>
Article snippet: WASHINGTON — The architects of the Paris climate accord deliberately designed it to be supple, adaptable to the differing political and economic environments of the nearly 200 countries that signed it. The authors were mindful of its predecessor, the Kyoto Protocol, which was roundly rejected by the United States because it set binding emissions targets for wealthy countries while letting most developing nations, including China, off the hook. But now, as forces within the Trump administration continue to debate whether to leave the Paris agreement, they face a far different calculus. The accord, agreed to in 2015, is largely nonbinding, imposing no serious legal restraints on the United States or any other nation. While that makes the treaty a less rigorous plan to fight global warming, it also means there are few compelling reasons to exit. That flexible structure has given ammunition to those urging the Trump administration to stick with Paris, a group that includes Ivanka Trump, diplomats like Secretary of State Rex W. Tillerson, and hundreds of corporations. The United States, they argue, can stay within the Paris deal and adjust its domestic plans for cutting greenhouse gas emissions however it sees fit. Staying has little cost. Leaving, by contrast, could result in immense diplomatic blowback, send confusing signals to industry and deprive American diplomats of the ability to influence future talks. Within the White House, Trump advisers like the chief str... Link to the full article to read more