless actually invaded, or in such imminent Danger as will not admit of delay.
- philipov 9y ago"...or in such imminent Danger as will not admit of delay." There's the out. It may (and will) be argued that climate change is an imminent Danger that will not admit of delay. The associativity of the clauses is just ambiguous enough that the last one can be paired with any of the others, not just engaging in war. And, I am confident there are people in California willing to take that argument to the Supreme Court.
- mondoshawan 9y agoYeah, I see it. I also see the dangers associated with it. Without a singular source of international relations, foreign powers can fracture the union in very bad ways. Though I suppose we're all pretty much divided at this point anyway, so there's not much point in being concerned anymore, is there?
- marcoperaza 9y agoI see we are reaching new heights of sophistry in our disregard for the Constitution. It's clearly not an response to an "imminent Danger that will not admit of delay" if the agreement in question takes no urgent and effective action. Or if the danger in question is something on the scale of decades away, where action starting today is just about as effective (or ineffective) as action starting a year or two years from now.
- nerdponx 9y agoPeople have been making constitutional arguments like this for a long time. It's not new.
- gasbag 9y agoCommerce that remains internal to a state also shouldn't be regulated by the interstate commerce clause, yet that's been done for almost a century. There are no new heights of sophistry here, US history is littered with examples of convoluted logic to find constitutional grounds for whatever those in (various levels of) power want to do.
- 9y ago
- deleted 9y ago[deleted]
- tdb7893 9y agoThere doesn't seem to be any binding agreement so it doesn't seem applicable
- panzer_wyrm 9y agoIf it is not binding then it is not agreement.
- tdb7893 9y agoI can agree to the statement "we should work together on climate change" without making a binding commitment (which in my opinion would mean anything enforceable) so I'm not sure I get your point
- Corristowolf 9y agoThat's what the libertarians wanted all along. Even better would be a crowdfunding campaign for the Paris Climate Accord.
- robschia 9y agoI'm amazed how China has now become the leader of the green movement. Times change.
- ygaf 9y agoIt took them enough self-inflicted pain to come around.
- marcoperaza 9y agoDon't let yourself be fooled. China is not being high-minded or altruistic. The Paris Accord was economically beneficial to the Chinese because it explicitly allowed them to increase emissions, to continue their high growth rate and "catch up" to Western economies. Of course they want to tie the hands of their major economic competitors. And now they also see an opportunity to rehabilitate their public image in the minds of Western liberals, all while they keep throwing political dissidents in jail and oppressing religious minorities. And burning more dirty coal anyway too. I'm not making an argument for or against the Paris Accord here--it's reasonable to argue that it's only fair to allow developing countries more flexibility under it. But please don't let yourself fall for Chinese propaganda that tries to paint them as altruistic or taking a moral high ground, or most absurdly, as the new "leaders" of the green movement.
- rollinDyno 9y agoOP is impressed by the shift in public perception, not in the causes itself. If America was ever the leader of the green movement, it also had its own sinister roots.
- deleted 9y ago[deleted]
- YSFEJ4SWJUVU6 9y agoAre you sure about that? I didn't read it at all like that. But it's easy for China to cheer on the Paris Accord, at least for now. Even though they already produce more emissions per capita than the EU average, they get to increase their emissions without a set limit, while competing European countries axe their emissions in half – and Europe pays China for all this while industry flees into Asia of the ever increasing costs of operation. To me it doesn't sound like a good deal at all with us being in recession for most part of the last decade.
- United857 9y agoNot that I don't support this move but doesn't this violate the Constitution ("No State shall enter into any Treaty, Alliance, or Confederation")? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Contract_Clause https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Contract_Clause
- octonion 9y agoNo.
- mondoshawan 9y agoMaybe not the contract clause, but what about this? > No State shall, without the Consent of Congress, lay any duty of Tonnage, keep Troops, or Ships of War in time of Peace, enter into any Agreement or Compact with another State, or with a foreign Power, or engage in War, unless actually invaded, or in such imminent Danger as will not admit of delay. Foreign policy is reserved for the federal government, is it not?
- philipov 9y agoMaybe California is itching for a constitutional crisis to push for a constitutional convention?
- cryptonector 9y agoWith nearly 3/4s of State legislatures in the hands of one party (Republican), a Constitutional Convention is not farfetched, and a constitutional crisis won't be needed to force it, and California almost certainly doesn't want it (since CA is Democrat).
- d0ne 9y ago"...in such imminent Danger as will not admit of delay." Not a lawyer, but California may deem the exiting of the Paris agreement at a Federal level imminent Danger to their citizens.
- bhhaskin 9y agoWhat an interesting move. Pretty much leaves the federal government no choice but to respond though. The implications of a state contacting a foreign government for policy sets a bad precedence. Regardless of how noble the cause is. In this case it's green energy, but it could have just as easily been fossil fuels.
- exabrial 9y agoI really wish California would engage Trump rather than just slam the door shut. There's room for a deal and there's common ground to be found if people actually try. This needless childish behavior is screwing us all over.
- marssaxman 9y agoDoes Trump really seem like the sort of person who can be engaged productively? The needless childish behavior here is coming from the top; routing around the damage appears to be the most productive way of making progress. Yes, there's room for a deal; that's why California just made one, with China!
- exabrial 9y agoI guess I'll ask for an example when California has engaged Trump in respectful conversation... I'm not defending him, I'm just saying I don't see anything happening.
- TheCoelacanth 9y agoI guess I'll ask for an example of when Trump has ever engaged anyone in respectful conversation.
- dragonwriter 9y ago> I really wish California would engage Trump rather than just slam the door shut. I really wish Trump would engage California rather than just slam the door shut. > There's room for a deal Apparently not. Trump's White House, despite Trump personally previously calling for forceful climate action by the US government, now refuses to even say if Trump believes climate change is real, much less whether the President has any interest in doing anything about it, much less what the parameters he would for any climate action are. > there's common ground to be found if people actually try. Maybe, but Trump's not trying, and there's people who are. You work with the willing partners you have, not the ones you wish you had. > This needless childish behavior is screwing us all over. On this much, if not on which behavior is needless and childish, we agree.