
China and California sign deal to work on climate change without Trump - nedsma
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2017/jun/07/china-and-california-sign-deal-to-work-on-climate-change-without-trump
======
United857
Not 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)

~~~
PunchTornado
Yes it is. Even for agreements, not treaties, with foreign powers, the states
need Congress' approval.

I think it is merely symbolic, as California can accomplish its climate
targets voluntarily without any agreements.

This meeting was just to give the finger to the Trump administration and show
them that the power is local.

~~~
autokad
does it give a finger to the trump administration? to me it means we can
accomplish things without a symbolic accords that will cost the US 3 billion.

~~~
24gttghh
So we're pulling out because of 3 Billion dollars? That's nothing on the
global scale.

~~~
PunchTornado
2 billion. Obama already paid 1bn.

------
robschia
I'm amazed how China has now become the leader of the green movement. Times
change.

~~~
marcoperaza
Don'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
OP 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.

~~~
YSFEJ4SWJUVU6
Are 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.

------
muninn_
Good. The states need to step up when the federal government isn't doing what
they want.

~~~
windsword
US Constitution. Article 1, Section 10.

~~~
muninn_
Don't see how that's relevant here

~~~
mondoshawan
FTA:

> 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
_"...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.

~~~
marcoperaza
I 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.

~~~
gasbag
Commerce 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.

------
bhhaskin
What 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
I 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
Does 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
I 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
I guess I'll ask for an example of when Trump has ever engaged anyone in
respectful conversation.

