Why the recent Communist China - Capitalist USA "climate accord" is an illusion and means nothing

Lawyer Jack Goldsmith says it right:

re The USA.-China Climate "Deal" Does Less Than Has Been Hyped


I am (as I have previously noted) no expert on climate change.  But
reading the text of the much-vaunted U.S.-China Joint Announcement on
Climate Change makes me think there is a large gap between how the
document is being spun and what it actually does.  

"US and China reach
historic climate change deal, vow to cut emissions," said the [silly and thoughtless] CNN
headline, which was typical of how the [capitalist] press spun the announcement.

"In a historic climate change deal," the CNN story began, "U.S.
Capitalist President Barack Obama and Chinese Communist President Xi Jinping announced both
countries will curb [MAYBE SORT OF PERHAPS IT WILL NEVER HAPPEN!] their greenhouse gas emissions over the next two
decades." 

BULLSHIT! THIS IS MEDIA ILLUSION. FRIENDS, WE ARE DOOMED, DOOMED. CHINA DOES NOT CARE. THE USA CARES BUT IS STUCK IN POLITICAL GRIDLOCK. NOTHING WILL CHANGE.

But the two countries made no "deal" on emissions reduction, and they
made no "vow" about emissions reductions, and they did not announce
that they "will" curb greenhouse gas emissions over the next two
decades. IT WAS PURE INTERNATIONAL PR SPIN

The key provision (with Jack's emphasis added) is as follows:

The United States intends to achieve an economy-wide target of
reducing its emissions by 26%-28% below its 2005 level in 2025 and to
make best efforts to reduce its emissions by 28%.  China intends to
achieve the peaking of CO2 emissions around 2030 and to make best
efforts to peak early and intends to increase the share of non-fossil
fuels in primary energy consumption to around 20% by 2030.  Both sides
intend to continue to work to increase ambition over time.

Here the two sides do not promise to, or state that they will, reduceemissions by a certain amount.  SEE? 

Rather, they state only that they
intend to achieve emissions reductions and to make best efforts in so
doing.  

Whether and how the goals expressed in these intentions willbe reached is left unaddressed, and one nation's intention is not in
any way tied to the other's.  

AND CHINA IS A COMMIE DICTATORSHIP INTEND ON WORLD CONTROL AND LIES EVERYDAY TO ITS OWN PEOPLE AND THE GULLIBLE WESTERN MEDIA. FUCK RED CHINA!

Nor would it be a violation of the
"announcement" if either side's best efforts fail to achieve the
intended targets.  As we have seen with a lot with climate change
aspirations, intentions are easy to state, and they change over time.
The key point is that this document in no way locks in the current
intentions.  In fact it creates no obligations whatsoever, not even
soft ones (except that, in a different place, both sides "commit" to
"reaching an ambitious ... agreement" next year, an empty commitment).
It is no accident that the document is called an "announcement" and
not a treaty or pledge or even an agreement.