1
00:00:00,120 --> 00:00:04,560
Speaker 1: We are going to talk about climate change, and uh,

2
00:00:04,600 --> 00:00:07,080
Speaker 1: there is Well, it's it's not clear whether President Trump

3
00:00:07,080 --> 00:00:08,880
Speaker 1: is going to pull out of the Paris Climate a cord,

4
00:00:08,960 --> 00:00:12,040
Speaker 1: but if he does, one reason maybe a ship in

5
00:00:12,080 --> 00:00:14,440
Speaker 1: a Supreme Court case known by the name of the

6
00:00:14,560 --> 00:00:17,319
Speaker 1: Charming Betsy. The Charming Betsy was a schooner at the

7
00:00:17,320 --> 00:00:20,480
Speaker 1: center of an eighteen o four ruling that is still reverberating.

8
00:00:21,239 --> 00:00:23,759
Speaker 1: The Charming Betsy doctrine as it is known is it

9
00:00:24,280 --> 00:00:28,080
Speaker 1: has established that federal laws should be interpreted if possible,

10
00:00:28,160 --> 00:00:31,520
Speaker 1: so that they don't conflict with international law. So what

11
00:00:31,560 --> 00:00:34,200
Speaker 1: does the Charming Betsy have to do with climate change? Well,

12
00:00:34,240 --> 00:00:37,000
Speaker 1: with me to talk about that in the Bloomberg studio

13
00:00:37,200 --> 00:00:40,199
Speaker 1: is Jennifer de Loewee. She's Bloomberg News is energy and

14
00:00:40,280 --> 00:00:44,319
Speaker 1: environmental policy reporter. Jennifer. Thank you for joining us. Uh,

15
00:00:44,360 --> 00:00:47,720
Speaker 1: tell us briefly about the Charming Betsy and and how

16
00:00:47,760 --> 00:00:49,880
Speaker 1: it ended up at the middle of the case before

17
00:00:49,920 --> 00:00:52,560
Speaker 1: the Supreme Court. Right, So, this was a trading vessel

18
00:00:52,640 --> 00:00:56,560
Speaker 1: that actually sailed from Baltimore down to the Caribbean to St.

19
00:00:56,560 --> 00:00:59,440
Speaker 1: Thomas where it was sold to a former U. S

20
00:00:59,480 --> 00:01:04,479
Speaker 1: citizen turned Dane who had pledged allegiance to Denmark and

21
00:01:04,680 --> 00:01:07,520
Speaker 1: UH after the vessel was captured by a French privateer.

22
00:01:07,560 --> 00:01:10,560
Speaker 1: It was actually seized under instructions from the U S

23
00:01:10,600 --> 00:01:14,520
Speaker 1: President because of perceived violation of a trade law that

24
00:01:14,600 --> 00:01:18,240
Speaker 1: at the time barred commercial dealings between the US and France. UM.

25
00:01:18,400 --> 00:01:21,080
Speaker 1: When it made its way to the High Court, UH,

26
00:01:21,400 --> 00:01:24,880
Speaker 1: the the Supreme Court essentially concluded that the trade restrictions

27
00:01:24,920 --> 00:01:27,640
Speaker 1: did not apply to this vessel UM and specifically to

28
00:01:27,680 --> 00:01:30,360
Speaker 1: the to its Danish captain, because that would run afoul

29
00:01:30,440 --> 00:01:34,240
Speaker 1: of international norms that say, if your countries that are

30
00:01:34,280 --> 00:01:37,319
Speaker 1: not part of a conflict should not be UM involved

31
00:01:37,319 --> 00:01:39,680
Speaker 1: in them, and that is true for their citizens to UH.

32
00:01:39,720 --> 00:01:42,240
Speaker 1: And the famous language that he used, he basically set

33
00:01:42,240 --> 00:01:44,520
Speaker 1: an Act of Congress ought never to be construed to

34
00:01:44,640 --> 00:01:48,280
Speaker 1: violate the law of nations if any other possible construction remains.

35
00:01:48,280 --> 00:01:52,000
Speaker 1: And and as you noted, that that's reverberating two years later. Yeah,

36
00:01:52,040 --> 00:01:54,280
Speaker 1: so it takes us through Jennifer. How it is that

37
00:01:54,840 --> 00:01:57,280
Speaker 1: at least some in the White House think that this

38
00:01:57,400 --> 00:02:00,800
Speaker 1: is an issue in regard to the Paris Accord. Right.

39
00:02:00,840 --> 00:02:04,800
Speaker 1: The concern is that the Paris Agreement UH in in

40
00:02:04,960 --> 00:02:08,880
Speaker 1: in and in which everyone agreed to and which nearly

41
00:02:08,919 --> 00:02:12,760
Speaker 1: two hundred countries agreed to UH slash their greenhouse gas emissions.

42
00:02:12,800 --> 00:02:15,840
Speaker 1: The concern is that that agreement UH could could have

43
00:02:15,960 --> 00:02:19,320
Speaker 1: the weight of of international law UH, that it could

44
00:02:19,320 --> 00:02:23,240
Speaker 1: be perceived as binding on US efforts UH in the

45
00:02:23,360 --> 00:02:27,560
Speaker 1: environmental arena, and UH that environmentalists who are seeking to

46
00:02:27,680 --> 00:02:31,920
Speaker 1: challenge President Trump's efforts to roll back climate policies like

47
00:02:32,000 --> 00:02:34,360
Speaker 1: the Clean Power Plan, that they could use this as

48
00:02:34,400 --> 00:02:37,519
Speaker 1: ammunition to say, look, we the US agree to cut

49
00:02:37,520 --> 00:02:40,600
Speaker 1: our carbon dioxide emissions. We made this commitment as part

50
00:02:40,639 --> 00:02:43,240
Speaker 1: of the Paris Agreement, and therefore we cannot back away

51
00:02:43,240 --> 00:02:46,320
Speaker 1: from our domestic policies that would help us meet those goals.

52
00:02:46,720 --> 00:02:48,919
Speaker 1: So I've learned from from your story that it's by

53
00:02:48,919 --> 00:02:52,120
Speaker 1: no means a consensus, that it really would provide much

54
00:02:52,160 --> 00:02:55,079
Speaker 1: in the way of ammunition for those environmental groups. Give

55
00:02:55,120 --> 00:02:57,880
Speaker 1: us the argument for why it might not make any difference.

56
00:02:58,520 --> 00:03:02,160
Speaker 1: There are a number of climate negotiators and and environmentalists

57
00:03:02,160 --> 00:03:04,919
Speaker 1: to say, actually, it doesn't. It doesn't provide that kind

58
00:03:04,919 --> 00:03:07,560
Speaker 1: of ammunition, and their argument centers around the notion that

59
00:03:07,960 --> 00:03:10,959
Speaker 1: this is indeed just in agreement. It is not a

60
00:03:11,040 --> 00:03:16,520
Speaker 1: self executing uh, international accord. It is not an international law. Um,

61
00:03:16,560 --> 00:03:19,720
Speaker 1: so therefore it would not have that kind of force domestically.

62
00:03:19,720 --> 00:03:22,560
Speaker 1: I mean, that's really the thrust of it. You're also hearing,

63
00:03:22,919 --> 00:03:26,920
Speaker 1: you know, basically what we're hearing from some administration lawyers, however,

64
00:03:27,000 --> 00:03:29,560
Speaker 1: is that there is a non zero legal risk that

65
00:03:29,639 --> 00:03:32,840
Speaker 1: this could come up, that it could manifest in some cases,

66
00:03:33,200 --> 00:03:35,560
Speaker 1: and uh, and the folks who want to get out

67
00:03:35,600 --> 00:03:38,920
Speaker 1: of Paris are making the argument that even a very

68
00:03:39,000 --> 00:03:43,240
Speaker 1: small risk is is untenable at this point. So, Jennifer,

69
00:03:44,280 --> 00:03:47,320
Speaker 1: given the sort of arguments here, and the fact that

70
00:03:47,360 --> 00:03:50,160
Speaker 1: you have a White House that you know, has gotten

71
00:03:50,200 --> 00:03:52,280
Speaker 1: some kind of reputation for being a place that leaks

72
00:03:52,280 --> 00:03:56,360
Speaker 1: a lot um, is this really is this a serious

73
00:03:56,440 --> 00:03:58,160
Speaker 1: legal concern on their part? Do you think? Or is

74
00:03:58,200 --> 00:04:01,120
Speaker 1: this really something that is being used is just a

75
00:04:01,120 --> 00:04:03,160
Speaker 1: way to get momentum for getting the President to pull

76
00:04:03,200 --> 00:04:05,680
Speaker 1: out of the Paris Accords. You know, it's a good question,

77
00:04:05,680 --> 00:04:07,760
Speaker 1: and it's it's hard to say. What I can tell

78
00:04:07,800 --> 00:04:10,160
Speaker 1: you is that, you know, the these legal discussions have

79
00:04:10,240 --> 00:04:14,520
Speaker 1: absolutely dominated the last two White House meetings on this issue.

80
00:04:14,880 --> 00:04:18,440
Speaker 1: One of legal staff assembled from across the administration and

81
00:04:18,720 --> 00:04:23,359
Speaker 1: another of principles Cabinet level officials and White House UH

82
00:04:23,480 --> 00:04:27,400
Speaker 1: senior advisors. UH. They focused heavily on these legal discussions,

83
00:04:27,400 --> 00:04:30,039
Speaker 1: the discussion of domestic legal risk. It's been elevated by

84
00:04:30,080 --> 00:04:32,960
Speaker 1: the White House Counsel's Office. UH. And they also discussed

85
00:04:33,480 --> 00:04:38,279
Speaker 1: even how much authority the US has to revise downward

86
00:04:38,680 --> 00:04:41,719
Speaker 1: its commitment. The commitment it made in Paris was to

87
00:04:41,720 --> 00:04:46,080
Speaker 1: cut emissions by and there's question about how much latitude

88
00:04:46,160 --> 00:04:48,839
Speaker 1: under the agreement they really have to do that. And

89
00:04:48,880 --> 00:04:51,280
Speaker 1: we only have about thirty seconds. But maybe tell us quickly,

90
00:04:51,520 --> 00:04:53,840
Speaker 1: what are you hearing from environmental groups. Are they looking

91
00:04:53,880 --> 00:04:56,280
Speaker 1: at this as some great new potential tool that they

92
00:04:56,279 --> 00:04:59,599
Speaker 1: would have to to prevent domestic changes? Yeah, they're so

93
00:04:59,680 --> 00:05:01,919
Speaker 1: far they are downplaying their ability to use it. I

94
00:05:01,960 --> 00:05:04,279
Speaker 1: think it's important to note that that's in their interest

95
00:05:04,600 --> 00:05:07,320
Speaker 1: as they try to push the administration to stay in Paris.

96
00:05:07,480 --> 00:05:10,200
Speaker 1: But right now they're saying it's not quite the tool

97
00:05:10,279 --> 00:05:13,599
Speaker 1: that some of these Paris critics think it is. I

98
00:05:13,600 --> 00:05:17,200
Speaker 1: want to thank our guest Jennifer Delowie, Bloomberg News UH

99
00:05:17,520 --> 00:05:21,080
Speaker 1: Energy and Environmental policy reporter for joining us here on

100
00:05:21,160 --> 00:05:22,000
Speaker 1: Bloomberg Law