You are viewing a single comment's thread.

view the rest of the comments →

0
3

[–] Thisismyvoatusername 0 points 3 points (+3|-0) ago  (edited ago)

But that's mostly my point. "Following" the agreement for a state or city is an almost nonsensical concept because the importance of the US to the framework of the agreement had nothing to do with the sorts of actions a state or city can take. It is very widely acknowledged that none of the actions called for in the agreement will actually affect the future climate in any material way. It is entirely a scheme to transfer wealth from rich nations to poor nations and surrender sovereignty to an international organization. None of that is going to be done by states or cities.

0
1

[–] 9389113? 0 points 1 point (+1|-0) ago 

Regarding the cash, do states actually have constitutional authority to do business with foreign governments? I don't think they do.

0
0

[–] Thisismyvoatusername ago 

Depends what you mean by "do business". So the answer is really yes and no. In this instance I think they would be free to send cash (subject to the risk of not being re-elected for doing so), but not enter into an agreement like the Paris one to do so. It would purely be a voluntary waste of public funds. They could enter into a commercial arrangement, but it would be hard to cast anything in the Paris agreement as a commercial deal. What would they be buying for the cash?