| > That doesn't sound like it has a whole lot to do with climate change. It could potentially be used to force the United States to accept migrants, which Trump has opposed. I don't think so. That passage is just acknowledging that countries may have obligations under other agreements, and that these should be respected, promoted, and considered when those countries are trying to address climate change. I think what they are getting at is that a country should not use climate change and the Paris agreement as a justification for shirking their responsibilities under other agreements. Consider Saudi Arabia, which is noted for giving women less freedom than men. Saudi Arabia is a party to the Convention on the Elimination of all Forms of Discrimination Against Women (CEDAW). They are a party to Paris, too. It is not hard to imagine a scenario where increasing the freedom of women in Saudi Arabia in some particular area might in theory raise their carbon footprint. I think what that passage is getting at is that they should not say, "Hey, we have to meet the Paris goals, so too bad, women! We've got to drop CEDAW to save the planet!". They are supposed to figure out a way to meet Paris goals and meet their CEDAW obligations. Or to use your example of migrants, what it means to the US is that if we are obligated to accept migrants under some existing agreement, we should not try to say that the migrants have a high carbon footprint and reject them. We should try to meet both obligations. |