Scientific American discusses with Myron Ebell the impact of the election on the Paris Climate Treaty that Obama recently signed.
But it is unclear what tools Republican lawmakers plan to use to combat Paris, or whether they’ll even try.
“I don’t think anyone’s going to talk about it until they decide to do it, and that will be after the election,” said Myron Ebell of the Competitive Enterprise Institute.
Ebell argues that this year’s presidential election will go a long way toward determining whether Congress has the leverage to prohibit that funding during a postelection spending showdown. If Democrat Hillary Clinton wins the presidential election, Obama would likely threaten to veto any spending bill that barred Green Climate Fund contributions, he said. A Republican-led Congress would have a stronger hand if GOP nominee Donald Trump was preparing to take office.
Ebell has urged the Senate to debate the merits of Paris and kill it, if only symbolically, whether the administration submits it or not. He notes that the deal is accepted as a treaty by other countries and by the United Nations itself. By refusing to ask for the Senate’s advice and consent, Obama is ignoring the constitutionally mandated division of responsibility between the executive and legislative branches of government, Ebell argued.
“It’s merely a matter of tradition that the Senate doesn’t take up a treaty until the president submits it,” he said. Senate rejection of Paris would send a signal to other countries not to trust Obama’s promises, he added.
Read the full article at Scientific American.