The Global Warming Thread

[Moliere]

The U.S. can’t quit the Paris climate agreement, because it never actually joined

President Trump is expected to announce today that the United States will not be party to the Paris agreement on climate change. What he should say is that the United States never properly joined the accord: It is a treaty that requires the advice and consent of the Senate. Instead, President Barack Obama choose to “adopt” it with an executive order last September.

Two features cut heavily against it being treated as the kind of arrangement that can be entered into by a president on his own authority. First, it has a four-year waiting period for withdrawal, quite unlike traditional executive agreements. Second, it is a large multilateral deal, and the other parties apparently believe it requires domestic ratification. Whatever that means for U.S. constitutional purposes, it does suggest that other countries should hardly protest if Trump merely follows their example to seek domestic ratification.

[El Guapo]

This is another way in which our constitution is deeply flawed in a modern partisan environment, incidentally. You need a 2/3rds Senate vote for any treaty. You are almost never going to have an environment where one party controls the presidency and 2/3rds of the Senate, which means the minority party can block any treaty at will. McConnell has shown that the minority party mostly benefits from obstruction.

Functionally this means that the U.S. can't reliably enter into most major treaties going forward. But there is still a need for such treaties, hence the need for workarounds of dubious constitutional validity.

[Smoove_B]

I'm half expecting Trump to immediately demand that we join the Paris treaty so that he can then quit and take credit for it.

[malchior]

This is another way in which our constitution is deeply flawed in a modern partisan environment, incidentally. You need a 2/3rds Senate vote for any treaty. You are almost never going to have an environment where one party controls the presidency and 2/3rds of the Senate, which means the minority party can block any treaty at will. McConnell has shown that the minority party mostly benefits from obstruction.

Functionally this means that the U.S. can't reliably enter into most major treaties going forward. But there is still a need for such treaties, hence the need for workarounds of dubious constitutional validity.

I was about to say something like this so I'll just expand on it. The rest of the world recognizes that our system is broken but needs to work with us since we are the big kahuna. They were content to strike gentleman's agreements with us in this paradigm. Mostly because we had decades of trust built that we'd keep to our commitments. They might have even suspected we were always heading for an eventual crack up of some kind. But it would more than likely be a "reasonable" crack up. Instead we got this fucking moron and everything went out the window.

[El Guapo]

Also it's important to remember that due to the unrepresentative nature of the Senate, you can control over a third of Senate seats with far less than that in votes, due to 300,000 people in Montana counting as much as tens of millions in California. Which means that probably something like 20% of voters (not even 20% of the population, mind you) can cockblock the entire U.S. treaty function.

[Moliere]

Also it's important to remember that due to the unrepresentative nature of the Senate, you can control over a third of Senate seats with far less than that in votes, due to 300,000 people in Montana counting as much as tens of millions in California. Which means that probably something like 20% of voters (not even 20% of the population, mind you) can cockblock the entire U.S. treaty function.

That's a feature, not a bug.

[malchior]

Also it's important to remember that due to the unrepresentative nature of the Senate, you can control over a third of Senate seats with far less than that in votes, due to 300,000 people in Montana counting as much as tens of millions in California. Which means that probably something like 20% of voters (not even 20% of the population, mind you) can cockblock the entire U.S. treaty function.

That's a feature, not a bug.

This is almost a reflex answer at this point. Someone always calls the EC/Senate proportional representation a feature but please explain how at this point. This system has seen a civil war that could and has been attributed to this compromise by some. It isn't too big a stretch to frame the discussion around how the more populous and industrialized North couldn't forge a solution that prevented the civil war. The State/Federal compromise exacerbated the problem by forcing the spread of slavery as the union expanded. This led to the imbalances that precipitated the civil war. Pretty much directly.

In modern times it has reared it's ugly head again. We've had two EC chosen Presidents in 16 years who pursued unpopular agendas which has dramatically increased political instability in this country. I'm reasonably sure our federal system will be seen as nothing short than a complete failure compared to proportional representation systems over time. It is at its heart a flawed experiment that hasn't survived the test of time.

[Moliere]

Without the EC Presidential candidates would only campaign in NY, CA, and TX. Personally, I think Senators should go back to being selected by state legislators. The Senate was supposed to give the states a voice in the federal government. Electing them by popular vote was another bad Hearst idea.

[malchior]

We hear that argument all the time but it isn't true. They would still need votes from the entirety of the country. They'd perhaps focus more resources in high population states but they've all carved themselves into 'safe states'. That has lead them to get opposite attention which makes little sense. But that is still looking at symptoms. The big picture is that it isn't a stable system. It can't resolve big issues to anybody's satisfaction and leads to huge blow ups. Be it the Civil War or Trump. That makes it a bug - not a feature.

[hepcat]

Christ, with all the spectacle Trump is putting into today's decision, I completely understand why the Cleveland Cavaliers are pissed at him.

[malchior]

Christ, with all the spectacle Trump is putting into today's decision, I completely understand why the Cleveland Cavaliers are pissed at him.

Ironic bonus that Lebron redeemed himself in my mind for that nonsense today with his remarkable statement about the racist graffiti scrawled on his front gate. But still he missed a dunk last week so as the Donald would say - Loser!

[RunningMn9]

It is at its heart a flawed experiment that hasn't survived the test of time.

Expect that sentiment to get bumper-stickered and demagogued to death. Clearly you hate America(tm).

[malchior]

It is at its heart a flawed experiment that hasn't survived the test of time.

Expect that sentiment to get bumper-stickered and demagogued to death. Clearly you hate America(tm).

Sometimes you have to point out the flaws to save something but it doesn't mean you don't love it.

[Smoove_B]

In my heart, I want to believe the system really did everything it could to protect us against Trump. What I don't think anyone counted on was that if someone like Trump did somehow manage to get elected, people in his own party would turn a blind eye and allow him to stomp around and cause irreparable harm. While history won't be kind to Trump, I hope it's equally as savage to McConnell, Ryan and the GOP-controlled Congress that was content to let things get this far.

[Zaxxon]

New Numbers are In and EVs are Cleaner than Ever.

"Choosing an electric car over an inefficient gasoline model is one of the most influential decisions a household can make to reduce emissions"

Based on where EVs have been bought to-date, the average EV in the US now produces emissions equivalent to a hypothetical gasoline car achieving 73 MPG.

Nearly half of the EVs sold to date have gone to California, where the average EV produces global warming emissions equal to a 95 MPG gasoline car. The next 5 states for EV sales (Georgia, Washington, New York, Florida, and Texas) account for 20 percent of US EV sales and are regions that have emissions ratings of 50 MPG or better.

Manufacturing emissions are important, but much less of a factor than fuel emissions.

The emissions estimates presented above compare the use of an EV compared to using a gasoline vehicle. However, there are also emissions associated with the production of these cars, and in general making EVs produces more emissions than a comparable gasoline car. We studied this issue in our “Cleaner Cars From Cradle to Grave” report in 2015 and found that the extra emissions from making an 80-mile range EV (compared to a similar gasoline car) are about 15% higher. However, this extra emissions ‘debt’ is quickly recovered by the savings that accrue while using the electric vehicle.

Also, it should be noted that this considers only the electric grid itself--if you power your vehicle via your own solar PV system, your numbers would be far, far higher.

[Fitzy]

We hear that argument all the time but it isn't true. They would still need votes from the entirety of the country. They'd perhaps focus more resources in high population states but they've all carved themselves into 'safe states'. That has lead them to get opposite attention which makes little sense. But that is still looking at symptoms. The big picture is that it isn't a stable system. It can't resolve big issues to anybody's satisfaction and leads to huge blow ups. Be it the Civil War or Trump. That makes it a bug - not a feature.

How about this one. The Senate protects us from the tyranny of the majority. It also give the minority a much bigger voice. That isn't a bug. It is a feature.

Montana gets two Senators that represent far fewer people than most other states. That means that the state of Montana isn't forgotten.

The system our founders set up was one of checks and balances designed to keep the power of the government limited and within full control of the people. The Senate is a big part of that, buy its very nature of non-proportional voting.

So while the Senate is only a part of the overall system, it is a vital feature that maintains the integrity of our system. Keeping the majority from dominate control is not a bug. It is absolutely a feature and it is in fact the primary feature of the constitution.

[malchior]

How about this one. The Senate protects us from the tyranny of the majority. It also give the minority a much bigger voice. That isn't a bug. It is a feature.

I'd argue that it what we have is tyranny of the minority. Any sizable but concentrated faction can paralyze the country. That is an unanticipated bug that we've discovered. Pretending this isn't a potentially fatal issue now is not a great idea considering the results we have seen.

So while the Senate is only a part of the overall system, it is a vital feature that maintains the integrity of our system. Keeping the majority from dominate control is not a bug. It is absolutely a feature and it is in fact the primary feature of the constitution.

Aren't we observing *right now* that is exactly what hasn't happened? How has the integrity of the system been maintained? The Senate has increasingly broken down over the last 15 years. That is a side effect of the undemocratic nature of the chamber. Again what I'm arguing is that this experiement has failed. Not failing. Failed. And time will show that proportional systems tend to be more stable. Maybe it isn't an EC problem but a First Past the Post problem or direct election of Senator problem or confluence of several. Bottom line this system is broken. Trump proves that. The balance of power issues in the Senate prove that. Increasing American isolation over the next few years will prove that out. The ride hasn't started getting real bumpy yet. Unless the Claude Taylor miracle happens and then we'll just have a more gradual decline.

[Ralph-Wiggum]

And Trump has officially pulled out of the Paris deal.

[stessier]

Yeah, I'm with Fitzy. It was specifically designed to be hard to do anything. No one trusted the federal government - the states were supposed to take the lead.

The view you present is very myopic. The US wasn't a super power for it's first 150 years and we all survived. The 4th Estate was in much worse shape in the 1880s-1910s and we all survived. The country has retrenched before and always found a way to continue progressing forward because people believe in the ideal and will fight for it. This time will be no different. Progress isn't always pretty or easy.

For the record, I think a lot of what is happening is double plus ungood. Some people, though, learn best by seeing their ideas tried and fail. Group A is taking their turn. Some of it will work and stick and (hopefully) most won't, then it will be Group B's turn. It has always been this way.

[Ralph-Wiggum]

On the plus side (if there is such a thing), the withdrawal won't be completed until 2020, so the next president may be able to stop us from leaving.

[Grifman]

The big picture is that it isn't a stable system. It can't resolve big issues to anybody's satisfaction and leads to huge blow ups. Be it the Civil War or Trump. That makes it a bug - not a feature.

Explain to me how a system based upon the popular vote rather than the EC would have prevented the Civil War.

[Octavious]

Woo go President Cheeto! USA! USA! Let's light some coal to celebrate! WOOOOOOOOOOOOO

[malchior]

Yeah, I'm with Fitzy. It was specifically designed to be hard to do anything. No one trusted the federal government - the states were supposed to take the lead.

The view you present is very myopic. The US wasn't a super power for it's first 150 years and we all survived. The 4th Estate was in much worse shape in the 1880s-1910s and we all survived. The country has retrenched before and always found a way to continue progressing forward because people believe in the ideal and will fight for it. This time will be no different. Progress isn't always pretty or easy.

I think it is telling that literally no one has actually addressed the analysis. Instead there are repetitions of accepted conventional wisdom. The conventional wisdom is wrong. It is happening before your eyes but you won't accept it yet. Unfortunately I don't have to convince you - it will just happen over time now. The die has been cast. There would have to be massive changes to undo this damage and restore faith in the American experiment with the world.

For the record, I think a lot of what is happening is double plus ungood. Some people, though, learn best by seeing their ideas tried and fail. Group A is taking their turn. Some of it will work and stick and (hopefully) most won't, then it will be Group B's turn. It has always been this way.

No it hasn't. This is unprecedented in the Western world outside of the rise of Fascism. Except this is crazy emperor behavior. Hitler wasn't a dumbass random noise generator. Trump is and he is making huge decisions that will have decades long ramifications on a whim. How anyone can pretend this is within normal parameters of a functioning system is beyond me.

[El Guapo]

Without the EC Presidential candidates would only campaign in NY, CA, and TX.

I love this argument, given that currently almost all presidential general election visits are in a handful of states.



Clearly the Electoral College is a rousing success in getting candidates to campaign across the country.

Also, isn't it perhaps a tiny problem that NY, CA, and TX (i.e., three of the most populous states in the country) garnered a grand total of 2 general election visits?

And Fitzy, you can see all of the attention that gets lavished on Montana courtesy of the electoral college.

[El Guapo]

Man, it must have been brutal trying to find a hotel in Helena during the closing weeks of the 2016 presidential campaign.

[stessier]

Yeah, I'm with Fitzy. It was specifically designed to be hard to do anything. No one trusted the federal government - the states were supposed to take the lead.

The view you present is very myopic. The US wasn't a super power for it's first 150 years and we all survived. The 4th Estate was in much worse shape in the 1880s-1910s and we all survived. The country has retrenched before and always found a way to continue progressing forward because people believe in the ideal and will fight for it. This time will be no different. Progress isn't always pretty or easy.

I think it is telling that literally no one has actually addressed the analysis. Instead there are repetitions of accepted conventional wisdom. The conventional wisdom is wrong. It is happening before your eyes but you won't accept it yet. Unfortunately I don't have to convince you - it will just happen over time now. The die has been cast. There would have to be massive changes to undo this damage and restore faith in the American experiment with the world.

What conventional wisdom? The 4th estate was a complete mess in that time period - it's when the term yellow journalism was born for pete's sake! It started wars!! Corruption in government was just as big an issue then, if not larger. Companies truly bought representation outright - none of this "behind close doors" stuff. It was a mess.

The difference is you are living through it versus looking in the review mirror. The American Experiment is no closer to failing now than it was in at that time. American might not be the number one super power and may lose influence, but that was never a guarantee nor a requirement.

For the record, I think a lot of what is happening is double plus ungood. Some people, though, learn best by seeing their ideas tried and fail. Group A is taking their turn. Some of it will work and stick and (hopefully) most won't, then it will be Group B's turn. It has always been this way.

No it hasn't. This is unprecedented in the Western world outside of the rise of Fascism. Except this is crazy emperor behavior. Hitler wasn't a dumbass random noise generator. Trump is and he is making huge decisions that will have decades long ramifications on a whim. How anyone can pretend this is within normal parameters of a functioning system is beyond me.

So it takes decades to fix. So what? Your life may suck a bit more, but the system will go on long after you are gone. Your view is so narrow it is comical.

[stessier]

Without the EC Presidential candidates would only campaign in NY, CA, and TX.

I love this argument, given that currently almost all presidential general election visits are in a handful of states.



Clearly the Electoral College is a rousing success in getting candidates to campaign across the country.

Also, isn't it perhaps a tiny problem that NY, CA, and TX (i.e., three of the most populous states in the country) garnered a grand total of 2 general election visits?

And Fitzy, you can see all of the attention that gets lavished on Montana courtesy of the electoral college.

Doesn't that have more to do with assumed political alignment more than anything else? WI was in play this time so it got a lot of visits. When was the last time Montana or Kansas were in play?

[El Guapo]

Without the EC Presidential candidates would only campaign in NY, CA, and TX.

I love this argument, given that currently almost all presidential general election visits are in a handful of states.



Clearly the Electoral College is a rousing success in getting candidates to campaign across the country.

Also, isn't it perhaps a tiny problem that NY, CA, and TX (i.e., three of the most populous states in the country) garnered a grand total of 2 general election visits?

And Fitzy, you can see all of the attention that gets lavished on Montana courtesy of the electoral college.

Doesn't that have more to do with assumed political alignment more than anything else? WI was in play this time so it got a lot of visits. When was the last time Montana or Kansas were in play?

Right, that's exactly my point. Moliere's (and Fitzy's, I think) EC argument (which is one of the main arguments) is that without the EC people would only campaign in a few states and would ignore less populous states. My point is that they do that now with the EC. It's just that candidates spend their time in the few states that happen to have roughly comparable numbers of democrats and republicans, rather than focusing their efforts on states or regions where lots of people live.

[stessier]

Why didn't you just say that?

[malchior]

Yeah, I'm with Fitzy. It was specifically designed to be hard to do anything. No one trusted the federal government - the states were supposed to take the lead.

The view you present is very myopic. The US wasn't a super power for it's first 150 years and we all survived. The 4th Estate was in much worse shape in the 1880s-1910s and we all survived. The country has retrenched before and always found a way to continue progressing forward because people believe in the ideal and will fight for it. This time will be no different. Progress isn't always pretty or easy.

I think it is telling that literally no one has actually addressed the analysis. Instead there are repetitions of accepted conventional wisdom. The conventional wisdom is wrong. It is happening before your eyes but you won't accept it yet. Unfortunately I don't have to convince you - it will just happen over time now. The die has been cast. There would have to be massive changes to undo this damage and restore faith in the American experiment with the world.

What conventional wisdom? The 4th estate was a complete mess in that time period - it's when the term yellow journalism was born for pete's sake! It started wars!! Corruption in government was just as big an issue then, if not larger. Companies truly bought representation outright - none of this "behind close doors" stuff. It was a mess.

The arguments so far has been the usual small state representation angle. Or that it protects from the tyranny of the majority. That has been the conventional wisdom about the stability of our system. My argument is that has been proven wrong. Maybe not apparent to all yet but it is wrong. Yes there was corruption in the past. It got addressed. This isn't about corruption. It is about the long-term stability and feasibility of the system.

I am arguing that the instability will only get worse. Our form of Government does not resemble the well-ordered machine it has been since Reconstruction. It just isn't. Several things have happened just in this election cycle that have never happened before that depart dramatically from the norm. The last decade has been outside the norms by wide margins.

The difference is you are living through it versus looking in the review mirror. The American Experiment is no closer to failing now than it was in at that time. American might not be the number one super power and may lose influence, but that was never a guarantee nor a requirement.

This is beyond "Superpower" status. Keeping that indefinitely was never a realistic goal or even a desirable one to be honest.

So it takes decades to fix. So what? Your life may suck a bit more, but the system will go on long after you are gone. Your view is so narrow it is comical.

How is my argument the narrow view? The myopic view is looking at this and seeing it as part of the norm. It has little to do with living 'through it'. In fact, I'd argue it is hardest to see systemic failure while you are living it. But this system has never seen failures of individual systems in this manner. Watergate had elements. The civil rights era had moments. Pre-civil war had strong echoes. But nothing that was as widespread as we see now. This is completely new. I'll say I sincerely hope it will self-correct but it seems naive to believe it will. So you can think I'm over reacting but all I see is arguments in favor of ignoring the fire blazing around them because the house is supposedly fireproof.

[Daveman]

Was listening in while driving home and had to turn it off. Almost didn't even make it through Pence's ass kissing warm up but couldn't take much more.

[malchior]

+1. Listening to Trump pivot from killing the planet to his tax plan -- which doesn't really exist -- back to explaining why he is basically resigning from leader of the free world was painful. He is such a fucking moron.

[Max Peck]

To what extent can state governments mitigate the lack of federal leadership on environmental issues?

[stessier]

Yeah, I'm with Fitzy. It was specifically designed to be hard to do anything. No one trusted the federal government - the states were supposed to take the lead.

The view you present is very myopic. The US wasn't a super power for it's first 150 years and we all survived. The 4th Estate was in much worse shape in the 1880s-1910s and we all survived. The country has retrenched before and always found a way to continue progressing forward because people believe in the ideal and will fight for it. This time will be no different. Progress isn't always pretty or easy.

I think it is telling that literally no one has actually addressed the analysis. Instead there are repetitions of accepted conventional wisdom. The conventional wisdom is wrong. It is happening before your eyes but you won't accept it yet. Unfortunately I don't have to convince you - it will just happen over time now. The die has been cast. There would have to be massive changes to undo this damage and restore faith in the American experiment with the world.

What conventional wisdom? The 4th estate was a complete mess in that time period - it's when the term yellow journalism was born for pete's sake! It started wars!! Corruption in government was just as big an issue then, if not larger. Companies truly bought representation outright - none of this "behind close doors" stuff. It was a mess.

The arguments so far has been the usual small state representation angle. Or that it protects from the tyranny of the majority. That has been the conventional wisdom about the stability of our system. My argument is that has been proven wrong. Maybe not apparent to all yet but it is wrong. Yes there was corruption in the past. It got addressed. This isn't about corruption. It is about the long-term stability and feasibility of the system.

I am arguing that the instability will only get worse. Our form of Government does not resemble the well-ordered machine it has been since Reconstruction. It just isn't. Several things have happened just in this election cycle that have never happened before that depart dramatically from the norm. The last decade has been outside the norms by wide margins.

And you have nothing but vague hand waving and doom saying to prove that it is breaking down. I say where the federal government breaks down the states will pick up. California has tighter environmental standards than the feds ever did. Obamacare came Romneycare and is still working in MA.

And it will be quite easy to get everyone aligned again - we just need an outside threat. There is an interesting analysis showing this all started getting much more partisan when the Soviet Union collapsed. That article is about the environment, but it is easy to extrapolate. It makes sense too.

The difference is you are living through it versus looking in the review mirror. The American Experiment is no closer to failing now than it was in at that time. American might not be the number one super power and may lose influence, but that was never a guarantee nor a requirement.

This is beyond "Superpower" status. Keeping that indefinitely was never a realistic goal or even a desirable one to be honest.

Then you really have to define your terms. What is "The American Experiment"? What is it that you see we had in the past but are lacking going forward? Specifically. Saying we are more partisan alone is pretty meaningless. What is it that isn't getting done that was always getting done previously?

So it takes decades to fix. So what? Your life may suck a bit more, but the system will go on long after you are gone. Your view is so narrow it is comical.

How is my argument the narrow view? The myopic view is looking at this and seeing it as part of the norm. It has little to do with living 'through it'. In fact, I'd argue it is hardest to see systemic failure while you are living it. But this system has never seen failures of individual systems in this manner. Watergate had elements. The civil rights era had moments. Pre-civil war had strong echoes. But nothing that was as widespread as we see now. This is completely new. I'll say I sincerely hope it will self-correct but it seems naive to believe it will. So you can think I'm over reacting but all I see is arguments in favor of ignoring the fire blazing around them because the house is supposedly fireproof.

Who is ignoring it? We are all saying things are bad! We are just saying that we can work to fix it rather than throwing in the towel and all hope is lost. Well meaning people always step up and get the work done - just as it as always been.

[Max Peck]

While a heated debate about senate reform is ironically appropos for this topic, perhaps it warrants a thread of its own.

[hepcat]

The only thing I can take solace in right now is that he has, at most, 1 full term before his ass gets kicked to the curb and states start scrambling to get their name off the potential presidential library site bearing his name at the end of it all. Then hopefully an adult like Dwayne "The Rock" Johnson, Kim Kardashian/Kanye West or one of those old guy muppets that used to heckle Kermit and his gang will step in and fix things.

[Captain Caveman]

+1. Listening to Trump pivot from killing the planet to his tax plan -- which doesn't really exist -- back to explaining why he is basically resigning from leader of the free world was painful. He is such a fucking moron.

I wish being moron was all he was, but with this Paris decision and his health care bill, he's much more than that. He's a villain endangering lives, my kids' included. I don't care if it comes from a place of malevolence or ignorance, the effect is the same.

Listening to him in the rose garden, he seems to think global warming and the Paris accords are conspiracies to disadvantage the American economy. His reasoning for abandoning the agreement was borne out of such transparent insecurity and resentment-- "they're all laughing at us" and "they're pulling one over on us" kind of nonsense.

[Kraken]

To what extent can state governments mitigate the lack of federal leadership on environmental issues?

One small example

Boston Mayor Martin J. Walsh said Wednesday that plans to hold an international climate summit in Boston this summer, an event announced to fanfare last year in Beijing, have been scrapped for lack of federal support.

...

At his news conference, Walsh vowed that Boston would join other cities in the fight against climate change. Through the Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative, a program that took effect across the Northeast in 2008, emissions from regional power plants have fallen nearly 40 percent. In Massachusetts, state law requires officials to cut emissions 25 percent below 1990 levels by 2020 — and 80 percent below those levels by 2050.

“We will not let this be undone by foolish political reasons,” Walsh said of the Paris agreement. “Our city depends upon it, our future depends upon it, our future generations depend upon it. Our planet depends upon it.”

As part of that effort, Walsh said, city officials are considering hosting an independent summit and have discussed the possibility with Kerry.

Without federal support, of course, American states and NGOs have one hand tied behind their backs viz a viz the rest of the world. We can fight the good fight but we can't compete on an even footing in the emerging green economy.

[stessier]

To what extent can state governments mitigate the lack of federal leadership on environmental issues?

They can pass tougher environmental standard. Maybe. CA got a waver from the EPA for their auto regulations - something the EPA is said to be considering rescinding. They can give the usual benefits and incentives to promote cleaner solutions. For instance, there are both Federal and State tax breaks for installing solar power and driving electric vehicles. It will obviously be more limited in scope.

[Grifman]

Also it's important to remember that due to the unrepresentative nature of the Senate, you can control over a third of Senate seats with far less than that in votes, due to 300,000 people in Montana counting as much as tens of millions in California. Which means that probably something like 20% of voters (not even 20% of the population, mind you) can cockblock the entire U.S. treaty function.

Of course that ignores the small Democratic states like Rhode Island, Vermont, Delaware that can do the same as Montana. It's not like the R have a lock on small population states.

And for the record, Montana has over 1 million people in it, more than Vermont and Delaware, and almost as many as Rhode Island.