“Formally” Moving Forward, Informally

In light of the Johnston reading from last week, I was reminded of the gradient scale we drew (with ‘formal’ at one end, interest groups in the middle, and SMOs at the other end) when I read this article from a few days ago. Although the federal government is the most “formal” we can get to enforce a social movement and new policy, it struck me as a rather “informal” way for the Obama administration to do so. For example, the article calls the “‘politically binding’ deal” a sidestep: the president is only allowed to enter a legally binding treaty if it’s approved by a two-thirds majority of the Senate… yet he finds a loophole by mixing conditions from a 1992 treaty already in place so no new voting for ratification would be necessary.

Why do some see this as the “only realistic path” towards reducing carbon emissions worldwide (especially when the article keeps mentioning how infuriated American Republicans will be)? And why does it seem like our “formal” method to improve laws is set up to delay necessary change?

If this agreement relies mainly upon voluntary pledges to diminish carbon pollution, is this set up only to fail? Finally, why is the nation still so divided on such an important policy goal?