Abby L. Harvey
GHG Monitor
10/23/2015
As the upcoming negotiations toward a post-Kyoto climate agreement near, Republican lawmakers continue to push the administration to bring the agreement before the Senate for consultation and potential ratification. However, the administration argues, if the agreement is not legally-binding there is no precedent for them to do so and until it becomes clear if the agreement will be legally binding the administration cannot commit to bringing it before the Senate, State Department Special Envoy for Climate Change Todd Stern said during a hearing of the Senate Foreign Relations Subcommittee on Multilateral International Development, Multilateral Institutions and International Economic Energy and Environmental Policy this week.
The agreement out of the 21st Conference of the Parties of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change to be held in Paris in December will take the place of the Kyoto Protocol when it expires in 2020. The U.S. has called for a non-legally-binding agreement, in part because a legally-binding agreement would have to be ratified by the Senate, an unlikely outcome. This plan of action has enraged Republican lawmakers who want a chance to vote on the agreement.
“Whatever deal is reached in the back rooms of the Paris Climate Change Conference, it has been telegraphed by this administration that the deal will be a calculated end-run around Congress,” Subcommittee Chairman John Barraso (R-Wyo.) said during the hearing. “Any agreement that commits our nation to targets or timetables must go through the process established by the Founders and our Constitution must be submitted to the United States Senate for its advice and consent.”
Stern, the sole witness at the hearing, stated that if it were legally required, the Administration would bring the agreement before the Senate. However, It is not clear if the Administration will take this route. “We are going to look at the agreement, once we have an agreement, and we will evaluate at that time. And we will act fully in accordance with laws,” Stern said. “We don’t know yet what the agreement’s going to say.”
Further, Stern stated that he does not believe a legally-binding agreement “would serve the interests of the country,” making the argument that non-legally-binding targets are preferred as “the best way to ensure broad participation since many countries would be unwilling to accept binding targets.”
Paul Resolution Would Require Congressional Oversite
A resolution introduced on the floor of the Senate this week by Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.) would require that any agreement to come out of the Paris negotiations be considered a treaty. This would in turn make the agreement subject to the advice and consent of the Senate.
“It is not yet clear whether President Obama intends to view any agreement that may come out of the Paris conference as a solely executive agreement, but our Resolution would remind him of past precedent for Congressional review,” Paul wrote in a letter to fellow senators seeking co-sponsors.
