NY In Biggest Ever Drug Raid On Rival Gangs
Eighty eight suspected members of the 2Fly Ygz and Big Money Bosses gangs are arrested following raids in the Bronx.
Nearly 700 New York Police officers and federal agents have carried out the biggest drug gang operation in the city’s history, a federal prosecutor has said.
Some 88 people were arrested in a series of pre-dawn raids in the Bronx targeting two rival drug gangs from top to bottom on Wednesday.
US Attorney Preet Bharara told a news conference that more suspects were being sought in what he described as the biggest ever gang takedown in New York City.
He said: “We bring these charges so that all New Yorkers, including those in public housing, can live their lives as they deserve: free of drugs, free of guns and free of gang violence.”
The raids took place in the Eastchester Gardens housing projects. Pic: NYPD
The arrests stemmed from charges brought against 120 gang members and came after a 16-month investigation which began when police moved to address a surge in violence in the Bronx – particularly around the Eastchester Gardens housing projects.
Related: 2012 TEN MEMBERS OF BRONX GANG INDICTED IN VIOLENT TURF BATTLE: MURDER CONSPIRACY CHARGED
Related: Black Mob Crips (BMB)
- According to user sources, the Black Mob Crips have bases of operations in Los Angeles, New York, Virginia, Washington DC, Maryland, and Detroit
- Lithia Springs High School gang in Lithia Springs, Georgia, associated with the Crips. A BMB gang has also been reported in Jacksonville, North Carolina.
Related: 120 Charged in Bronx Gang Bust
Dozens of shootings, stabbings, beatings and robberies and the killings of a 15-year-old who was stabbed to death and a 92-year-old hit by a stray bullet have been tied to the two gangs – 2Fly Ygz and the Big Money Bosses – Mr Bharara said. More here.
He said 2Fly gang members stores guns and sold drugs at a playground in the centre of the housing project, with the rival gang operating a few blocks away.
Both gangs used social media to promote, protect and grow their organisations, including boasting about their exploits on YouTube, Mr Bharara said.
Officials are now investigating whether the city’s 400,000 public housing residents were being protected in safe conditions as required by federal law.
The Housing Authority said: “Many conditions influence the presence of a gang and other illegal activity, and we continue to work closely with the NYPD to address these challenges.”
The raids follow charges being filed against 36 members of two rival drug trafficking gangs operating out of three Housing Authority complexes in East Harlem.
During the raid on Wednesday, a man who was not part of the investigation but was wanted for a string of knife-point robberies jumped from a window and later died, police said.
Category Archives: Department of Homeland Security
A New Scheme for Syrian Refugees?
Related: Obama pledge to welcome 10,000 Syrian refugees far behind schedule
Read more from the White House directly:
Infographic: The screening process for refugee entry into the U.S.
Download graphic
Download graphic
“Alternative Safe Pathways” for Syrian Refugees – Resettlement in Disguise?
CIS.org: With the Syrian crisis entering its sixth year, the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) is thinking of “innovative approaches” to organize Syrian admissions, alongside the refugee resettlement program, to countries willing to welcome them. UNHCR’s target for resettlement is 480,000 places over the next three years; it is not sure how many additional admissions into the U.S. and elsewhere these new “alternative safe pathways” will ensure. Refugees who are not resettled could be “legally admitted” using various routes described below.
The legitimacy and transparency of these new “alternative pathways,” aimed at admitting increasing numbers of Syrian refugees into the United States without calling them “refugees,” remain to be seen. They might even amount to convenient admissions detours at a time when the U.S. refugee resettlement program is under tight scrutiny.
In a panel discussion on The Global Refugee Crisis: Moral Dimensions and Practical Solutions organized by the Brookings Institution earlier this year, Beth Ferris, Research Professor at Georgetown University and adviser to the United Nations Secretary General on humanitarian refugee policy, talked about the need to find different solutions to the ongoing humanitarian Syrian crisis. The refugee resettlement program was no longer sufficient to admit Syrian refugees she said; “alternative safe pathways” are needed:
Refugees and government officials are expecting this crisis to last 10 or 15 years. It’s time that we no longer work as business as usual … UNHCR next month [March 2016] is convening a meeting to look at what are being called “alternative safe pathways” for Syrian refugees. Maybe it’s hard for the U.S. to go from 2,000 to 200,000 refugees resettled in a year, but maybe there are ways we can ask our universities to offer scholarships to Syrian students. Maybe we can tweak some of our immigration policies to enable Syrian-Americans who have lived here to bring not only their kids and spouses but their uncles and their grandmothers. There may be ways that we could encourage Syrians to come to the U.S. without going through this laborious, time-consuming process of refugee resettlement.” (Emphasis added.)
The UNHCR conference Ferris was referring to took place in Geneva this March 30. It is one of a series of initiatives aimed at comprehensively addressing the Syrian crisis in 2016. The Geneva “High-level meeting on global responsibility sharing through pathways for admission of Syrian refugees” focused on the need for a substantial increase in resettlement numbers and for “innovative approaches” to admit Syrian refugees. It followed February’s London Conference on Syria, which stressed the financial aspect of this humanitarian crisis ($12 billion pledged in humanitarian aid) and precedes a September 2016 high-level plenary meeting of the United Nations General Assembly in New York. Worthy of note here, President Obama will host a global refugee summit this September 20 on the margins of this upcoming General Assembly meeting.
The focus of the Geneva meeting was to introduce “other forms of humanitarian admissions” since “[r]esettlement is not the only aim”, explained UNHCR’s spokesperson. UN High Commissioner for Refugees Filippo Grandi appealed to the international community in his opening statement, calling for “alternative avenues” for the admission of Syrian refugees:
These pathways can take many forms: not only resettlement, but also more flexible mechanisms for family reunification, including extended family members, labour mobility schemes, student visa and scholarships, as well as visa for medical reasons. Resettlement needs vastly outstrip the places that have been made available so far… But humanitarian and student visa, job permits and family reunification would represent safe avenues of admission for many other refugees as well.
At the end of the meeting, Grandi highlighted several commitments made by a number of participants in his closing remarks. Promises were made to:
- Increase the number of resettlement and humanitarian admission places.
- Ease family reunification and increase possibilities for family reunion.
- Give scholarships and student visas for Syrian refugees.
- Remove administrative barriers and simplify processes to facilitate and expedite the admission of Syrian refugees.
- Use resources provided by the private sector in order to create labor mobility schemes for Syrian refugees.
The Geneva meeting was attended by representatives of 92 countries, including the United States. Heather Higginbottom, Deputy Secretary of State for Management and Resources, reiterated in her remarks the U.S. commitment to refugees: “President Obama has made assisting displaced people a top priority for the U.S. government.” Last year alone the U.S. contributed more than $6 billion to humanitarian causes. So far this year, the United States has provided nearly $2.3 billion in humanitarian assistance worldwide. She also announced additional measures: “We are further increasing our support of Syrian refugees, and we will make additional contributions to the global displacement effort through September, and beyond”, while reminding the participants of President Obama’s role in hosting a high-level refugee summit this September.
The U.S. State Department released a Media Note following the Geneva meeting. It confirmed the goal of resettling at least 10,000 Syrians in FY 2016 and of 100,000 refugees from around the world by the end of FY 2017 – an increase of more that 40 percent since FY 2015. It also announced the following:
- “The United States pledged an additional $10 million to UNHCR to strengthen its efforts to identify and refer vulnerable refugees, including Syrians, for resettlement.”
- “The United States joins UNHCR in calling for new ways nations, civil society, the private sector, and individuals can together address the global refugee challenge.”
- “Additionally, the United States has created a program to allow U.S. citizens and permanent residents to file refugee applications for their Syrian family member.” [Emphasis added.]
On this last note, why create a family reunification program for Syrian refugees when refugees in the U.S. are already entitled to ask for their spouse and unmarried children under 21 to join them? Unless of course, the aim is to widen family circles to include aunts and uncles, brothers and sisters, grandmothers and grandfathers.
Let’s see if we got this right: More Syrian refugees are to be resettled in the United States; administrative barriers (including security checks?) are to be removed to expedite admissions. Come to think of it, this is exactly what we witnessed with the “Surge Operation” in Jordan, where refugee resettlement processes were reduced from 18-24 months to three months in order to meet the target of 10,000 Syrian refugees this year.
Moreover, the United States government, by its own admission, “joins UNHCR in calling for new ways” to move more Syrians to other countries. With the U.S. Refugee Resettlement program under close scrutiny, other routes for “legal admissions” (not “resettlement”) of Syrian refugees into the United States seem more appropriate. Those routes may vary from private sponsorships, labor schemes, expanded family reunification programs, humanitarian visas, medical evacuation, to academic scholarships and apprenticeships, etc.
What remains to be determined is how transparent these “alternative pathways” will be. Will we be given details about numbers, profiles, locations, screening, or costs? Also, what additional measures are we to expect from this administration as it prepares to host a Global Refugee Summit this September 20?
Meanwhile, we are left to wonder: aren’t these “pathways” for refugees nothing more than disguised resettlement routes? Akin to “pathways to citizenship” in lieu of amnesty…
9/11: 28 Pages, Detainee Facts
Ghassan al Sharbi also used a pro-bono progressive law firm to file a petition and lawsuit against President GW Bush.
He lived and received financial assistance during his time at the Islamic Society Tempe, Arizona. See the file/docket here. It should also be written, the Garland, Texas terror plot also included an Arizona footprint. (CAIR, Islamic Society of North America are implicated in the Holyland Foundation case, charities that raised funds for terror operations)
Noted as prisoner #237, and on November 7, 2005, the United States charged al-Sharbi and four other detainees with war crimes. They were expected to face a trial before a military commission. Al-Sharbi, Jabran Said bin al Qahtani, Binyam Ahmed Muhammad, and Sufyian Barhoumi faced conspiracy to murder charges for being part of an al-Qaeda bomb-making cell.[5] Omar Khadr, 18 years old, faced both murder and conspiracy to murder charges.
Al-Sharbi initially wanted to decline legal representation; a pro bono attorney was arranged by the Center for Constitutional Rights and other organizations when the US had not provided any counsel to the detainees.[6] In 2006, his pro bono attorney, Bob Rachlin, was trying to arrange for al-Sharbi to talk by phone with his parents, hoping they would persuade him to accept Rachlin’s legal assistance, which his father had initiated. He also left his wife and daughter in the United States when he fled to Pakistan. More here in further detail.
*****
Terror suspect whose flight certificate was linked to Saudis one of Gitmo’s most dangerous
FNC: One of Guantanamo Bay’s most dangerous and longest-held terror suspects is a Saudi national who knows how to fly planes and build sophisticated bombs, speaks fluent English and remains committed to killing Americans, say former U.S. officials who dealt with Ghassan al Sharbi face-to-face.
Revelations last week that Al Sharbi’s flight training certificate, tucked into a Saudi Arabian Embassy envelope, had been found in 2003 among a trove of documents buried in Pakistan following his arrest there, raised fresh questions about the Kingdom’s possible involvement in the Sept. 11, 2001, terror attacks. Although Al Sharbi, who trained with several of the 9/11 hijackers at an Arizona flight school, did not take part in the attacks, he is seen as one of the most lethal and committed terrorists held at the military base.
“In my view, Ghassan al Sharbi was one of the most dangerous men held in U.S. custody at Guantanamo Bay,” said retired Army Maj. Gen. Jay Hood, who oversaw the detention facility. “I knew him well and my assessment is informed by a number of direct interactions I had with him between 2004 and 2006. He is extremely intelligent, well educated, and committed to a violent Islamic ideology.”
“In my view, Ghassan al Sharbi was one of the most dangerous men held in U.S. custody at Guantanamo Bay.”
– Army Maj. Gen. Jay Hood
Al Sharbi’s record, training, testimony and connections to the Al Qaeda terror network that killed 3,000 Americans on 9/11 have largely been kept secret, but some details were quietly released last year in a top-secret report called “Document 17” that was declassified by the FBI. The report alluded to the discovery of his flight certificate inside an envelope from the Saudi Embassy in Washington, buried outside a Pakistani safehouse where he was captured by local forces on March 28, 2002. Information about the certificate was released in a 47-page work plan prepared for the FBI in June 2003 but not declassified until last July.
Born in Saudi Arabia, the 41-year-old terrorist is particularly dangerous, military officials and government documents said, because he speaks fluent English, has a degree in electrical engineering from an American university, took flying lessons with the 9/11 terrorists who crashed a plane into the Pentagon and is a proficient bomb maker.
No photo is available of Al Sharbi, who has been held at Guantanamo Bay since June 19, 2002.
The Guantánamo Review Task Force suggested in 2010 that Al Sharbi be prosecuted for war crimes, but that hasn’t yet occurred in the nearly 14 years he’s been held by U.S. forces.
“I suspect he is still being held because he is being considered by the Military Commissions for prosecution,” Hood said. “But I also suspect that those in the Intelligence community realize the potential threat he would pose as an operational planner and leader to any violent Islamic group. He is extraordinarily committed to his religion, and to using violence to combat capitalism in the Western world.”
The Obama administration has released dozens of detainees from Guantanamo Bay, which once held more than 600 terror suspects but now holds around 80. Al Sharbi ranks with 9/11 mastermind Khalid Sheik Mohammad as one of the facility’s longest-held and most dangerous residents, according to Brian McGlinchey, director of 28Pages.org, a website that supports the movement to declassify documents believed to link top Saudi officials to the 9/11 hijackers.
“He’s been deemed a high-risk individual who allegedly attended a training camp in Afghanistan and is a self-proclaimed bomb-maker,” said McGlinchey, a former Army officer whose website was the first to report on Al Sharbi’s flight certificate being found. “Other detainees told interrogators Al Sharbi had been seen talking to Usama bin Laden, was very proficient with weapons and had been selected for specialized remote control detonation training.”
Al Sharbi was captured in Pakistan in 2002 along with Abu Zubaida, whom the U.S. government at one time believed was a top Al Qaeda lieutenant but later concluded was not.
Al Sharbi has never hidden his terrorist intentions.
“I am your enemy, I will fight the United States. Period,” he told a military judge, according to Paul Rester, who headed military intelligence, interrogation and analysis at Guantanamo on and off from 2002 until 2010.
“He was very forthcoming and very determined,” said Rester. “He was not in the planner-organizer echelon, he was in the executor-operator echelon. He made bombs, had direct ties to Bin Laden, and had sway over others because of that tie. He was extremely important to his terrorist network because he was well-trained and could make things work.”
The buried documents, which were recovered by the FBI, included manuals on bomb-making and other explosive devices, and are included among thousands of items confiscated from suspected terrorists being held at Guantanamo that filled a 2,000-square-foot room.
Born in Jeddah, Saudi Arabia, in 1974, Al Sharbi lived in Arizona from 1998 to 2000 while studying electrical engineering at Mesa Community College and then at Embry Riddle Aeronautical University in Prescott, Ariz., in the months preceding 9/11. One of the founding members and president of the Islamic Student Society at Embry Riddle, he abruptly left the school in August 2001, and traveled to Pakistan with stops in Saudi Arabia, Dubai and the United Arab Emirates.
Known in Al Qaeda circles as the “electronic builder,” government reports say he was trained and taught others to produce circuit boards for use in remote-controlled car bombs, IEDS and other detonation devices that would be used to kill American soldiers and to help build remote-control devices that could be placed in the United States and detonated by a mobile phone from Pakistan.
In 1999, Al Sharbi and another suspected Al Qaeda operative were involved in an incident that caused a Washington-bound flight to be diverted and was mentioned in the 9/11 Commission report. The other man, who was flying with Al Shari, tried to enter the cockpit, which the commission concluded may have been an intelligence gathering operation to test in-flight security measures in preparation for the attacks that would come two years later.
Since he first entered Guantanamo, Al Sharbi’s behavior has been “generally non-compliant, often showing signs of aggression,” according to a report Hood completed while head of the facility. The 2004 report detailed an incident in which Al Sharbi assaulted a guard and numerous cases in which he led fellow detainees in creating disturbances.
“It has been determined that the detainee poses a high risk, as he is likely to pose a threat to the U.S., its interests and allies,” Hood wrote.
In his own testimony before a military tribunal in 2006, Al Sharbi, who goes by several alias including Abdullah al Muslim, Abu Muslim, Ghassan Abdallah Ghazi al Shirbi and Abdullah al Sharbi, said he must “defend the Islamic nation.”
“I came here to tell you I did what I did and I’m willing to pay the price,” he said, according to a Reuters pool reporter. “Even if I spend hundreds of years in jail, that would be a matter of honor to me.
“I fought the United States; I’m going to make it short and easy for you guys: I’m proud of what I did.”
The Obama administration has pledged to close Guantanamo Bay’s detention camp and release, return to their country of origin or place the remaining detainees in facilities on U.S. soil. His proposal continues to garner opposition from military leaders and Republicans, who say releasing some of America’s most dangerous enemies will lead to more American lives lost.
Need to Know Facts on EB-5 Visa Program
In 1999, yes under President Bill Clinton and selling out sovereignty under a globalist agenda:
FAS: The immigrant investor visa was created in 1990 to benefit the U.S. economy through employment creation and an influx of foreign capital into the United States. The visa is also referred to as the EB-5 visa because it is the fifth employment preference immigrant visa category. The EB-5 visa provides lawful permanent residence (i.e., LPR status) to foreign nationals who invest a specified amount of capital in a new commercial enterprise in the United States and create at least 10 jobs. The foreign nationals must invest $1,000,000, or $500,000 if they invest in a rural area or an area with high unemployment (referred to as targeted employment areas or TEAs).
There are approximately 10,000 visas available annually for foreign national investors and their family members (7.1% of the worldwide employment-based visas are allotted to immigrant investors and their derivatives). In FY2015, there were 9,764 EB-5 visas used, with 93% going to investors from Asia. More specifically, 84% were granted to investors from China and 3% were granted to those from Vietnam.
In general, an individual receiving an EB-5 visa is granted conditional residence status. After approximately two years the foreign national must apply to remove the conditionality (i.e., convert to full-LPR status). If the foreign national has met the visa requirements (i.e., invested and sustained the required money and created the required jobs), the foreign national receives full LPR status. If the foreign national investor has not met the requirements or does not apply to have the conditional status removed, his or her conditional LPR status is terminated, and, generally, the foreign national is required to leave the United States, or will be placed in removal proceedings.
In 1992, Congress established the Regional Center (Pilot) Program, which created an additional pathway to LPR status through the EB-5 visa category. Regional centers are “any economic unit, public or private, which [are] involved with the promotion of economic growth, including increased export sales, improved regional productivity, job creation, and increased domestic capital investment.” The program allows foreign national investors to pool their investment in a regional center to fund a broad range of projects within a specific geographic area. The investment requirement for regional center investors is the same as for standard EB-5 investors. As the use of EB-5 visas has grown, so has the use of the Regional Center Program. In FY2014, 97% of all EB-5 visas were issued based on investments in regional centers. Unlike the standard EB-5 visa category, which does not expire, the Regional Center Program is set to expire on September 30, 2016.
Different policy issues surrounding the EB-5 visa have been debated. Proponents of the EB-5 visa contend that providing visas to foreign investors benefits the U.S. economy, in light of the potential economic growth and job creation it can create. Others argue that the EB-5 visa allows wealthy individuals to buy their way into the United States.
In addition, some EB-5 stakeholders have voiced concerns over the delays in processing EB-5 applications and possible effects on investors and time sensitive projects. Furthermore, some have questioned whether U.S. Citizen and Immigration Services (USCIS) has the expertise to administer the EB-5 program, given its embedded business components. The Department of Homeland Security’s Office of the Inspector General (DHS OIG) has recommended that USCIS work with other federal agencies that do have such expertise, while USCIS has reported that it has taken steps internally to address this issue. USCIS has also struggled to measure the efficacy of the EB-5 category (e.g., its economic impact). USCIS methodology for reporting investments and jobs created has been called into question by both the DHS OIG and the U.S. Government Accountability Office (GAO).
Furthermore, some have highlighted possible fraud and threats to national security that the visa category presents. In comparison to other immigrant visas, the EB-5 visa faces additional risks of fraud that stem from its investment components. Such risks are associated with the difficulty in verifying that investors’ funds are obtained lawfully and the visa’s potential for large monetary gains, which could motivate individuals to take advantage of investors and can make the visa susceptible to the appearance of favoritism. USCIS has reported improvements in its fraud detection but also feels certain statutory limitations have restricted what it can do. Additionally, GAO believes that improved data collection by USCIS could assist in detecting fraud and keeping visa holders and regional centers accountable.
Lastly, the authority of states to designate TEAs has raised concerns. Some have pointed to the inconsistency in TEA designation practices across states and how it could allow for possible gerrymandering (i.e., all development occurs in an area that by itself would not be considered a TEA). Others contend that the current regulations allow states to determine what area fits their economic needs and allow for the accommodation of commuting patterns.
In addition to the issues discussed above, Congress may consider whether the Regional Center Program should be allowed to expire, be reauthorized, or made permanent, given its expiration on September 30, 2016. In addition, Congress may consider whether any modifications should be made to the EB-5 visa category or the Regional Center Program. Legislation has been introduced in the 114th Congress that would, among other provisions, amend the program to try to address concerns about fraud, and change the manner in which TEAs are determined. Other bills would create an EB-5-like visa category for foreign national entrepreneurs who do not have their own capital but have received capital from qualified sources, such as venture capitalists. Read more here.
Obama’s Climate Change Treaty or Accord, Skirts Senate
Obama’s Violating the Constitution by Not Submitting Climate Treaty to Senate
DailySignal/Senator Mike Lee and Congressman Mike Kelly:
Today at United Nations Headquarters in New York City, Secretary of State John Kerry and representatives of over 130 nations will sign the Framework Convention on Climate Change agreement that was negotiated in Paris last December.
According to President Obama, this “historic agreement” will “hold every country accountable” if they fail to meet its carbon emission targets.
The White House has also acknowledged that the agreement contains “legally binding” provisions designed to create a “long-term framework” that will force the United States and signatory countries to reduce carbon emissions for decades to come.
Despite these facts, President Obama has already announced he will not submit the Paris Climate Agreement to the Senate for advice and consent. Instead, the White House claims the signature environmental achievement of the president’s tenure is just an “international agreement” not meriting Senate attention.
If the stakes weren’t so high, this claim would be laughable on its face.
Not only was this agreement’s predecessor, the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change, submitted to the Senate and approved as a treaty, but when the Senate ratified that treaty, the Foreign Relations Committee specifically reported that any future emissions targets agreed to through the Convention “would have to be submitted to the Senate for its advice and consent.”
President Obama has chosen to ignore this directive.
He has also chosen to ignore the State Department’s eight-factor test that is used to determine “whether any international agreement should be brought into force as a treaty or as an international agreement other than a treaty.”
Those eight factors are:
1) The extent to which the agreement involves commitments or risks affecting the nation as a whole (the agreement’s carbon reductions will inflict costs on every American who consumes energy)
2) Whether the agreement is intended to affect state laws (the agreement will force states to meet emission targets)
3) Whether the agreement can be given effect without the enactment of subsequent legislation by the Congress (Congress will have to appropriate money for the agreement’s Green Climate Fund)
4) Past U.S. practice as to similar agreements (the agreement’s predecessor was submitted as a treaty)
5) The preference of the Congress as to a particular type of agreement (Congress wants to vote on this agreement)
6) The degree of formality desired for an agreement (the agreement is a highly detailed 31-page document)
7) The proposed duration of the agreement, the need for prompt conclusion of an agreement, and the desirability of concluding a routine or short-term agreement (the agreement sets emissions targets decades in advance)
8) The general international practice as to similar agreements (there are many, but the 1985 Vienna Convention for the Protection of the Ozone Layer is just one example)
The only reason President Obama is not sending the Paris Climate Agreement to the Senate as a treaty is that he knows the Senate would handily reject it.
This is an unacceptable breach of Article II Section 2 of the Constitution, and Congress must do something about it.
That is why we have introduced a concurrent resolution in the House and Senate expressing the sense of Congress that the Paris Climate Agreement must be submitted to the Senate as a treaty for its advice and consent.
If President Obama fails to do so, then Congress must prevent its implementation by forbidding any payments to the agreement’s “Green Climate Fund,” an international slush fund included in the Paris agreement to induce developing nations to sign the agreement.
If Congress fails to specifically prohibit taxpayer money from being spent implementing the Paris Climate Agreement, then they will be complicit in President Obama’s subversion of the Constitution.
*****
More reading on the facts of the Accord, or whatever it is called that will not receive a Senate vote:
FAS: On April 22, 2016, as many as 155 countries intend to sign the new international Paris Agreement to address greenhouse-gas-induced climate change. No international agreement to date has attracted as many signatures on the opening day of the year-long signature period. Eight nations—all perceiving themselves as particularly vulnerable to the impacts of climate change—plan to deposit their instruments of ratification as well.
Delegations of 195 nations adopted the Paris Agreement on December 12, 2015. It creates a structure for nations to pledge every five years to abate their greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions, to adapt to climate change, and to cooperate to these ends, including financial and other support. A single framework to promote transparency and track progress of Parties’ efforts applies, for the first time, to all Parties—whether rich or poor. The Parties also adopted a Decision to
give effect to the Paris Agreement. Both the Decision and the Agreement (hereinafter capitalized) are intended to be legally binding on Parties to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) and the new Agreement, respectively, though not all provisions within them are mandatory. Both are subsidiary to the UNFCCC, which the United States ratified with the advice and consent of the Senate (Treaty Document 102-38, October 7, 1992).
The UNFCCC entered into force in 1994.
Whether the new Paris Agreement or Decision would require Senate advice and consent depends on the content of the agreements. If either were to contain new legal obligations on the United States, it would favor requiring Senate consent to ratification. However, the United States and other Parties to the UNFCCC accepted many legally binding obligations when they ratified the Convention, including control of greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions, preparation to adapt to climate change, international cooperation and support, and regular reporting of emissions and actions with international review. Some have argued that the Paris Agreement does not require more of the United States than it is already obligated to do under the UNFCCC, while others have argued that it does.
Purpose and Post-2050 Balance of Emissions and Removals
The agreement states that it aims to hold the increase in the global average temperature to well below 2 °C above pre-industrial levels and to pursue efforts to limit the temperature increase to 1.5 °C above pre-industrial levels, recognizing that this would significantly reduce the risks and impacts of climate change.
This purpose is stated as enhancing the implementation of the UNFCCC, including its objective to stabilize GHG concentrations in the atmosphere at a level to avoid dangerous anthropogenic interference in the climate system. In order to achieve this “long-term temperature goal,” Parties aim to make their GHG emissions peak as soon as possible and then to reduce them rapidly “so as to achieve a balance between anthropogenic emissions by sources and removals by sinks of greenhouse gases in the second half of this century.” In other words, the Agreement envisions achieving net zero anthropogenic emissions. While this is arguably synonymous with the UNFCCC’s objective of stabilizing GHG atmospheric concentrations, the Agreement puts a timeframe on the objective for the first time. However, as a collective objective, the Agreement provides no means to hold an individual Party accountable if the objective were not met.
Mitigation and Adaptation
The Agreement and Decision establish a single framework under which all Parties would:
communicate every five years and undertake “ambitious” Nationally Determined Contributions (NDCs) to mitigating GHG emissions, participate in a single “transparency framework” that includes communicating their GHG inventories and implementation of their obligations, including financial support provided or received, not less than biennially (with exceptions to a few, least developed states), and be subject to international review of their implementation.
All Parties will eventually be subject to common procedures and guidelines. However, while developed country Parties (not defined) must provide NDCs stated as economy-wide, absolute GHG reduction targets, developing country Parties are exhorted to enhance their NDCs and move toward similar targets over time, in light of their national circumstances.
Further, flexibility in the transparency framework is allowed to developing countries, depending on their capacities, regarding the scope, frequency, and detail of their reporting. The administrative Secretariat of the Convention will record the NDCs and other key reports in a public registry.
The Agreement also requires “as appropriate” that Parties prepare and communicate their plans to adapt to climate change. Adaptation communications, too, will be recorded in a public registry.
A committee will, in a facilitative and non-punitive manner, address compliance issues under the Paris Agreement. The Paris Agreement contains provisions for voluntary withdrawal of Parties.
The Agreement permits Parties voluntarily to participate in cooperative approaches (implicitly, emissions markets) that “involve the use of internationally transferred mitigation outcomes.”
Finance
The Agreement reiterates the obligation in the UNFCCC to provide financial support to developing country Parties to implement their mitigation efforts, calling for it to be continuous and enhanced. It uses exhortatory language to restate the collective pledge in the 2009 Copenhagen Accord, of $100 billion annually by 2020, and calls for a “progression beyond previous efforts.” For the first time under the UNFCCC, the Agreement encourages all Parties to provide financial support. In addition, in the Decision, the Parties agreed to set, prior to their 2025 meeting, a new, collective, quantified goal for mobilizing financial resources of not less than $100 billion annually to assist developing country Parties. The Decision strongly urges developed country Parties to scale up their current financial support—in particular to significantly increase their support for adaptation. The Agreement recognizes that “enhanced support” will allow for “higher ambition” in the actions of developing country Parties.
Five-Year Assessments
In 2023 and every five years thereafter, the Parties are to perform a “global stocktake” to review implementation of the Paris Agreement and progress toward the purpose of the Agreement and the long-term net zero anthropogenic emissions goal.