Talk:Paris Agreement

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search

please fix vandalism on page[edit]

Hi - just casual reader here. I noticed that there was some vandalism in the summary section. "Adolph Hitler" is referenced. Please remove and replace. Thanks. AK.

Sorry, before I messed up my addition here to the talk page. Hopefully fixed now. (talk) 13:50, 10 December 2018 (UTC)

Difference between a «signatory» and a «party»?[edit]

Sorry, but I don' understand the difference between a «signatory» and a «party» or more bluntly the definition of either of these elements. --Werfur (talk) 18:18, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

"Signatories" have merely signed the agreement, whereas "parties" have both signed and ratified it with their domestic political institutions (i.e. added it to their laws). Deathmare (talk) 09:21, 2 June 2017 (UTC)

$100 Billion[edit]

Page 8, paragraph 54 of the agreement describes the goal of USD 100 billion per year, taking into account the needs and priorities of the developing countries. However, no mention of these funds seems to appear in the text of the actual agreement (after page 21). Is this fund real or not? Thanks! --Lbeaumont (talk) 13:14, 13 December 2015 (UTC)

The funds are committed in the decision part of the deal, but not the treaty part. That doesn't make it any less real, it just changes the legal status of the commitments. (The reason this was done is because the US Senate needs to approve US participation in the treaty part, but not the decision part, and would likely have rejected the agreement if it included the $100 billion commitment.) TDL (talk) 16:11, 13 December 2015 (UTC)
Thanks! Perhaps the article can include a section "Structure of the Agreement" that can help me understand the distinctions between the decision part and the treaty part of the agreement. --Lbeaumont (talk) 20:59, 13 December 2015 (UTC)
Actually that should be in the 2015 Climate Change Conference article, as the agreement was just 1 of the decisions taken as part of agenda item 4b of the conference, but that article is better on opinions and qualifications than it is on what formally was decided.... L.tak (talk) 21:03, 13 December 2015 (UTC)


Perhaps a new section on "adoption" can clarify the timeline, or sequence of steps, that include signature, adoption, and ratification. What are the requirements and obligations (of what parties) linked to signature, adoption, and ratification? Thanks. --Lbeaumont (talk) 13:27, 13 December 2015 (UTC)

2015 United Nations Climate Change Conference[edit]

Shouldn't this just redirect to 2015 United Nations Climate Change Conference? William M. Connolley (talk) 21:23, 13 December 2015 (UTC)

Nope. The Climate Change Conference has ended, while for the Paris Agreement, things are just beginning. It still needs, signing, approving, Meeting of the Parties, evaluations etc. Just like the Kyoto Protocol is much different from the 1997 Climate Change Conference (in Kyoto) that established it.... L.tak (talk) 21:35, 13 December 2015 (UTC)

Are promises Legally Binding? and not yet ratified[edit]

Several news reports claim that the agreement is "legally binding". Are aspects of the agreement legally binding? If so, what specific language creates what specific legal obligations on what particular parties? If a violation is alleged, how is legal action initiated, adjudicated, and enforced? Thanks. --Lbeaumont (talk) 13:10, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

Early news reports were totally vague about the "binding" aspect. CNN was the best at seeing through the haze and recognizing that the countries only promised to do their best and that 55 of the world's major polluters would need to ratify the agreement before it would even be effective. (a later UN press release confirmed that). Other media soon began to publish quotes from experts who are very critical about the "promises" but not "commitments" constituting many of the conditions of the Paris Agreement. (Are promises ever "legally binding"??) I just added a section with this correct, and more balanced, coverage of the topic, with many citations from major News agencies and from the UN Press office as well. Peter K Burian 15:18, 14 December 2015 (UTC) (
Thanks, that needed to be corrected. It will be legally binding, if entered into force, and only for the ratifiers, and only to the extent the agreement is worded (which means no concrete country-by-country targets)... L.tak (talk) 17:23, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

DOES need ratification[edit]

Someone deleted a section about the agreement needing ratification. (anonymous user Did he read any of the news articles in the citations?? Or the UN press release? I have reverted that.

See the CNN Report for example. Quote: Individual countries now must individually ratify or approve the agreement in their respective countries. .. And the agreement won't enter into force until 55 countries have ratified it. Those nations must account for 55% of total global greenhouse gas emissions. The agreement was adopted by "consensus" during the meeting of government ministers. That doesn't necessarily mean all 196 parties approved it; French Foreign Minister Laurent Fabius, who served as the president of the conference, had the authority to decide if a consensus had been reached. Peter K Burian 15:51, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

Agreed, I have changed the wording, and splitted facts and opinions a bit... L.tak (talk) 17:22, 14 December 2015 (UTC)
Someone may not like CNN; ok, here is another citation from a Canadian TV News nework:

The deal now needs to be ratified by individual governments – at least 55 countries representing at least 55 per cent of global emissions – before taking effect. It is the first pact to ask all countries to join the fight against global warming, representing a sea change in U.N. talks that previously required only wealthy nations to reduce their emissions. Peter K Burian 20:09, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

Washington Times: The deal now needs to be ratified by individual governments — at least 55 countries representing at least 55 percent of global emissions — and would take effect in 2020. It is the first pact to ask all countries to join the fight against global warming, representing a sea change in U.N. talks that previously required only wealthy nations to reduce their emissions. Peter K Burian 20:14, 14 December 2015 (UTC)
Agreed, but would you say the present wording is wrong? L.tak (talk) 20:15, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

Hmmm ... I wrote much of the section but I believe that a couple of people have made revisions to it. Will check again and revise if necessary. Peter K Burian 20:47, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

Yeah, someone really condensed the content that I had written. I made a few small changes now. I supposed the condensed version was OK when I saw it a minute ago but I'm sure a couple of people will revise it again. I will keep an eye out for changes. Peter K Burian 20:52, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

Why is the United States listed as ratifying the treaty, when the U.S. Senate has not ratified it, as required by the U.S. Constitution. The President does not have the legal authority to ratify a treaty or any other international agreement. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 14:34, 16 November 2016 (UTC)

The US ratified on 3 September 2016. See [1]. For a discussion on why the US constitution does not require Senate approval see: [2]. TDL (talk) 01:13, 17 November 2016 (UTC)

The link given to support the statement "The US ratified on 3 September 2016" merely cites a document issued by the then-General Secretary of the U.N. stating that the U.S. accepted the document. It does not use the word "ratified" and does not reflect any process that would be considered "ratification" under the U.S. Constitution. Link #2 supporting the statement "For a discussion on why the US Constitution does not require Senate approval" is NOT in fact a discussion, it simply gives assertions from the Obama Administration that they could put the agreement into effect without Senate approval and an assertion from a Senator that he was wrong. There was in fact no citations of relevant sections of the Constitution or Federal law, specific previous such acts by the Executive branch or of any Judicial branch opinions or decisions on the matter. It is at least clear that the use of the phrase "The US ratified the agreement" is incorrect, since the Senate never considered a ratification resolution and the U.N. Secretary General did not call it a ratification.RonWF (talk) 21:16, 8 November 2017 (UTC)

@RonWF:, yes the US did not formally "ratify" the agreement, instead they "accepted" it. However, there is no legal difference between these two terms: "instruments of "acceptance" or "approval" of a treaty have the same legal effect as ratification". The treaty does not require ratification. Per A20, it is "subject to ratification, acceptance or approval by States". Since there is no legal difference between ratification, acceptance, and approval, ratification is widely used as a shorthand for all three.
On the second point, you can read the Trump administration's view on the legality of Obama's ratification without Senate approval here: "the President’s independent authority under Article II of the Constitution, together with the authority given to him by statute and treaty, as well as past practice concerning similar agreements, provided the President with a solid basis to conclude the Paris Agreement as an executive agreement." TDL (talk) 02:14, 9 November 2017 (UTC)

Your first point cites as an authority a section of the Vienna Convention of the Law of Treaties of 1969. However, the United States has not ratified that Convention [3]. Therefore it is not bound by it, and it's conflation of the terms "acceptance", "approval" and "ratification" is meaningless with regards to American law. The term "ratification" has a specific meaning in the United States when referring to a treaty that the United States is a party to. The fact that a Convention that the U.S. is not a party to claims differently does not affect that. As far as the Trump Administration's view regarding his Executive authority - history shows us that American Presidents commonly try to expand their power beyond Constitutional limits. I would not take his claim that he has that authority as authoritative on the subject; I'd have to see a far more balanced analysis than that to be convinced.RonWF (talk) 15:58, 10 November 2017 (UTC)

The VCLT merely codifies generally accepted principals of customary international law. The US secretary of state said as much when ratification was considered: [4]
Regardless, as shown above the terms of the Paris Agreement allow for ratification, acceptance or approval, so it does not matter what the US calls it, the legal effect is the same. The US became a party to the treaty, and is bound by its provisions. TDL (talk) 02:27, 11 November 2017 (UTC)
"The US became a party to the treaty, and is bound by its provisions." TDL (talk) 02:27, 11 November 2017 (UTC)
That statement is incorrect. The Constitution of the United States clearly says that for this Nation to become a party to any Treaty, it MUST be ratified by 2/3 of the U.S. Senate, which in this case has never happened. Obama did not submit it to the US Senate for ratification, precisely because he knew the Senate would reject it.
All the pontificating by CNN or any politicians/bureaucrats cannot make any Treaty legally binding upon the USA, if it has not been ratified by 2/3 of the Senate. The US Constitution is the "Supreme Law of the Land," and no interpretation of our laws and obligations to "Treaties" can overcome that basic rule of Law, which is the core of our legal system. EditorASC (talk) 08:16, 16 March 2018 (UTC)
I was using the term "treaty" in the international law sense of the term, not the US domestic law sense of the term. Under US constitional law, the Paris Agreement is not a treaty, but rather an "executive agreement" in which case US senate ratification is not required for the US to become a party to the agreement. See the DoS explanation of the constitutional law on becoming a party to a treaty here: [5][6]. TDL (talk) 05:01, 17 March 2018 (UTC)
"...the Paris Agreement is not a treaty, but rather an "executive agreement" in which case US senate ratification is not required for the US to become a party to the agreement."Italic text

All the Orwellian New Speak in the world cannot change the clear meaning of the US Constitution. While the President does have the power to issue "Executive Orders," their content is lawful only as long as such orders are issued to facilitate laws which Congress has passed and to help various Fed Govt bureaucracies carry out the mandates they have as a result of the laws created by Congress, which gives them the authority to issue regulations that are consistent with those laws.

There is no authority in the US Constitution which gives power to the President to obligate the United States to enter into any international agreement, EXCEPT BY entering into a TREATY, which does not become valid and binding until it has been ratified by 2/3 of the US Senate. Since that Paris Accords "Treaty" was never submitted to the US Senate for the required approval, the USA had no obligation to comply with any of its terms and still has no such lawful obligation. Calling it an "executive agreement," to which the USA has become a party is nothing more than an Orwellian New Speak argument which tries to give legitimacy to unlawful acts committed by our President while he was in office. Trump did exactly the right thing when he effectively rescinded BHO's unlawful executive order. EditorASC (talk) 03:22, 10 April 2018 (UTC)

"Executive agreement" is a well established and clearly defined legal term in US constitutional law. You can see the "three constitutional bases for international agreements other than treaties" described by the United States Department of State here: [7]. Above you describe case B, "Agreements Pursuant to Legislation". But you haven't considered case C, "Agreements Pursuant to the Constitutional Authority of the President" (in particular "The President's authority as Chief Executive to represent the nation in foreign affairs") which is how the Paris Agreement was approved. This is actually very common. The US president concluded 12,000 treaties as executive agreements from 1789–1989: [8]. That's a whole lot of "unlawfullness"!
You are free to disagree politically with the adoption of the Paris Agreement by the US, or with the legal interpretation of the US constitution by the US Department of State ([9]) and US Senate [10]. However, even the Trump administration does not claim that the Paris Agreement was not legally ratified, as evidence by their announcement that they would legally withdraw from the agreement: [11]. If it was not lawfully ratified there would be no need to withdraw. However, such WP:FRINGE theories cannot be included in the article. TDL (talk) 03:33, 23 April 2018 (UTC)
"Executive agreement" is a well established and clearly defined legal term in US constitutional law."
Therefore what? A "clearly defined legal term" means that it has the power to destroy our freedoms guaranteed by the US Constitution? Since when does the U.S. Department of State have the power to overrule the U.S. Constitution? Where in the Constitution is the DOS given the power to replace our Judiciary branch, as the third leg of our "Separation of Powers" doctrine?
Show me the CONSTITUTIONAL definition of "Executive Agreement" which gives the President the power to cancel or significantly alter legislation passed by the US Congress, much less to bypass and ignore the Constitution's restraints on his ACTUAL constitutional powers. There is no binding rule of law in the USA that supports such specious "reasoning" as that.
If the Constitution clearly states that the President must have the advice and consent of 2/3 of the US Senate, before the President can conclude any treaty that is to become binding upon this nation, then all the Orwellian New Speak pontificating by ones like you doesn't change anything. All the opinions of our worthless State Dept bureaucrats to the contrary, BHO did NOT have the Constitutional power to bind this nation to any aspect of the bogus Paris Climate Accords.
As to putting the truth in this Wikipedia article, I have never expected that would be allowed. Doesn't matter. Wikipedia lost its credibility a long time ago when it allowed one resident Admin to block any opinion or view that exposed the corruption of the "science" which continues to promote the fanatical AGW Zealot Religion. EditorASC (talk) 00:17, 12 May 2018 (UTC)

Much of it is NOT binding[edit]

Why revise my wording to claim it is binding. See the Reactions sections; experts agree that much of it is NOT binding. Countries can set whatever level they want and that might be very nominal and not even come close to the target the UN wants. OK, I will revise it in line with this news item: The agreement is partly legally binding and partly voluntary. Peter K Burian 21:03, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

'Almost nothing binding': Nick Dearden, of the Global Justice Now organization, pointed out that many of the items in the agreement are voluntary and that the pact "... has almost nothing binding".[19] Professor James Hansen, a former NASA scientist and a climate change expert, voiced anger about the fact that most of the agreement consists of "promises" or aims and not firm commitments.[20] Peter K Burian 21:08, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

Washington Post The Paris agreement does not enforce the implementation of the NDCs. ... Countries can deviate from their pledges whenever doing so is convenient to them. Peter K Burian 21:16, 14 December 2015 (UTC)
True... but that does not make the agreement non binding (just the level of the commitments, which is not in the agreement anyway) L.tak (talk) 21:21, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

binding/non binding[edit]

Peter, I am afraid we are agreeing on the substance, but not on the way to write down the binding/non-binding part. Allow me to explain (and not use the articles, but the treaty, as the media have the point right, but not all have the treaty-stuff right). An international agreement is binding after it enters into force for a party. This is fundamental to the pacta sunt servanda doctrine. However, what is not in the treaty, is -of course- not binding. So binding is: the requirement to give intended reductions, but not what they say. Then it is easy to say that the treaty is not binding in part, but that is not correct. This source had it correct (and this one as well. L.tak (talk) 21:12, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

We do agree in principle talk. My biggest concern was the version that called it a binding agreement. If it is, then why are so many sections not binding, including the plan to give $100 billion in aid to underdeveloped countries. But at the end of the day, I think we need to ensure that the reader understands that if the Agreement goes into force (IF) then parts of it will be binding (every country must set a target) while some important sections (like setting a target that does more than pay lip service) are not binding. And if a country fails to meet the target it had set, there is no enforcement method nor any penalty. The comments in the Reactions section certainly suggest that too much of the Agreement is not binding. Peter K Burian 22:13, 14 December 2015 (UTC)
Well, this is semantics I think. The Agreement (as in: overall consensus reached on all issues) is only partially there. But the Paris Agreement (the text of which is here and which is relatively short) will be fully binding (for those that ratify), except that it is silent on the 100 billion, and silent on the level of national contributions (so that's not binding). L.tak (talk) 22:22, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

Back when I was a junior writer for several magazines, a Senior Editor gave me the best advice of my career: "Peter, let's give the readers knowledge, not just information". I think that applies here. I always look at it from a reader's perspective and ask myself, "Does he or she really appreciate the gist of the situation, in spite of the very short sections here?" (Only the most dedicated reader - perhaps someone writing a College essay on the topic - will actually read the Agreement; and I had made that document one of the citations. Hopefully that citation has not since been deleted.) Cheers! Peter K Burian 22:28, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

That's good advice indeed... I am sure we can come up with wording which is both correct and giving the gist of what is happening. For that we need some info on the GHG pledges amonst others, which I'll try to add... L.tak (talk) 22:35, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

Someone called MaynardClark likes my edits; he has thanked me many times. Perhaps too many times, but it's nice to get a pat on the back occasionally. Peter K Burian 22:51, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

Which is main article? This one or 2015 United Nations Climate Change Conference[edit]

Interesting; both articles refer the reader to the Main Article: the other one. This Agreement article has the most information about the Paris Agreement (the reason for the Conference) so should we be saying "Main Article: 2015 United Nations Climate Change Conference"?? Peter K Burian 23:08, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

Yes, just like the Chemical Weapons Convention and OPCW have a main article "on eachother". They are not meant as the main thing, but the main article on that particular heading, so not meant in a hierarchical sence.... L.tak (talk) 23:19, 14 December 2015 (UTC)
Makes sense. Peter K Burian 23:32, 14 December 2015 (UTC)


Nowhere in the agreement the problem of human population stabilisation is mentioned. The word "population" does not appear at all, even if there is a clear and rather obvious correlation between population growth, resource consumption and depletion, waste output (including GHGs emissions). I think this is a major missing point. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 09:22, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

It may be helpful to develop a section called "notable omissions" that describe various (more ambitious) proposals that were made but not adopted into the final agreement. Perhaps "population" is one such rejected proposal. Is there any reliable reference on this? Thanks! --Lbeaumont (talk) 13:22, 7 January 2016 (UTC)


Shouldn't the article be titled Paris Agreement on climate change, so the reader understands immediately what it is about ? We have Paris agreements which redirects to London and Paris Conferences, the Treaty of Paris disambiguation page, etc, so there might be a risk of confusion. Moreover, even though the official document uses the title Paris agreement, period, the name Paris Agreement on climate change is used on the COP21's website, as well as in various media. Jean-Jacques Georges (talk) 10:01, 17 December 2015 (UTC)

Surprisingly there is no "Paris Agreement" yet that has formally that name and has a wikipedia page, so that was the reason to start here. To be honest, I have know idea what the common name will be. At the moment people just talk about "the pact" and conflate the outcome of the climate change conference with its most important result (the Agreement), but also "Paris Agreement on Climate Change", and "Paris Climate Agreement" (the latter bij UNFCCC) seems to be used. Only time will tell what the common name is: will it be like the Kyoto protocol known without any addition or will it be more descriptive (maybe even "Climate Agreement"). My suggestion thus is to wait and not to rename, for example until after the signature ceremony and media are really talking about the agreement itself, and we can see what consensus is. L.tak (talk) 12:54, 17 December 2015 (UTC)

Development of the US Nationally Determined Contribution[edit]

How will the US Nationally Determined Contribution be developed? What agency has primary responsibility? What time line is being followed? How can interested citizens follow the progress, get involved, and influence the final outcome? Thanks! --Lbeaumont (talk) 13:18, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

Criteria for addition of external links and further readings?[edit]

Two additional external articles on the implications of the Paris Agreement and its follow-up steps were added by different users and then deleted. The deleting editor insists that they are spam, although the articles are from professionals in the field (i.e., environmental think tank expert, and university professor), relevant to the topic, and are not behind paywalls. Considering that at the moment there are neither further readings nor external links for the topic, why should references to additional articles be deleted? — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 16:05, 9 June 2016 (UTC)

Please see the passage that I cited in my edit summary. Pt11 says that only blogs by "recognized authorities" should be included, and goes on to say that such "individuals always meet Wikipedia's notability criteria for people". Can you demonstrate that William Hull is a recognized authority which meets Wikipedia's notability criteria? The article suggests that the author is a student studying the subject, which is not very compelling evidence that the author qualifies as an authority.
Also, can you please disclose what your relationship to William Hull and/or the Berlin Forum is? TDL (talk) 03:50, 10 June 2016 (UTC)

Ratification in the EU[edit]

In my opinion this articles should keep track of EU member states ratifying without depositing their instruments. This is because unlike other countries, the EU member states have particular incentive to withhold their deposition for a long time after they ratify. It is therefore important to inform people why even though they may have read that a certain country ratified the agreement, that country does not show up on the list. Auguel (talk) 22:37, 4 October 2016 (UTC)

Well, others may have other reasons why they don't deposit after finishing their domestic procedures, and I don't see why we should treat the EU countries much different. I am ok with the special position in having a special paragraph dedicated to them, but a table on ratification progress in addition to the tables already present for all is a bit out of balance in my opioninion... L.tak (talk) 10:03, 5 October 2016 (UTC)
I suppose the reason it was added was because people kept coming and adding that various EU countries had ratified the agreement, and as Auguel says the article should explain why that is. I don't see the problem with a section detailing ratifications which have not been deposited, I think it's informative. Whether that is in a separate section on the EU or incorporated into the main table, doesn't matter to me. If there are any other countries which have ratified without depositing their instruments then that could be listed too? Jdcooper (talk) 10:10, 5 October 2016 (UTC)
I agree with Jdcooper that this has the added benefit of people not feeling the need to add countries which have ratified but not deposited to the main table. And if there are any other countries that have ratified but not deposited those should probably be explained as well. Auguel (talk) 19:01, 5 October 2016 (UTC)
I have no problem doing this for all countries (although it is a lot of work). We have done that with many more treaties and in much more detail and it gives good encyclopaedic information... I suggest we either add a column, or add the date of parliamentary approval (or royal/presidential assent, as long as it is consistent) in brackets in the ratification column... Now I think of it, that latter option is probably best (as we're not able to fill a full column completely probably)... L.tak (talk) 20:21, 5 October 2016 (UTC)
To me it seems important to have some text accompanying any country which has delayed ratification to explain why it has done so. So in my opinion this table should be separate from the main one, with text explaining it or at least giving detail on the specific cases where a difference exists between ratification and deposition. Auguel (talk) 20:43, 5 October 2016 (UTC)
I would support keeping them in the same column with a clear difference in display to indicate that they weren't deposited yet. Italics are also widely employed on other articles for things that are proposed or partly completed. As long as whatever system was properly annotated I think some combination of those things would do the trick. Jdcooper (talk) 20:46, 5 October 2016 (UTC)

Flexible mechanisms[edit]

Mention this in the article ? See Flexible_Mechanisms#Future KVDP (talk) 12:56, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

Proposed 2nd Table[edit]

Propose adding 2nd table of 3-5columns, showing for all listed nations: 'Emissions at time of agreement'; 'Pledged reduction in emissions'; 'Current emissions' (updated annually to show progress); '% progress towards target'; 'Emissions in benchmark year (eg 1990)'. Would be useful to show progress.

Could also have hyperlinks to a new subsection/subheading of all listed nation's main wiki pages ('Paris Climate Agreement'?) detailing what policies/technologies/incentives are being employed towards reaching targets. 07:33, 13 February 2017 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:56A:72AC:BA00:A430:6AA:CDD4:9A4E (talk)

good idea to have such data in the article. Before we start, let's first discuss the source. What do you plan to use? L.tak (talk) 18:28, 13 February 2017 (UTC)
Might be a good idea to WP:SPLITOUT this as well, so the main article is not overwhelmed with stats. TDL (talk) 00:38, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

Would make sense to use same sources used at agreement for 'Emissions at time of agreement' and 'Pledges'. 'Current emissions' could be UN figs (likely based on gov figs provided by nations in question). Perhaps a UN person could look into the annual update part (as I am sure part of their remit is to ensure the public is informed of their initiative and this is one way to do so). 'Progress towards target' could be auto-calced via spreadsheet from above data. 'Emissions in benchmark' would be from Kyoto or prev COP data. Done & Done. Just need someone qualified to compile without errors that detract from purpose of suggestion - to accurately inform interested parties inc biz, gov and gen public, all of which make key decisions about the future based on accurate knowledge of progress on issues such as this. Currently there doesn't seem to be a well-known mainstream repository of basic info like that suggested. This is now it. ;) 09:49, 17 February 2017 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:56A:72AC:BA00:F0CD:B475:B3D2:F8C0 (talk)

I would like to see such a table. Today's news conference suggested that the allowable missions of some countries go up while others go down. I'm knocking to take anything said in such an announcement as gospel but it would be useful to have a table identifying the respective targets.--S Philbrick(Talk) 00:46, 2 June 2017 (UTC)
This site Purports to have some information but I haven't looked at it closely enough to know whether it qualifies as a reliable source. Even if it does not qualify as a reliable source, many of the countries have links to UNFCCC documents, which ought to have some weight.--S Philbrick(Talk) 00:53, 2 June 2017 (UTC)

Proposed merge with United States withdrawal from the Paris Agreement[edit]

The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
Summary:-No consensus.Status-quo is maintained.
Reason:-While, arguments of recentism has been rightfully invoked by the supporters of the proposal, the topic has an excellent broad coverage in reliable sources(as evident from the current state of the article) and un-deniably a percieved importance to seemingly deserve a stand-alone article.Also, WP:SIZE restricts the viability of a merge.As a sidenote, I would request the proposer to wait a few months to gauge the long-term encycloepadic-ness of the subject before any re-nomination.All !votes from single purpose accounts have been entirely dis-regarded.Winged Blades Godric 06:52, 21 June 2017 (UTC)

  • Support/Merge - The information will be incomplete without inclusion of the U.S. rationale for withdrawal.

There is no benefit of having an article dedicated to this single event. It can easily be summarized in Paris Agreement and Environmental policy of the Donald Trump administration. - MrX 19:39, 1 June 2017 (UTC)

  • Support/Merge - for time being until more reliable coverage comes about. Inter&anthro (talk) 19:43, 1 June 2017 (UTC)
    • Oppose - in the last couple of days there has been significant coverage and reaction to this topic, which helps it pass the notability requirements I believe. Inter&anthro (talk) 15:53, 3 June 2017 (UTC)
  • I don't think nobility is the issue here, it's the amount of information, is there enough to warrant a standalone page. Mlpearc Phone (open channel) 16:03, 3 June 2017 (UTC)
  • Support/Merge --Webverbesserer (talk) 19:50, 1 June 2017 (UTC)
  • Support/merge - can't see how enough information can be gathered together for a separate article on the subject.  Seagull123  Φ  20:00, 1 June 2017 (UTC)
  • Support/Merge --Jjm596 (talk) 20:19, 1 June 2017 (UTC)
  • Strong Oppose -- The information is notable enough on its own and it has far more notability than similar articles, such as Marijuana policy of the Donald Trump administration. The effects of this will be felt for years. The withdraw is expected to have dozens of reactions, extensive coverage for days, among other things that show extensive notability.PerfectlyIrrational (talk) 20:23, 1 June 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose - per WP:SIZE. This article is approaching 80KB, the spinout is notable enough for a stand alone article. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 20:30, 1 June 2017 (UTC)
    • per WP:SIZE: "These rules of thumb apply only to readable prose (found by counting the words, perhaps with the help of Shubinator's DYK tool or Prosesize) and not to wiki markup size (as found on history lists or other means)."- MrX 20:48, 1 June 2017 (UTC)
      • Prose size (text only): 21 kB (3393 words)} "readable prose size"- MrX 21:21, 1 June 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose - Global implications. sikander (talk) 20:38, 1 June 2017 (UTC)
  • Strong support merge Every time Trump does something (see Trump orb, Covfefe), there's a rush to create a new article for it. It's WP:NOTNEWS and WP:RECENTISM. The U.S. withdrawal does not need its own page; it can be covered on the Paris Agreement page. – Muboshgu (talk) 20:53, 1 June 2017 (UTC)
    • Strong comment There can be no better proof of how weak the arguments for merge are that an editor just compared the U.S. Withdrawl from the 190 country Paris agreement to keep our planet alive to the memes Trump orb and Covfefe, because they are each "something Trump did." There is really no reason to continue the discussion given how risible these arguments for merge are. (talk) 22:46, 11 June 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose - will have effects that will last for decades. --MarioProtIV (talk/contribs) 21:43, 1 June 2017 (UTC)
@MarioProtIV and Siqbal: Whether that's got refs or not, it doesn't mean it should have its own page. WP:CRYSTALBALL.  Seagull123  Φ  22:37, 1 June 2017 (UTC)
  • Support/Merge - These accords are not a supranational entity like the European Union, and U.S. withdrawal will have few actual consequences. America is exiting it as quickly as it entered it (without Congress's consent). This does not warrant its own article and frankly it's a complete mess right now, with grammatical errors and obvious bias. --Bigeyedbeansfromvenus (talk) 22:55, 1 June 2017 (UTC)
  • Support/Merge, unlike Brexit, this withdrawal will not make much of a significant change in things, as the agreement does not actually enforce the promises. --AmaryllisGardener talk 23:55, 1 June 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose This article seems a little large at this point to be merged into another article. Unless there is an agreement on shortening it, I will oppose the merging. - Bokmanrocks01 (talk) 23:59, 1 June 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose - Too soon to merge, now that the article has expanded. Also, the event should meet WP:NEVENTS in any way, like WP:LASTING, i.e. Trump's withdrawal will totally affect the US influence on global affairs. --George Ho (talk) 00:17, 2 June 2017 (UTC)
  • Support/Merge - By itself, the decision to withdraw is just news. Only in the contexts of the Paris Agreement & the environmental policy of the Trump administration does it merit encyclopedic treatment. Longer term, if a strong movement of states and municipalities within the US to support/observe the agreement, and perhaps counter-movements (in support of the withdrawal), then a separate article about those dynamics and the withdrawal that inspired them might be merited. But now, merge.--A12n (talk) 00:24, 2 June 2017 (UTC)
  • Support/merge - The current seperate article is arguably overly detailed already, with a large section repeating details of the agreement, and the reaction of dozens of selected individuals or groups isn't necessary (why are 3 tech CEOs comments included but not those of other industries for example, it is cherry picking). The announcement, effects and a summary of reactions is all that is necessary and that would all fit neatly in the main article. If another country were to exit, I doubt it would be given its own article, so I don't see why America needs it. Reactions in respect to Trump's presidency should be made elsewhere on articles about his presidency. -- Whats new?(talk) 01:19, 2 June 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose - Enough arguments are given above. Sherenk1 (talk) 01:20, 2 June 2017 (UTC)
  • Support merge per MrX. I think this does not merit a whole article and can be summed up in new sections in Paris Agreement and Environmental policy of Donald Trump. However, since we can't know yet the historical impact and consequence of the decision, we might have to revisit this proposal in the future. κατάσταση 01:31, 2 June 2017 (UTC)
If anything, this has more long-term consequence and notability than half the pages of here. I don't see why we would get rid of it. PerfectlyIrrational (talk) 02:43, 2 June 2017 (UTC)
  • Strong oppose - This is a major stand-alone Trump administration controversy with a tremendous amount of coverage. Let's keep the withdrawal article separate. DARTHBOTTO talkcont 02:54, 2 June 2017 (UTC)
  • Merge to Environmental policy of the Donald Trump administration, which seems like a better place for this article's content. Blaylockjam10 (talk) 03:09, 2 June 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose This is a perfectly viable article, and any attempts to merge it into the Paris Agreement article would lead to issues around WP:UNDUE. Remember that we are not a paper encyclopedia, and so can go into issues in detail. Nick-D (talk) 03:30, 2 June 2017 (UTC)
    • It only needs a paragraph or small section in the main article, so won't be undue. – Muboshgu (talk) 04:02, 2 June 2017 (UTC)
  • Support merge - Most of this article is just a list of people who disagree, any real information should be merged with the original article Murchison-Eye (talk) 05:06, 2 June 2017 (UTC)
    • For "list of people who disagree", read "comprehensive international condemnation at the highest levels" Cpaaoi (talk) 07:14, 2 June 2017 (UTC)
  • Strong oppose inan01 (talk) 06:26, 2 June 2017 (UTC)
  • 100% oppose This is the first clear example since WWI of the USA voluntarily declining to lead the international community. Cpaaoi (talk) 06:42, 2 June 2017 (UTC)
    • Eh, the U.S. didn't provide much leadership under Obama w/r/t Libya & Syria. There were also various instances between the World Wars that the U.S. didn't provide leadership. (talk) 17:24, 2 June 2017 (UTC)
      • You are perfectly correct, of course - please refer to the original caveats 'clear example' and 'voluntarily'. All the best. Cpaaoi (talk) 19:25, 2 June 2017 (UTC)
  • Support merge - Until there is any significant info or ripple effect from this, there's no reason add clutter. (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. The preceding unsigned comment was added at 07:01, 2 June 2017 (UTC).
  • Oppose The withdraw is notorious enough to deserve its own article focusing on it. Dannyniu (talk) 07:33, 2 June 2017 (UTC)
  • Merge parts to Paris Agreement and parts to Environmental policy of the Trump administration. Significant development but better covered in the existing articles. The shocking-news-of-the-day effect doesn't justify an entirely new article. — JFG talk 07:37, 2 June 2017 (UTC)
  • Merge. People should not race to create a new article every time there is some new development (I'm surprised I haven't seen a "Reactions" article as well). At the moment there is plenty of room in the current article for the material that deserves inclusion. — Rwxrwxrwx (talk) 09:48, 2 June 2017 (UTC)
  • Support/Merge per above. Szqecs (talk) 10:00, 2 June 2017 (UTC)
  • Merge There are already two articles where this topic is and should be covered. We don't need a third with a long list of non-notable "reactions".--v/r - TP 11:46, 2 June 2017 (UTC)
  • Merge and trim. We don't need a new spin off article every time Trump blows his nose. AIRcorn (talk) 11:50, 2 June 2017 (UTC)
  • Support/Merge per above. I don't think the move warrants an entire article on the subject, particularly if the article is valid in saying that the US is losing influnce on the global stage - it's incredibly US centric then. Lankandude2017 (talk) 12:40, 2 June 2017 (UTC)
  • Support/Merge per discussions. This is really a lot of fluff and spin on a subject that could and should be best handled in the main Paris Agreement article. No need to have a separate article for every time Trump makes a decision that a lot of people don't like. - SanAnMan (talk) 15:19, 2 June 2017 (UTC)
  • Don't merge this is probably big enough to stay on its own, as an event with consequences, and actions by others. It is also likely to keep playing a role until they have actually denounced which will take a few years... In a sense this is akin to U.S. ratification of the Convention on the Rights of the Child, which has also merit on its own.L.tak (talk) 16:02, 2 June 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose My initial reaction when the "withdrawal" article was created was that the subject was not worth an article - that it was just another "Trump did something" article, and should be merely a section in the Paris Agreement article. However, I decided to wait a day or two to see how the new article developed, and I have been impressed. IMO it has proven to be a major enough topic to deserve a stand-alone article. --MelanieN (talk) 16:16, 2 June 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose merge: Significant enough for standalone article. ---Another Believer (Talk) 16:37, 2 June 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose per DarthBotto and Nick-D. While there have been good arguments made for merging, this is one of the most significant events of Trump's presidency by extent of coverage, and the extent of discussion and condemnation of the withdrawal warrants going into the issue in detail. The WP:CRYSTALBALL argument was applied earlier, but this policy only applies for predictions that are unverifiable. There is nothing wrong with opposing a merge on the premise that the withdrawal will likely cast a negative shadow on American relations with the world for a long time, as that is what sources have predicted. AndrewOne (talk) 16:41, 2 June 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose: The topic at hand is significant enough to warrant its own article, and the article is detailed enough not to easily be merged with another article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ArniDagur (talkcontribs) 17:36, 2 June 2017 (UTC)
  • Support Merge Just another "Trump did something" article that can easily be merged into Paris Agreement and Environmental policy of the Donald Trump administration. PackMecEng (talk) 18:26, 2 June 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose merge to Paris Agreement. It's more about US Politics than about the agreement itself. On the other hand, a merge into Environmental policy of the Donald Trump administration might make sense. -- RoySmith (talk) 19:44, 2 June 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose this topic is both very significant now, and will remain so for years to come.VR talk 22:14, 2 June 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose merge, would unbalance the Paris Agreement article, the world does not revolve around the United States and its domestic politics.--KTo288 (talk) 22:22, 2 June 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose merge: Enough media coverage for this to have a standalone article, and the event has potentially long lasting global implications. This is Paul (talk) 23:50, 2 June 2017 (UTC)
  • Support merge A lot of subtopics on Wikipedia unnecessarily have their own articles. You can tell just by reading their titles as in this case.--NadirAli نادر علی (talk) 01:24, 3 June 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose merge The same reason why you would have a separate page for say, crime in each country. While all the articles could be merged into a single article titled 'Crime across the world,' they are not, because of the significance in details. America leaving the Paris accord does look like a turning point in history on some level, and thus it's important to have a separate entry. (talk) 02:50, 3 June 2017 (UTC)
  • Strongly oppose. A merged article would make the Paris Agreement article US-centric. Enthusiast01 (talk) 03:39, 3 June 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose: Whilst not quite as economically impactful as the exit of britain from the EU, for which we have an article (Brexit), one would almost certainly think something of such import to the whole world's environment as the current superpower's exit from this agreement would hold an equivalent claim of notability - by common sense alone. Common sense notwithstanding however... I would almost certainly induce based upon experience, that there will be more than an adequate level of reliable sources to cover this at length for years to come (beyond the dozens that already have up to this point), so the WP:LASTING and WP:BASIC requirements for a stand-alone article certainly seem to be more than satisfied. This whole discussion seems unnecessary. (talk) 05:04, 3 June 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose strenuously: The authors of "United States withdrawal from the Paris Agreement" have, within an incredibly short time, created a very substantial article of lasting importance that will, no doubt, see further important additions. Its key points may profitably be summarized in a section of the "Paris Agreement" article; but "United States withdrawal from the Paris Agreement" deserves to continue living as a stand-alone article. Nihil novi (talk) 05:52, 3 June 2017 (UTC)
  • Strongly Oppose I think other editors have summarized my reasons for opposing this rather nicely. The exit of the world's only superpower and the potential implications that could come from this in the future is huge. It already has a lot of media coverage and we're already seeing some reactions to it with the climate alliance stuff. This will also most likely go down as one of the major decisions of Trump's presidency. I've seen Wikipedia articles created and kept that have much less importance than this, too. Gamermadness (talk) 13:59, 3 June 2017 (UTC)
  • Support Merge - Big issue, little article. Not enough information for a stand alone article. Mlpearc Phone (open channel) 15:34, 3 June 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose - Both articles are 75,000+ bytes long. Merging will make too long of an article. "United States withdrawal from the Paris Agreement" may become even longer when Trump announces if he does or does not believe in climate change.—OhioOakTree (talk) 17:11, 3 June 2017 (UTC)
  • Strongly oppose. Notable subject and far too much information for a merge. MB298 (talk) 21:01, 3 June 2017 (UTC)
  • Strong oppose - per MB298. --Fixuture (talk) 21:43, 3 June 2017 (UTC)
  • Strong oppose - The relevant guidelines for this discussion are located at WP:N(E), and give a very clear idea on whether it qualifies. Is it lasting? Very likely. What is its geographical scope? Global. Is its coverage in-depth? Yes, one needs only to see the NYT's article from Thursday to see how much attention it's getting from media and climatologists alike. Is its coverage diverse? Apart from every single media source being on top of it, as well as many scientific publications (including highly esteemed Nature), even has been taking it very seriously. Now, the only thing that can't yet be determined is if its coverage will still be prominent within a few months. One of the main argument by supporting views in this discussion has been that there shouldn't be a new article for every controversial thing Trump does, but I definitely object to this being dumbed down to "just another Presidential decision", so to speak. Having huge implications for the world as a whole, this topic is also not reliant solely on one form of or one nation's coverage and therefore very unlikely to simply be overshadowed by something else. In any case, to the proposer, please at least wait a few months and if the coverage has completely died out by then (which I highly doubt), reopen it if you wish. Bataaf van Oranje (Prinsgezinde) (talk) 23:51, 3 June 2017 (UTC)
  • Strong Oppose - I understand the belief of some that everything President Trump does becomes an article, but in this case, an article is most certainly warranted. America69 (talk) 04:49, 4 June 2017 (UTC)
I already cast an oppose vote, so I don't want my reply to count towards anything. But, I wanted to say I agree with you completely. If there were an article created about Trump's stupid tweet in response to the June 2017 London attack, I'd have shut that garbage down. This, on the other hand, continues to send tremors around the world. DARTHBOTTO talkcont 20:03, 4 June 2017 (UTC)
  • Strong oppose - This is perhaps one of the most critical decisions that the United States government has made to date, and will have lasting implications for global diplomacy, environment and science research. There are many, many more articles on Wikipedia that are less important than this event. I further concur with Prinsgezinde's assessment above regarding WP:N(E). EryZ (talk) 16:53, 4 June 2017 (UTC)
    • The most significant decision that US government has made to date? Even more significant, than say, the declarations of war on Germany in 1917 and 1941? More significant than the Civil rights act? More important than the Monroe Doctrine?--v/r - TP 17:54, 4 June 2017 (UTC)
Yes. Greenhouse-gas-induced global warming is an existential threat to all humans on Earth. It is a greater threat than the Lake Toba supervolcano eruption ca. 73,000 years ago that created a population bottleneck for the human species and made humans for a time a very endangered species. Nothing in human history, including nuclear weapons, comes close to the threat posed by global warming. Nihil novi (talk) 01:13, 5 June 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose - This departure is by itself a significant event in history with wide media coverage. To merge it into the other article would mean drastically reducing the scope of the discussion and to some extent trivializing it. -- MC — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2605:6000:EC16:C000:B86E:E734:7B67:2BB9 (talk) 18:37, 4 June 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose - both articles are already long, full of encyclopaedic information, and about different topics. Merging them would completely screw up the article about the Paris Agreement. There's more of an argument for merging with the article about Trump's environmental policy, but even that I would oppose for reasons of article length. Jdcooper (talk) 20:53, 4 June 2017 (UTC)
  • Comment I notice a trend, that the early opinions here tended to be "merge" while the later opinions tend to be "oppose the merge". I think this reflects the increasing quality of the article as a few days have gone past. When the article was first created, it contained very little content, and my first impulse too was to say "merge". But many people have rapidly expanded and sourced this article, to the point where now it appears to me, and to most recent commentators, to be clearly notable as a standalone article. Good points were also made by several people about the length of the two articles (such that a combined article would be so big people would immediately call for it to be forked) and the UNDUE emphasis on the United States in the Paris article that would result from a merge. --MelanieN (talk) 03:16, 5 June 2017 (UTC)
I've personally had similar experiences, starting new articles. Almost inevitably, at first they will be skimpy; but with time, and with other editors joining in, they tend to blossom. All that's needed is patience and forbearance from prematurely closing them down. Thanks! Nihil novi (talk) 03:59, 5 June 2017 (UTC)
From looking at most of the oppose, it comes off as hyperbolic most important event in history stuff. As far as article size, most of it can be easily trimmed out. Probably a small paragraph or two accurately covering the events of the situation. With giving to much weight to the USA in the Paris Agreement article, it is a notable event in regards to the agreement and should be covered in the main article. PackMecEng (talk) 14:27, 5 June 2017 (UTC)
Another user mentioned U.S. ratification of the Convention on the Rights of the Child, my benchmark for this is the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea article and its daughter article United States and the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea which was spun of when it began to overwhelm the parent article, because of enWikipedia's demographics it will be very hard to keep any US section to a proportionate scope and size.--KTo288 (talk) 07:11, 6 June 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose - Clearly a significant, separate topic. Absolutely worth having an article on the withdrawal. Manxruler (talk) 10:12, 5 June 2017 (UTC)
  • I don't think so. It's created a mega-controversy and certainly I don't think it should be merged with something they withdrew out of. TheMadBoy (talk) 13:55, 5 June 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose - I think it is significant enough for it to have it's own article. Spiderpig662 (talk) 17:51, 5 June 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose - sufficiently significant; merge/redirect would overwhelm the parent article. Neutralitytalk 19:34, 5 June 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Per Neutrality, way too big to merge. Do not merge. Keep separate. Apart. Independent. Unique pages. Sagecandor (talk) 20:35, 5 June 2017 (UTC)
  • Support/Merge -- the current article is new and the writing can be significantly streamlined—our having not yet effectively trimmed it to size should not be used as an artificial benchmark of significance. (Also, the U.S. hasn't actually left yet. Perhaps withdrawal would warrant a separate article if the process were completed)...— Preceding unsigned comment added by (talkcontribs) 03:44, 6 June 2017 (UTC)
  • Strong support merge - Way over the top, just a section in the Paris Agreement. FOX 52 (talk) 05:52, 6 June 2017 (UTC)
  • Comment and reiteration - For those who are supporting a merge; and I am not trying to lash out or anything – just a suggestion; that we should consider the fact that this one decision by Trump alone creates huge amounts of controversy around the world (similar to his travel ban & it's immediate backlash). That along with the fact that this could ultimately have long-term effects worldwide politically, economically and climate-influencing (might've crystal balled there for a sec, but you get my point) Plus, a merge would just make the Paris Agreement page longer then it already needs to be. So I am sticking with my opinion of Strongly oppose merge. --MarioProtIV (talk/contribs) 02:21, 7 June 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose - While the US position (and every country's position) is a crucial and central component of the topic, I believe that "The Paris Agreement" could and should be limited for a couple of reasons. The agreement itself is a complex and meaty topic if all its implications are discussed - and the agreement is a starting point for a chain of global climate directives intended to sequentially reach new goals - ultimately, the agreement itself will fill quite a lot of space on its own, regardless of any individual country's position. A link to political reactions and national positions is absolutely acceptable - and given the political scenes in the US, it is likely that there will be quite enough to fill a node well. We're also talking mostly about the behavior of a single country, not a great debate between several countries. Jepfour (talk) 11:58, 8 June 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose - This page is now far too large and detailed to merge. Keep it separate. (talk) 13:21, 8 June 2017 (UTC)
  • Strong oppose: if we merge all of the content from United States withdrawal from the Paris Agreement we will end up with a page well over 150,000 bytes long, with a large amount of undue weight towards the US' withdrawal. If we merge parts of the article and delete the rest, then we have lost a large amount of very good (and well sourced) content. Bilorv(talk)(c)(e) 22:32, 10 June 2017 (UTC)
  • Comment: I feel like the consensus has become pretty clear by now. After 10 days and a truckload of comments, could someone close this? Bataaf van Oranje (Prinsgezinde) (talk) 20:54, 11 June 2017 (UTC)
Amen. Nihil novi (talk) 23:06, 11 June 2017 (UTC)
  • Vitriolic oppose those supporting merge appear to have lost their minds. Please, tell me you're joking. I am almost as worried for those boting merge as I am about John McCain. I will pray for you all. Those who think the U.S. Withdrawl is a "non-notable" event or can be "covered adequately in the main article" should remove the scales from their eyes forthwith. (talk) 22:51, 11 June 2017 (UTC)
    • Comment those few holdouts voting for merge seem worried that extensive coverage of trump's ill-informed decision to pillage the planet for short-term gain will reflect poorly on him, and thus should be disappeared. This is not our concern. We are truthtellers. (talk) 22:55, 11 June 2017 (UTC)
  • Close, and ostracize those who voted for Merge You are almost as badly out umbered as Syria, Nicaragua, and the united States are in the battle to save Humankind. You will have to live with your vote for the rest of your lives. I hope the coal was worth it. (talk) 00:14, 12 June 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose per WP:SIZE. The two articles are too long to be merged. Rupert Loup (talk) 09:25, 12 June 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose This was a major event in an of itself and separate to the agreement. Merging the articles would either result in something far too long, or a lot of important information missing. SegataSanshiro1 (talk) 02:11, 13 June 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose There is way too much information in Trump's article to merge into this article. I wonder if anyone supporting a merge actually read, or even looked at, the article. EMachine03 (talk) 10:04, 15 June 2017 (UTC)
  • Merge easily summarized in main article. Hekerui (talk) 20:59, 15 June 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose The US position is an ongoing development that will not be resolved for some years and will only accumulate more references. It has wider implications both politically in the US and in terms of international relations. Gumsaint (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 00:33, 16 June 2017 (UTC)
  • Strong oppose This is clearly a notable event. The article on the withdrawal has far more material than could reasonably be merged into the main "Paris Agreement" article. The merge voters seem willing to let the work of their fellow editors go to waste.--Bkwillwm (talk) 01:40, 16 June 2017 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The U.S. Flag[edit]

I had fixed it so the flag would show properly instead of ((flag|us)) I know I was not logged in and that looks like vandalism. I wasn't attempting to do anything but fix it. (talk) 20:14, 1 June 2017 (UTC)

Fixed as I was typing (talk) 20:15, 1 June 2017 (UTC)

US is still a signatory; the withdrawal process takes time![edit]

I think the article is factually incorrect - while Trump has announced that the United States "the United States will withdraw from the Paris climate accord but begin negotiations to reenter either the Paris accord or an entirely new transaction". So he declared his intention, but there is a long process to follow.

See the New York Times report:

"But [Trump] will stick to the withdrawal process laid out in the Paris agreement, which President Barack Obama joined and most of the world has already ratified. That could take nearly four years to complete, meaning a final decision would be up to the American voters in the next presidential election."

  • The agreement was never ratified by the U.S. Congress, and it has essentially no authority on American territory as a result. It was largely enforced by Executive Orders from the Obama Administration which have been dismantled since Trump took office. There is also nothing actually requiring the Trump Administration to adhere to the withdrawal process that exists in the agreement. Simply put, no, this isn't like Brexit: America is out, if you could ever say it was legally in to begin with. My source is the United States Constitution, which specifically states Congress must ratify international treaties and agreements. To put it simply: Obama put up the scaffolding, Trump is tearing it down. Nothing was actually built. --Bigeyedbeansfromvenus (talk) 23:02, 1 June 2017 (UTC)

If the agreement had said that there was no process for withdrawal I think it is pretty clear that an executive order could not have bound the U.S. to it. In the same way the withdrawal term is meaningless. It doesn't matter what the agreement says as it can't override the U.S. Constitution.

I think it's more complicated than that. I listened to multiple news accounts today, more than one of which mentioned that the removal or cessation of whatever the word is will not be complete until the day after the 2020 election. I don't know why this is the case but I haven't heard anyone with any credibility suggest otherwise.--S Philbrick(Talk) 00:44, 2 June 2017 (UTC)
The withdrawal process is clear. Just read Article 28 of the agreement:
1. At any time after three years from the date on which this Agreement has entered into force for a Party, that Party may withdraw from this Agreement by giving written notification to the Depositary.
2. Any such withdrawal shall take effect upon expiry of one year from the date of receipt by the Depositary of the notification of withdrawal, or on such later date as may be specified in the notification of withdrawal.
The US can't even initiate the withdrawal process until 2019, and withdrawal would take place in 2020. Until then, the US remains fully legally bound by the treaty. Nothing has changed. Of course, the US could just ignore their commitments, but that's a separate issue. TDL (talk) 02:26, 2 June 2017 (UTC)
Yes, the U.S. can simply ignore the deal, and the formal withdrawal would follow whenever legally possible. U.S. emissions will go down regardless, as demand for solar power grows naturally. But the U.S. Government will let all energy sources compete, as Trump said more energy is required to fuel ambitious economic growth. Hard to see yet how the U.S. might be legally challenged when it refuses to pay into the international green fund… I remember that over many years, the U.S. was in breach of its commitments to United Nations funding, and nobody went to war over that! — JFG talk 07:45, 2 June 2017 (UTC)
There is also this part "For the United States, it is noteworthy that this structure makes the Paris agreement—
which has neither legally binding national emissions reduction targets nor legally binding
national finance targets—an executive agreement rather than a treaty" [12]. PackMecEng (talk) 15:06, 2 June 2017 (UTC)
President Trump said in his speech that all US participation would immediately end. So, the rest is just paperwork which I would be surprised if the US even bothers following-up with. (talk) 17:01, 2 June 2017 (UTC)
You could be right. But it doesn't change the fact that the international obligation will remain for some years... I am not sure how non-compliance will be dealt with by the international community. For International Child Abduction, the US tries to mitigate the lack of enforcement mechanisms by naming and shaming through the non-compliance reports ;-). More relevantly the same goes for the NATO pledge of members to spend 2% of their GDP on their military... L.tak (talk) 18:03, 4 June 2017 (UTC)
  • The nature of an executive agreement in the US legal and constitutional system, is such that an international agreement that has not been ratified by the Senate, can be described as follows: "the executive (the President) agrees to abide by this document, but no commitment is made beyond the signing president's term in office, as the agreement can be undone by the subsequent executive (and conceivably, also, the signing executive could repudiate the agreement), and the signing of this document does not commit to status as a treaty, as the Senate has not ratified the agreement."
    (whoops - belated signature: Yellowdesk (talk) 04:25, 5 June 2017 (UTC))
I am not sure if this was an "executive agreement" under US law, but at international law that doesn't matter: the US ratified and committed. If that has been done not up to procedure, than a US court could have rectified it and prevented depositing the instrument of ratification, but it is not up to other countries to "look beyond" the internal procedure, it remains a US thing... L.tak (talk) 19:34, 4 June 2017 (UTC)
  • The agreement was never ratified, and never brought to the Senate. It would have immediately failed in the Senate, for lack of a two thirds favorable vote. This is exactly why it was not brought to the Senate by Obama, and why its status is one of "Executive Order". Obama was willing to have a political tissue, in hopes of future compliance by future Presidents, also awaiting future consensus in the Senate to ratify. This is the furthest that Obama could take the agreement, under the circumstances, knowing full well that it could be overturned by the next administration. As such, with status as an executive order, never accepted by the sovereign process the constitution requires, thus capable of being immediately repudiated by any president, as an executive order, including the originally signing president.
    Yellowdesk (talk) 04:29, 5 June 2017 (UTC)
Well the agreement has no force behind it for any country. So international law does not apply since setting/meeting emission goals or financial aid are not required as part of the agreement. Even if the USA is unable to formally withdraw from the agreement until years down the line, they are effectively not a participant. With the only recourse being "name and shame". For US courts rectifying it, since it was an executive agreement and not passes and ratified by congress there was nothing wrong with the procedure, and any commitments made by Obama are irrelevant nothing for the courts to fix. Were it a full treaty there might have been some weight behind it. PackMecEng (talk) 01:54, 5 June 2017 (UTC)

Leaving the agreement[edit]

I looking for some information online about the ratio of 3 biggest country by emission, to learn if the US really committed for the biggest reduction of emission by ratio. Then I found this line in BBC article from September 2016: "Paris agreement: Key points [...] Once the deal comes into force, countries that have ratified it have to wait for a minimum of three years before they exit"[1]

  1. ^ "Paris climate deal: US and China formally join pact". BBC News. 3 September 2016. Retrieved 2 June 2017.

Can anyone find the original section that support it on the original files of Paris Agreement? Sokuya (talk) 10:12, 2 June 2017 (UTC)

Of course, as we mention (Paris_Agreement#US_withdrawal), it is Article 28 of the agreement, available on wikisource and linked in the infobox on the top (s:Paris_Agreement#Article_28). L.tak (talk) 10:22, 2 June 2017 (UTC)

Change currency[edit]

Given the US's announcement to withdraw, should we change the currency of the article?--Nowa (talk) 19:25, 4 June 2017 (UTC)

Provinces and Cities join?[edit]

Can provinces within a country (e.g. US states) or cities join?--Nowa (talk) 19:30, 4 June 2017 (UTC)

interesting question. Cities: no, what's needed are "states" (in the international sense: so independent countries) or REIOs (like the European Union). The depositary allows with(/despite?) such a clause also specific declarations/extensions with regards to entities with a considerable amount of autonomy when the country it is linked to makes such a statement. But that's only used for UK dependencies, US related entities like Guam and US Virgin Islands, and entities related to the Netherlands, New Zealand and Denmark. There are treaties allowing for e.g. Canadian provinces or UK constituent countries to join (like the Hague Trust Convention and the Hague Protection of Adults Convention (and I assume it is thinkable a US state could join those convention if the US federal government would effect the ratification), but this is not one of them... L.tak (talk) 19:52, 4 June 2017 (UTC)

Widespread condemnation[edit]

An absurdly biased portion of the lead. There was much widespread condemnation among the left. Many especially within the United States applauded the move, including several public officials like the Speaker Of The House. This is not about what you support or agree with, this statement is selectively biased. It's even more obvious when there's no citation or reference. Given Wikipedia's general trend of becoming politically conscious, I don't even expect this will be rephrased, but in respect for what Wikipedia is intended to be and perhaps used to be, I feel the need to point it out in the hopes at least one sensible editor will fix this embarrassment. --Bigeyedbeansfromvenus (talk) 21:01, 7 July 2017 (UTC)

Hmmm, looks like your right. States overwhelmingly condemned it (with hardly any exception), but especially af far as individuals go -and especially in the US- it was a mixed bag. Feel free to tweak (or possibly to remove: a single state intention to do something in a distant future is not necessarily lead worthy)! L.tak (talk) 07:28, 8 July 2017 (UTC)

Countries announcing they will not ratify[edit]

Turkey recently announced that "Turkey will not be ratifying the Paris climate record".[1] It isn't clear to me how this should be reflected (if at all) in the article. I don't think it belongs in the withdrawal section as they aren't announcing a withdrawal they are simply announcing that they will not be ratifying it. They are a signatory, so the graphic correctly identifies that status. The table includes the date of signature, and a blank in the column for ratification. This is also correct, but this means that the table doesn't distinguish between countries that simply haven't gotten around to the ratification process in countries that have announced they won't ever be ratifying. I suppose one could argue that they could change their mind, but at present, I don't see any way a reader of this article would know Turkey's recent decision. Shouldn't that be reflected in some way? Should we have a separate section parallel to withdrawal that identifies countries who have publicly stated they will not ratify? Is this some other way to incorporate this relevant information?--S Philbrick(Talk) 22:11, 11 July 2017 (UTC)

A separate -and well sourced- section seems indeed helpful and appropriate. From an international law point of view, such a statement doesn't change indeed the signature status, and things are bound to change once in a while, so adding it to the table seems not appropriate. ... Unless a country of course formally requests to have its signature removed, which is also possible.... L.tak (talk) 22:26, 11 July 2017 (UTC)


  1. ^ "Domino effect: Turkey won't ratify Paris climate accord, citing Trump's exit". ThinkProgress. 2017-07-10. Retrieved 2017-07-11.

Forced signing[edit]

I heard that the EU forced many countries like China India and the US to sign when they did not want to — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 12:17, 17 September 2017 (UTC)

The above "Forced signing" comment is nonsensical and stupid. I heard from my imaginary friend Fred that China and India have a secret base on Mars. Who cares? I tried to delete this complete non-contribution to anything, but scolded me because obviously this ridiculous waste of pixels is somehow considered "legitimate". I'm sure this isn't formatted according to some standard, and I am desperately sorry for that. I am but a simple man, and do not spend my life manipulating Wikipedia like our superhero friend "Favonian". Gee, I hope my response here is legitimate. I heard that China India and the US had their comments removed one time and their edits reverted because some nerd with too much time on their hands was incapable of rational thought.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 19:08, 11 September 2019 (UTC)

Nicaragua Signing Paris Accords[edit]

As of 5 minutes ago the AFP news agency is reporting Nicaragua signed the Paris accords. If this is verified from other sources (looking now) this will merit an update to the article graphic and an update to the article itself, seeing this would leave Syria as the only non-signatory, along with whatever America is at the moment. Not sure who is responsible for the graphic or how rapidly it could be updated but just wanted to put an official notification for it on record. Jyggalypuff (talk) 19:45, 23 October 2017 (UTC)

Update: Now have confirmation from multiple reputable news sources verifying Nicaragua has, in fact, entered the Paris Accords. This will require updating of the page and graphic to confirm as such. I will begin updating pages once I can locate an official UN page now listing this or an actual government statement but this also means the graphic will need to be updated and I am not capable of doing so. Jyggalypuff (talk) 21:58, 23 October 2017 (UTC)

Emission reduction targets[edit]

I made a schematic based on data of the The Emissions Gap Report 2016

Here it is:

Paris agreement emission reduction targets.png

Can you verify it, and if suitable, add it to this article, thanks KVDP (talk) 13:29, 3 November 2017 (UTC)

I assume it's been checked by now, so will add it to the article.

KVDP (talk) 10:27, 8 November 2017 (UTC)

Syria signatory[edit]

Syria has signed the Agreement according to [1]

I have made the changes in the wiki to reflect this development.

Per this, it announced that it would join "as soon as possible". We should wait until they have actually joined before changing the article. TDL (talk) 04:17, 8 November 2017 (UTC)


section label criticisms vs concerns[edit]

Today I changed a section heading from "Concerns" to "Criticisms". This is a more WP:Neutral heading and WP:COMMON language expression. In addition, there are some who claim that implementing the Paris Agreement is too expensive, and others who say that not implementing it is too expensive. Both camps have "concerns" and are sharing "criticisms". There isn't really a compelling silver bullet here, other than "what do we say in most instances in every day life". We usually say so and so "criticized" a plan, or offered "criticism". In nonadversarial dispute resolution I might gently say "I have some concerns".

In the bigger picture, this section would benefit form a discussion of the opposing schools of thought about expense, i.e., the cost of acting vs the cost of not acting. The main article is (or should be) Economics of climate change... that article needs some skilled attention. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 21:04, 1 September 2018 (UTC)

Proposed merge with National communication (Paris Agreement)[edit]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
 Consensus to merge. MorningThoughts (talk) 13:18, 11 November 2019 (UTC)

Term does not seem notable as a standalone concept, only useful within the broader article. PamD 23:05, 9 September 2018 (UTC)

Seems reasonable to start building this info here, and then split to the other article if/when there is enough material. JonFredriksen (talk · contribs), you created the other article. Does this seem reasonable to you?NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 23:26, 9 September 2018 (UTC)
  • Support - saw the link to discussion while adding cats to articles. I think this proposal is okay. --Lenticel (talk) 00:49, 10 September 2018 (UTC)JonFredriksen (talk) 15:05, 12 September 2018 (UTC)

I think national communications is a notable concept and worth its own entry in addition to some info under the main Paris Agreement entry. These are standardized documents which all signatories to the Paris Agreement must produce on a regular basis and can be over 700 pages long, detailing the development of many sectors in the country in question. JonFredriksen (talk · contribs)JonFredriksen (talk) 15:05, 12 September 2018 (UTC)

No body disagrees Jon. The point is the article is presently almost empty. Just add text for it here and when it has something more than a sentence or two split it off. The big question is, since you want to have it separate, are you willing to do some sweat work to build the content for it? We could sure use the help NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 15:13, 12 September 2018 (UTC)
I agree. I can add some more content to make the article more informative. 15:05, 12 September 2018 (UTC)JonFredriksen (talk) 20:59, 17 September 2018 (UTC)
I would see more appropriate to incorporate the article in the one on United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC), as the National Communication is the reporting vehicle under the Convention [1]. Karileyla (talk) 16:46, 14 November 2018 (UTC)
Support - the discussion has gone quiet - I suggest someone goes ahead with the merge. - BobKilcoyne (talk) 04:21, 15 October 2019 (UTC)

The above discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

Doesn't Denmark sign international agreements on behalf of Greenland?[edit]

I know that Greenland isn't an outer territory of the EU, but since Denmark is covered by the EU wouldn't it also covered Greenland or does Denmark need to sign it individually or does Greenland need to sign it on their own? sion8 Flag of Barranquilla.svg talk page 19:13, 17 December 2018 (UTC)

In most cases, Denmark will need to sign on its own. But since signatures are of relatively little value (ratification is more important), it is not customary to indicate if signature is effective in respect of a specific territory or not... L.tak (talk) 20:07, 17 December 2018 (UTC)

False claims[edit]

Remove the part about Dutch trains running on wind power. It is a false claim. The Dutch electric trains run on a varied mixture of generation types. A little bit of research will confirm this. It is ludicrous on the face of it. What would the trains do if the wind stopped? 2001:1970:5324:D600:7DF5:A752:7871:B57F (talk) 10:15, 19 May 2019 (UTC)

This claim about false claims is false. The original claim having already been cited.
-- (talk) 16:16, 14 September 2019 (UTC)

Why are signing and ratifying separate steps?[edit]

In other words what (if any) obligations have the 10 countries which have signed but not ratified?Chidgk1 (talk) 20:01, 19 January 2020 (UTC)

John Stossel[edit]

News piece claims that according to Massachusetts Institute that all claims for reduction of emissions are no better than naturally occurring trends in each country. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 17:21, 24 January 2020 (UTC)