Speaker 1: We are going to talk about climate change, and uh,
Speaker 1: there is Well, it's it's not clear whether President Trump
Speaker 1: is going to pull out of the Paris Climate a cord,
Speaker 1: but if he does, one reason maybe a ship in
Speaker 1: a Supreme Court case known by the name of the
Speaker 1: Charming Betsy. The Charming Betsy was a schooner at the
Speaker 1: center of an eighteen o four ruling that is still reverberating.
Speaker 1: The Charming Betsy doctrine as it is known is it
Speaker 1: has established that federal laws should be interpreted if possible,
Speaker 1: so that they don't conflict with international law. So what
Speaker 1: does the Charming Betsy have to do with climate change? Well,
Speaker 1: with me to talk about that in the Bloomberg studio
Speaker 1: is Jennifer de Loewee. She's Bloomberg News is energy and
Speaker 1: environmental policy reporter. Jennifer. Thank you for joining us. Uh,
Speaker 1: tell us briefly about the Charming Betsy and and how
Speaker 1: it ended up at the middle of the case before
Speaker 1: the Supreme Court. Right, So, this was a trading vessel
Speaker 1: that actually sailed from Baltimore down to the Caribbean to St.
Speaker 1: Thomas where it was sold to a former U. S
Speaker 1: citizen turned Dane who had pledged allegiance to Denmark and
Speaker 1: UH after the vessel was captured by a French privateer.
Speaker 1: It was actually seized under instructions from the U S
Speaker 1: President because of perceived violation of a trade law that
Speaker 1: at the time barred commercial dealings between the US and France. UM.
Speaker 1: When it made its way to the High Court, UH,
Speaker 1: the the Supreme Court essentially concluded that the trade restrictions
Speaker 1: did not apply to this vessel UM and specifically to
Speaker 1: the to its Danish captain, because that would run afoul
Speaker 1: of international norms that say, if your countries that are
Speaker 1: not part of a conflict should not be UM involved
Speaker 1: in them, and that is true for their citizens to UH.
Speaker 1: And the famous language that he used, he basically set
Speaker 1: an Act of Congress ought never to be construed to
Speaker 1: violate the law of nations if any other possible construction remains.
Speaker 1: And and as you noted, that that's reverberating two years later. Yeah,
Speaker 1: so it takes us through Jennifer. How it is that
Speaker 1: at least some in the White House think that this
Speaker 1: is an issue in regard to the Paris Accord. Right.
Speaker 1: The concern is that the Paris Agreement UH in in
Speaker 1: in and in which everyone agreed to and which nearly
Speaker 1: two hundred countries agreed to UH slash their greenhouse gas emissions.
Speaker 1: The concern is that that agreement UH could could have
Speaker 1: the weight of of international law UH, that it could
Speaker 1: be perceived as binding on US efforts UH in the
Speaker 1: environmental arena, and UH that environmentalists who are seeking to
Speaker 1: challenge President Trump's efforts to roll back climate policies like
Speaker 1: the Clean Power Plan, that they could use this as
Speaker 1: ammunition to say, look, we the US agree to cut
Speaker 1: our carbon dioxide emissions. We made this commitment as part
Speaker 1: of the Paris Agreement, and therefore we cannot back away
Speaker 1: from our domestic policies that would help us meet those goals.
Speaker 1: So I've learned from from your story that it's by
Speaker 1: no means a consensus, that it really would provide much
Speaker 1: in the way of ammunition for those environmental groups. Give
Speaker 1: us the argument for why it might not make any difference.
Speaker 1: There are a number of climate negotiators and and environmentalists
Speaker 1: to say, actually, it doesn't. It doesn't provide that kind
Speaker 1: of ammunition, and their argument centers around the notion that
Speaker 1: this is indeed just in agreement. It is not a
Speaker 1: self executing uh, international accord. It is not an international law. Um,
Speaker 1: so therefore it would not have that kind of force domestically.
Speaker 1: I mean, that's really the thrust of it. You're also hearing,
Speaker 1: you know, basically what we're hearing from some administration lawyers, however,
Speaker 1: is that there is a non zero legal risk that
Speaker 1: this could come up, that it could manifest in some cases,
Speaker 1: and uh, and the folks who want to get out
Speaker 1: of Paris are making the argument that even a very
Speaker 1: small risk is is untenable at this point. So, Jennifer,
Speaker 1: given the sort of arguments here, and the fact that
Speaker 1: you have a White House that you know, has gotten
Speaker 1: some kind of reputation for being a place that leaks
Speaker 1: a lot um, is this really is this a serious
Speaker 1: legal concern on their part? Do you think? Or is
Speaker 1: this really something that is being used is just a
Speaker 1: way to get momentum for getting the President to pull
Speaker 1: out of the Paris Accords. You know, it's a good question,
Speaker 1: and it's it's hard to say. What I can tell
Speaker 1: you is that, you know, the these legal discussions have
Speaker 1: absolutely dominated the last two White House meetings on this issue.
Speaker 1: One of legal staff assembled from across the administration and
Speaker 1: another of principles Cabinet level officials and White House UH
Speaker 1: senior advisors. UH. They focused heavily on these legal discussions,
Speaker 1: the discussion of domestic legal risk. It's been elevated by
Speaker 1: the White House Counsel's Office. UH. And they also discussed
Speaker 1: even how much authority the US has to revise downward
Speaker 1: its commitment. The commitment it made in Paris was to
Speaker 1: cut emissions by and there's question about how much latitude
Speaker 1: under the agreement they really have to do that. And
Speaker 1: we only have about thirty seconds. But maybe tell us quickly,
Speaker 1: what are you hearing from environmental groups. Are they looking
Speaker 1: at this as some great new potential tool that they
Speaker 1: would have to to prevent domestic changes? Yeah, they're so
Speaker 1: far they are downplaying their ability to use it. I
Speaker 1: think it's important to note that that's in their interest
Speaker 1: as they try to push the administration to stay in Paris.
Speaker 1: But right now they're saying it's not quite the tool
Speaker 1: that some of these Paris critics think it is. I
Speaker 1: want to thank our guest Jennifer Delowie, Bloomberg News UH
Speaker 1: Energy and Environmental policy reporter for joining us here on
Speaker 1: Bloomberg Law