I see a bunch of mayors and governors saying that, despite Trump’s withdrawal, they will continue to support the Paris Climate Accord.
Can they actually join the Accord or are they simply saying that they will enact ordinances or legislation in their local jurisdiction that works toward the same goals?
I think the states have their hands tied with respect to foreign treaties. However, watch California in this. I’m betting California legislates much of the restrictions with respect to California, and of course, other states may do the same.
I guess that is kind of built in to my OP, but my understanding is that the Paris Accord is not a treaty per se. So I was wondering what the implications of that distinction have for the individual states.
States can’t join in to any international agreement on their own.
However, nothing precludes states from making regulations that match that agreement. They can pass laws that bring themselves in line with the rest of the world. Factory emissions, for instance, can be regulated for any factories within that state.
Missed the edit window.
CA already has fired the first shot in the war FOR the environment.
https://twitter.com/JerryBrownGov
Ask your state to follow suit and stand in the way of Trump’s decision.
ETA, looks like Washington and New York have also joined in.
This is the right answer. The Constitution precludes states from conducting international diplomacy and engaging in international agreements. But they are free to set their own policy and if that policy happens to be in accordance with a certain standard, then fine. But that is obviously not binding on the state; a future state government can choose a new policy.
The Commerce Clause of the constitution places some limits on the extent to which individual states can enact regulations that burden interstate commerce. The doctrine is murky and unpredictable but may well be the subject of litigation here.
Doesn’t a large part of the Paris Accord involve monetary incentives for poorer nations funded from the developed world?
Are these states going to be contributing to that effort?
This, pretty much. Treaties are Foriegn Policy, which belongs to the Federal Government. But states ink individual trade deals quite often with international partners and governments - provided those deals don’t violate Federal rules. By withdrawing from teh Paris Accords, the Federal Government hasn’t said that states cannot meet those standards, just that the Government won’t enforce them.
Well, maybe a little less murky in this particular case, since the constitutional issues around federal pollution control regulation are mostly pretty well settled. Generally, the U.S. Clean Air Act --as upheld by the Supreme Court – sets minimum standards for states to regulate pollution, but allows the states to have stricter limits if they wish.
It is a little unclear whether Congress could in the future constitutionally forbid California or other states from regulating carbon emissions; most neutral observers would probably conclude Congress couldn’t, but with the Roberts/Gorsuch court (remember who Gorsuch’s mother was…) who knows?
It is an Accord, after all. There is no force that requires any particular country to adopt it. Nor is there any force that prevents any particular polity within any country from adopting it. Few countries allow any tangible self-determination or independence among jurisdictions within their borders, but the US still does.
Thus it is that California, New York, and Washington can ask other US states to join them in retaining the accords whether or not the Trump Administration likes it or not.
Federalism does have its advantages.