[i2amsam]

I don't knows where everyone is picking up this talking point, but it's really bullshit.

The agreement was weak and not a treaty because the Republicans in the Senate would not have ratified a treaty, just as they failed to ratify Kyoto. If any Republicans thought this was a swell idea but just wasn't binding enough they could enter into a second, more aggressive binding agreement with whatever parties they like. Nobody thought this was a great agreement, it was too weak and timid, but it was the strongest agreement we could make without the Senate.

[patrickg_zill]

To my mind, for any government agency to have implemented a rule from the Paris accord, without it being an actual ratified treaty, would be illegal.

[rsynnott]

In which case, it would likely go to the Supreme Court, who are better equipped to figure out this question than hackernews.

[patrickg_zill]

It never stopped us before :-)

Healthy debate is healthy.