WEBVTT - Jennifer Dlouhy on Paris Agreement (Audio)

0:00:00.120 --> 0:00:04.560
<v Speaker 1>We are going to talk about climate change, and uh,

0:00:04.600 --> 0:00:07.080
<v Speaker 1>there is Well, it's it's not clear whether President Trump

0:00:07.080 --> 0:00:08.880
<v Speaker 1>is going to pull out of the Paris Climate a cord,

0:00:08.960 --> 0:00:12.040
<v Speaker 1>but if he does, one reason maybe a ship in

0:00:12.080 --> 0:00:14.440
<v Speaker 1>a Supreme Court case known by the name of the

0:00:14.560 --> 0:00:17.319
<v Speaker 1>Charming Betsy. The Charming Betsy was a schooner at the

0:00:17.320 --> 0:00:20.480
<v Speaker 1>center of an eighteen o four ruling that is still reverberating.

0:00:21.239 --> 0:00:23.759
<v Speaker 1>The Charming Betsy doctrine as it is known is it

0:00:24.280 --> 0:00:28.080
<v Speaker 1>has established that federal laws should be interpreted if possible,

0:00:28.160 --> 0:00:31.520
<v Speaker 1>so that they don't conflict with international law. So what

0:00:31.560 --> 0:00:34.200
<v Speaker 1>does the Charming Betsy have to do with climate change? Well,

0:00:34.240 --> 0:00:37.000
<v Speaker 1>with me to talk about that in the Bloomberg studio

0:00:37.200 --> 0:00:40.199
<v Speaker 1>is Jennifer de Loewee. She's Bloomberg News is energy and

0:00:40.280 --> 0:00:44.319
<v Speaker 1>environmental policy reporter. Jennifer. Thank you for joining us. Uh,

0:00:44.360 --> 0:00:47.720
<v Speaker 1>tell us briefly about the Charming Betsy and and how

0:00:47.760 --> 0:00:49.880
<v Speaker 1>it ended up at the middle of the case before

0:00:49.920 --> 0:00:52.560
<v Speaker 1>the Supreme Court. Right, So, this was a trading vessel

0:00:52.640 --> 0:00:56.560
<v Speaker 1>that actually sailed from Baltimore down to the Caribbean to St.

0:00:56.560 --> 0:00:59.440
<v Speaker 1>Thomas where it was sold to a former U. S

0:00:59.480 --> 0:01:04.479
<v Speaker 1>citizen turned Dane who had pledged allegiance to Denmark and

0:01:04.680 --> 0:01:07.520
<v Speaker 1>UH after the vessel was captured by a French privateer.

0:01:07.560 --> 0:01:10.560
<v Speaker 1>It was actually seized under instructions from the U S

0:01:10.600 --> 0:01:14.520
<v Speaker 1>President because of perceived violation of a trade law that

0:01:14.600 --> 0:01:18.240
<v Speaker 1>at the time barred commercial dealings between the US and France. UM.

0:01:18.400 --> 0:01:21.080
<v Speaker 1>When it made its way to the High Court, UH,

0:01:21.400 --> 0:01:24.880
<v Speaker 1>the the Supreme Court essentially concluded that the trade restrictions

0:01:24.920 --> 0:01:27.640
<v Speaker 1>did not apply to this vessel UM and specifically to

0:01:27.680 --> 0:01:30.360
<v Speaker 1>the to its Danish captain, because that would run afoul

0:01:30.440 --> 0:01:34.240
<v Speaker 1>of international norms that say, if your countries that are

0:01:34.280 --> 0:01:37.319
<v Speaker 1>not part of a conflict should not be UM involved

0:01:37.319 --> 0:01:39.680
<v Speaker 1>in them, and that is true for their citizens to UH.

0:01:39.720 --> 0:01:42.240
<v Speaker 1>And the famous language that he used, he basically set

0:01:42.240 --> 0:01:44.520
<v Speaker 1>an Act of Congress ought never to be construed to

0:01:44.640 --> 0:01:48.280
<v Speaker 1>violate the law of nations if any other possible construction remains.

0:01:48.280 --> 0:01:52.000
<v Speaker 1>And and as you noted, that that's reverberating two years later. Yeah,

0:01:52.040 --> 0:01:54.280
<v Speaker 1>so it takes us through Jennifer. How it is that

0:01:54.840 --> 0:01:57.280
<v Speaker 1>at least some in the White House think that this

0:01:57.400 --> 0:02:00.800
<v Speaker 1>is an issue in regard to the Paris Accord. Right.

0:02:00.840 --> 0:02:04.800
<v Speaker 1>The concern is that the Paris Agreement UH in in

0:02:04.960 --> 0:02:08.880
<v Speaker 1>in and in which everyone agreed to and which nearly

0:02:08.919 --> 0:02:12.760
<v Speaker 1>two hundred countries agreed to UH slash their greenhouse gas emissions.

0:02:12.800 --> 0:02:15.840
<v Speaker 1>The concern is that that agreement UH could could have

0:02:15.960 --> 0:02:19.320
<v Speaker 1>the weight of of international law UH, that it could

0:02:19.320 --> 0:02:23.240
<v Speaker 1>be perceived as binding on US efforts UH in the

0:02:23.360 --> 0:02:27.560
<v Speaker 1>environmental arena, and UH that environmentalists who are seeking to

0:02:27.680 --> 0:02:31.920
<v Speaker 1>challenge President Trump's efforts to roll back climate policies like

0:02:32.000 --> 0:02:34.360
<v Speaker 1>the Clean Power Plan, that they could use this as

0:02:34.400 --> 0:02:37.519
<v Speaker 1>ammunition to say, look, we the US agree to cut

0:02:37.520 --> 0:02:40.600
<v Speaker 1>our carbon dioxide emissions. We made this commitment as part

0:02:40.639 --> 0:02:43.240
<v Speaker 1>of the Paris Agreement, and therefore we cannot back away

0:02:43.240 --> 0:02:46.320
<v Speaker 1>from our domestic policies that would help us meet those goals.

0:02:46.720 --> 0:02:48.919
<v Speaker 1>So I've learned from from your story that it's by

0:02:48.919 --> 0:02:52.120
<v Speaker 1>no means a consensus, that it really would provide much

0:02:52.160 --> 0:02:55.079
<v Speaker 1>in the way of ammunition for those environmental groups. Give

0:02:55.120 --> 0:02:57.880
<v Speaker 1>us the argument for why it might not make any difference.

0:02:58.520 --> 0:03:02.160
<v Speaker 1>There are a number of climate negotiators and and environmentalists

0:03:02.160 --> 0:03:04.919
<v Speaker 1>to say, actually, it doesn't. It doesn't provide that kind

0:03:04.919 --> 0:03:07.560
<v Speaker 1>of ammunition, and their argument centers around the notion that

0:03:07.960 --> 0:03:10.959
<v Speaker 1>this is indeed just in agreement. It is not a

0:03:11.040 --> 0:03:16.520
<v Speaker 1>self executing uh, international accord. It is not an international law. Um,

0:03:16.560 --> 0:03:19.720
<v Speaker 1>so therefore it would not have that kind of force domestically.

0:03:19.720 --> 0:03:22.560
<v Speaker 1>I mean, that's really the thrust of it. You're also hearing,

0:03:22.919 --> 0:03:26.920
<v Speaker 1>you know, basically what we're hearing from some administration lawyers, however,

0:03:27.000 --> 0:03:29.560
<v Speaker 1>is that there is a non zero legal risk that

0:03:29.639 --> 0:03:32.840
<v Speaker 1>this could come up, that it could manifest in some cases,

0:03:33.200 --> 0:03:35.560
<v Speaker 1>and uh, and the folks who want to get out

0:03:35.600 --> 0:03:38.920
<v Speaker 1>of Paris are making the argument that even a very

0:03:39.000 --> 0:03:43.240
<v Speaker 1>small risk is is untenable at this point. So, Jennifer,

0:03:44.280 --> 0:03:47.320
<v Speaker 1>given the sort of arguments here, and the fact that

0:03:47.360 --> 0:03:50.160
<v Speaker 1>you have a White House that you know, has gotten

0:03:50.200 --> 0:03:52.280
<v Speaker 1>some kind of reputation for being a place that leaks

0:03:52.280 --> 0:03:56.360
<v Speaker 1>a lot um, is this really is this a serious

0:03:56.440 --> 0:03:58.160
<v Speaker 1>legal concern on their part? Do you think? Or is

0:03:58.200 --> 0:04:01.120
<v Speaker 1>this really something that is being used is just a

0:04:01.120 --> 0:04:03.160
<v Speaker 1>way to get momentum for getting the President to pull

0:04:03.200 --> 0:04:05.680
<v Speaker 1>out of the Paris Accords. You know, it's a good question,

0:04:05.680 --> 0:04:07.760
<v Speaker 1>and it's it's hard to say. What I can tell

0:04:07.800 --> 0:04:10.160
<v Speaker 1>you is that, you know, the these legal discussions have

0:04:10.240 --> 0:04:14.520
<v Speaker 1>absolutely dominated the last two White House meetings on this issue.

0:04:14.880 --> 0:04:18.440
<v Speaker 1>One of legal staff assembled from across the administration and

0:04:18.720 --> 0:04:23.359
<v Speaker 1>another of principles Cabinet level officials and White House UH

0:04:23.480 --> 0:04:27.400
<v Speaker 1>senior advisors. UH. They focused heavily on these legal discussions,

0:04:27.400 --> 0:04:30.039
<v Speaker 1>the discussion of domestic legal risk. It's been elevated by

0:04:30.080 --> 0:04:32.960
<v Speaker 1>the White House Counsel's Office. UH. And they also discussed

0:04:33.480 --> 0:04:38.279
<v Speaker 1>even how much authority the US has to revise downward

0:04:38.680 --> 0:04:41.719
<v Speaker 1>its commitment. The commitment it made in Paris was to

0:04:41.720 --> 0:04:46.080
<v Speaker 1>cut emissions by and there's question about how much latitude

0:04:46.160 --> 0:04:48.839
<v Speaker 1>under the agreement they really have to do that. And

0:04:48.880 --> 0:04:51.280
<v Speaker 1>we only have about thirty seconds. But maybe tell us quickly,

0:04:51.520 --> 0:04:53.840
<v Speaker 1>what are you hearing from environmental groups. Are they looking

0:04:53.880 --> 0:04:56.280
<v Speaker 1>at this as some great new potential tool that they

0:04:56.279 --> 0:04:59.599
<v Speaker 1>would have to to prevent domestic changes? Yeah, they're so

0:04:59.680 --> 0:05:01.919
<v Speaker 1>far they are downplaying their ability to use it. I

0:05:01.960 --> 0:05:04.279
<v Speaker 1>think it's important to note that that's in their interest

0:05:04.600 --> 0:05:07.320
<v Speaker 1>as they try to push the administration to stay in Paris.

0:05:07.480 --> 0:05:10.200
<v Speaker 1>But right now they're saying it's not quite the tool

0:05:10.279 --> 0:05:13.599
<v Speaker 1>that some of these Paris critics think it is. I

0:05:13.600 --> 0:05:17.200
<v Speaker 1>want to thank our guest Jennifer Delowie, Bloomberg News UH

0:05:17.520 --> 0:05:21.080
<v Speaker 1>Energy and Environmental policy reporter for joining us here on

0:05:21.160 --> 0:05:22.000
<v Speaker 1>Bloomberg Law