President Trump’s decision to withdraw the United States from the Paris Agreement on Climate Change raises a series of legal, procedural and policy questions that have yet to be decisively answered, said the Congressional Research Service last week.
Among those questions: Will the US follow the prescribed multi-year procedure for withdrawal? Or can the US withdraw immediately? What role if any will the US play in future climate change deliberations under the Paris Agreement? What are the prospects for a legal challenge to the US withdrawal?
See President Trump’s Withdrawal from the Paris Agreement Raises Legal Questions, CRS Legal Sidebar, June 9, 2017.
Other new and updated reports from the Congressional Research Service include the following.
FY2018 Defense Budget Request: The Basics, June 9, 2017
Qatar: Governance, Security, and U.S. Policy, updated June 9, 2017
Israel and the Boycott, Divestment, and Sanctions (BDS) Movement, updated June 9, 2017
U.S. Foreign Aid to the Middle East and North Africa: The President’s FY2018 Request, CRS Insight, June 8, 2017
Malawi: Key Developments and U.S. Relations, June 2, 2017
U.S. Strategy for Engagement in Central America: Policy Issues for Congress, June 8, 2017
European Security and Islamist Terrorism, CRS Insight, updated June 8, 2017
Juneteenth: Fact Sheet, June 9, 2017
Air Force B-21 Long Range Strike Bomber, updated June 7, 2017
Special Counsels, Independent Counsels, and Special Prosecutors: Options for Independent Executive Investigations, June 1, 2017
About 86% of Colorado’s water is used for agriculture, but only about 30-60% of that water actually reaches crops. Conveyance efficiency through canal modernization is a powerful drought resilience and water saving strategy with proven technical feasibility.
“One thing became increasingly clear: AI doesn’t simply introduce a new category of risk. It changes the speed, scale, complexity, and interaction of risks that already exist.”
In an ideal world, we would not have state or federal climate intervention research bans. We would have researchers and institutions that would not shy away from revealing the good, the bad, and the ugly of these technologies and doing so responsibly.
“What excites me is that it’s very tempting to be very discouraged, and say, ‘Oh, we’ve got these archaic institutions that are calcified and you could never change them.’ But I think we’re in the middle of a technological revolution that will upend lots of things, and does provide a window.”