"The Paris Agreement is a legally binding international treaty on climate change . It was adopted by 196 Parties at COP 21 in Paris, on 12 December 2015 and entered into force on 4 November 2016.
Its goal is to limit global warming to well below 2, preferably to 1.5 degrees Celsius , compared to pre-industrial levels.
To achieve this long-term temperature goal, countries aim to reach global peaking of greenhouse gas emissions as soon as possible to achieve a climate neutral world by mid-century.
The Paris Agreement is a landmark in the multilateral climate change process because, for the first time, a binding agreement brings all nations into a common cause to undertake ambitious efforts to combat climate change and adapt to its effects."
So, why would anyone challenge Biden’s executive order re-joining the Paris agreement? It seems like a universally agreeable goal to reduce carbon emissions.
Yeah? You want to work in a nightclub 7 days a week cleaning toilets for sub minimum wage? You wanted to go to Taiwan to be a migrant fruit picker living hand to mouth? Wash dishes in 12 hour a day shifts? Live as a second class citizen?
You wanted to live in fear of deportation nightly so that your kids might have a chance at a better life, because your own country is so violent and unsafe you have to flee just to survive?
Legal immigration requires you to be of a certain class, income level, status to begin with. Would you really trade places with an undocumented worker, if even given the chance and knew you wouldn’t be deported?
(Spoiler: You wouldn’t. Your cushy situation in Taiwan for showing up and speaking your own language is a far better than most undocumented workers).
From your post, it is clear you are not in any way familiar with what America’s immigration policies are. Which policies are you talking about here?
Great role for Jill Biden, kinda the opposite of her counterpart:
First lady Jill Biden’s chief of staff will be involved in monitoring the Biden administration’s effort to reunite children taken from their parents at the border under former President Donald Trump’s roundly condemned family separation policy, her spokesman said Wednesday.
A year ago this time I was sitting in the Portland Oregon Federal Court House – the building your homeys Rose City Antifa have been trying to burn down all summer – watching my wife become a U.S. citizen, a process I helped her with over a five year period, including signing form I-864 affidavit of support for her.
Congratulations to you and your wife on her becoming a citizen.
Filling out the I-864 form does not mean that you understand all or even most of U.S. immigration policy. It means you knew how to fill out the form and documents. I have done the exact same process. Did you fill it out during the previous 4 years? If you did you would have had to have noticed the financial requirements necessary in order to demonstrate you are not going to be a public charge.
How many people attempting to legally immigrate from that part of the world do you think meet the financial criteria laid out by the previous admin, much less refugees from politically destabilized countries?
If you filled out the I-864 and didn’t realize that form allows only affluent people into the country, you probably were just filling out the boxes where you were told without analyzing it much.
So you missed the part about public charge and demonstrating your financial independence on the form, or where you have to list your assets? Or didn’t think about how that would exclude Central American political refugees and nearly everyone human not in higher economic castes?
U.S. immigration policy under Democrats is like living in a house in a city with a large homeless population and roommates who want to leave the doors unlocked so the homeless can come in whenever they need a shower, food and a warm place to sleep. Roommates who would rather lock the doors and support homeless shelters instead are berated as cold-hearted fascists who care only about themselves. We all know how this morality play ends though.
In other words, you’re not aware that the United States was founded as a nation of immigrants and has always welcomed them, including the poor ones? Check what’s written on the Statue of Liberty. Tired. Poor. Huddled masses. Etc.
One can only surmise why he’d post a random link to the world’s most dangerous cities, but…
3. Myth: Immigrants increase the danger of crime and terrorism.
Immigrants are less prone to crime for a number of reasons. After surveying the available evidence, a major 2015 study on immigrant integration by the National Academy of Sciences concluded, “Far from immigration increasing crime rates, studies demonstrate that immigrants and immigration are associated inversely with crime. Immigrants are less likely than the native born to commit crimes, and neighborhoods with greater concentrations of immigrants have much lower rates of crime and violence than comparable nonimmigrant neighborhoods.”
Major shocker here: Poor, politically destabilized cities are full of crime! Stop the presses @QuaSaShao!
I will be devastated if the president does not sign an EO to hand out passports to undocumented people at the border. They deserve it.
I have a better idea. When the wars start in the middle east, guarantee those displaced people don’t need to head north to Europe again, they can have a free flight to any US airport and be given a new passport. The more the merrier.
I don’t see it as a right versus left sort of thing. More of a common sense versus no common sense issue. As in open borders with a country with the highest murder rate on the planet makes no sense at all. At least to me.
Beyond Keystone, the larger, more wide-ranging issue is leasing and permitting on federal lands. An oil company looking to drill on federally owned land and offshore faces a two-step administrative process. First, it must secure the lease, including the royalty agreement (that would be Uncle Sam’s portion of the proceeds). Second, it must clear a host of environmental hurdles to receive permits to drill the actual wells. Last week, Acting Secretary of the Interior Scott de la Vega issued an order suspending the Interior Department’s “Bureaus and Offices” from approving new leasing and permitting on federal lands. Note the specific wording: All it meant is that he was no longer delegating authority to the bureaucracy. Instead, for 60 days, only the top brass (e.g., all the political appointees) have decision-making power. As Bloomberg reported today, those agency heads continued granting permits, with at least 31 approved since the order.[ii] Sea change, this was not.
Wednesday’s order is a modest tweak to last week’s move. It changes nothing on the permitting front. But it puts all new leases on ice indefinitely while ordering “a comprehensive review and reconsideration of Federal oil and gas permitting and leasing practices in light of the Secretary of the Interior’s broad stewardship responsibilities over the public lands and in offshore waters, including potential climate and other impacts associated with oil and gas activities on public lands or in offshore waters.”[iii] So oil companies looking to expand their potential footprint on federally owned land and offshore tracts are presently in limbo. But those who have leased-but-not-drilled land should still be able to move forward, presuming agency heads continue doling out permits. Those who have leases and permits but haven’t yet turned on the taps should be unaffected.
The preceding two paragraphs distill the information you can find in the widely available coverage of these orders, and we hope you enjoy having it in one handy place. More important, though, is a little factoid that isn’t getting much ink. For all the talk of this being some huge swing factor for future US energy production and supply, according to a recent report from the Congressional Research Service, less than one-fourth of US oil production occurs on federal land (including offshore). The rest is on private or state-owned land, which the executive actions don’t apply to. Interestingly, federal land’s share of production is down considerably over the past decade: “The federal share of total U.S. crude oil production fell from its peak at nearly 36% in 2009 to less than 24% in 2017 at the same time overall production increased.”[iv] In other words, the industry has already voluntarily become less reliant on federally owned resources. Maybe executive actions accelerate this trend, maybe not, but it isn’t hard to envision the government eventually taking credit for something the private sector was already doing. It wouldn’t be the first time (see falling emissions in 2014).
