Copenhagen Conference Appears Ready to end in Failure
James Heiser | John Birch Society
18 December 2009
As reported yesterday, a lot of factors have been building to this moment in Copenhagen. What would happen as the conference came to a close and President Obama took the podium?
Now we know. Obama’s speech was virtually free of substance, set forth in a dull "talking point" format. There was nothing by way of "game changing" content, just the "third act" in the drama of an administration which has shown naked contempt for the Constitution.
First, the EPA decided to ignore the constitutional legislative process: If the Senate would not go fast enough on “cap and trade,” the bureaucracy would simply make the law for them. Second, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton also ignored the legislative branch of government, and decreed the level of American financial support which would be provided. In the wake of Mrs. Clinton, Obama’s speech was a dud; he literally had nothing to add to the previous day’s remarks by his Secretary of State.
The radical environmentalists and Internationalists built up the UN Climate Change Conference as the greatest opportunity to restructure the global economic and political order with a binding treaty shackling the prosperous countries to a scheme to transfer their wealth to the Third World. And at the same time that economic growth throughout the world would come under the control of bureaucrats determining what future development would be permitted. The environmental elite allegedly wrote their secret draft for a treaty, while wringing their hands about the fate of the “global democratic system.”
Meanwhile, the reaction to nations around the world to the Copenhagen proposals has been anemic. Australian PM Kevin Rudd found himself abandoned by his own government when the Senate rejected his “cap and trade” scheme. The Chinese have made it fairly clear that they have no interest in any agreement that actually involves effective monitoring that could determine whether they were abiding by any agreement they signed.
According to the WhiteHouse.gov transcript of the President’s remarks, Obama set forth a three point plan of action:
Read: “And I’m sure I’ve talked the Senate into a corner to fulfill my posturing here in Copenhagen.” When did “we” make a commitment to 17 percent by 2020 and 80 percent by 2050? The claim is absurd. For one thing, the fact is that such reductions are impossible to achieve without devastating the American economy. Furthermore, if any foolhardy “cap and trade” scheme is passed by the Senate and then subjected to negotiation with the House before finished legislation finally reaches the President’s desk, the “commitments” will be subjected to a process of negotiation in which Mr. Obama is only one player — and given his cratering poll numbers, and the approaching mid-term elections, his ability influence Congress may be diminishing by the hour.
Besides, talk of “final legislation” about actions to be undertaken two generations from now is utter nonsense. The only way that anyone will remember the absurd fiction of man-made climate change in 2050 is if UN gains the power to impose its will on the nations of the Earth for generations, because short-sighted politicians in 2009 and 2010 were foolish enough to choose a few minutes of glory in the spotlights over the prosperity of their nations for generations to come.
Need not “infringe upon sovereignty”? I’m sorry, but how gullible are we supposed to be? We’re talking about radical regulation of gases (e.g. carbon dioxide and methane) which human beings produce just by living — and that’s before you talk about regulating every aspect of human existence from the food that we eat, to the clothes that we wear, to the color we paint our homes and the transportation that takes us to work. It means regulations that will determine where you can go on vacation, and how you’ll get there — if for no other reason than because air travel will probably become so expensive because of “carbon credits” that the relatively inexpensive air travel of the past generation will come to a sudden conclusion.
“Need not be intrusive”? By definition, it will be the most pervasive regulation of human life conceivable.
Again, this is transparently nonsense. Mr. Obama has no legal, constitutional authority to make such a commitment. Legislators do not like presidential hubris which simply takes their compliance for granted.
The United States of America is essentially broke. If our nation were a corporation or a family, it would already have declared bankruptcy. Are we going to borrow billions of dollars from the Chinese, who are earning that money by being the biggest producers of “greenhouse gases” on the planet? How high is the "debt ceiling" supposed to go to fuel one man’s aspirations?
Yes, the question is whether that will be “beyond the point of no return.” Personally, I don’t think so. The theory that was the legitimization for this entire conference is “on the ropes,” as they say. What is needed is for pressure to be applied on Congress for hearings that will investigate the “Climategate” scandal. Every recipient of federal funds in the form of research grants, pilot projects, etc. related to this theory needs to face scrutiny. That’s the “transparency” which the people need, and which has been sorely lacking for a long time.
According to the latest update at the official conference website, those who would be presume to be the masters of the world’s destiny are further revising their immediate expectations in the wake of the failures of the past week.
Of course, the world won’t be safe until these delegations are all safely on their way back home, but perhaps the worst has been averted for now. What legal status, if any, such a “Copenhagen Accord” will have is unknown at this point. For now, the conference appears to have simply degenerated to the unintended humor of a UN resolution declaring that the "limit of a maximum two degree Celsius global average temperature rise" will be in effect. Good luck on that. While the delegates are at work on that, perhaps they can adopt an immediate resolution canceling the blizzard that is supposed to hit the east coast. Perhaps a "standing committee" can go to work determining how many sunny days various regions are to be allotted per year, too.
SOURCE:
http://www.jbs.org/jbs-news-feed/5782-copenhagen-conference-appears-ready-to-end-in-failure
James Heiser | John Birch Society
18 December 2009
As reported yesterday, a lot of factors have been building to this moment in Copenhagen. What would happen as the conference came to a close and President Obama took the podium?
Now we know. Obama’s speech was virtually free of substance, set forth in a dull "talking point" format. There was nothing by way of "game changing" content, just the "third act" in the drama of an administration which has shown naked contempt for the Constitution.
First, the EPA decided to ignore the constitutional legislative process: If the Senate would not go fast enough on “cap and trade,” the bureaucracy would simply make the law for them. Second, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton also ignored the legislative branch of government, and decreed the level of American financial support which would be provided. In the wake of Mrs. Clinton, Obama’s speech was a dud; he literally had nothing to add to the previous day’s remarks by his Secretary of State.
The radical environmentalists and Internationalists built up the UN Climate Change Conference as the greatest opportunity to restructure the global economic and political order with a binding treaty shackling the prosperous countries to a scheme to transfer their wealth to the Third World. And at the same time that economic growth throughout the world would come under the control of bureaucrats determining what future development would be permitted. The environmental elite allegedly wrote their secret draft for a treaty, while wringing their hands about the fate of the “global democratic system.”
Meanwhile, the reaction to nations around the world to the Copenhagen proposals has been anemic. Australian PM Kevin Rudd found himself abandoned by his own government when the Senate rejected his “cap and trade” scheme. The Chinese have made it fairly clear that they have no interest in any agreement that actually involves effective monitoring that could determine whether they were abiding by any agreement they signed.
According to the WhiteHouse.gov transcript of the President’s remarks, Obama set forth a three point plan of action:
First, all major economies must put forward decisive national actions that will reduce their emissions, and begin to turn the corner on climate change. I'm pleased that many of us have already done so. Almost all the major economies have put forward legitimate targets, significant targets, ambitious targets. And I'm confident that America will fulfill the commitments that we have made: cutting our emissions in the range of 17 percent by 2020, and by more than 80 percent by 2050 in line with final legislation.
Read: “And I’m sure I’ve talked the Senate into a corner to fulfill my posturing here in Copenhagen.” When did “we” make a commitment to 17 percent by 2020 and 80 percent by 2050? The claim is absurd. For one thing, the fact is that such reductions are impossible to achieve without devastating the American economy. Furthermore, if any foolhardy “cap and trade” scheme is passed by the Senate and then subjected to negotiation with the House before finished legislation finally reaches the President’s desk, the “commitments” will be subjected to a process of negotiation in which Mr. Obama is only one player — and given his cratering poll numbers, and the approaching mid-term elections, his ability influence Congress may be diminishing by the hour.
Besides, talk of “final legislation” about actions to be undertaken two generations from now is utter nonsense. The only way that anyone will remember the absurd fiction of man-made climate change in 2050 is if UN gains the power to impose its will on the nations of the Earth for generations, because short-sighted politicians in 2009 and 2010 were foolish enough to choose a few minutes of glory in the spotlights over the prosperity of their nations for generations to come.
Second, we must have a mechanism to review whether we are keeping our commitments, and exchange this information in a transparent manner. These measures need not be intrusive, or infringe upon sovereignty. They must, however, ensure that an accord is credible, and that we're living up to our obligations. Without such accountability, any agreement would be empty words on a page.
I don't know how you have an international agreement where we all are not sharing information and ensuring that we are meeting our commitments. That doesn't make sense. It would be a hollow victory.
I don't know how you have an international agreement where we all are not sharing information and ensuring that we are meeting our commitments. That doesn't make sense. It would be a hollow victory.
Need not “infringe upon sovereignty”? I’m sorry, but how gullible are we supposed to be? We’re talking about radical regulation of gases (e.g. carbon dioxide and methane) which human beings produce just by living — and that’s before you talk about regulating every aspect of human existence from the food that we eat, to the clothes that we wear, to the color we paint our homes and the transportation that takes us to work. It means regulations that will determine where you can go on vacation, and how you’ll get there — if for no other reason than because air travel will probably become so expensive because of “carbon credits” that the relatively inexpensive air travel of the past generation will come to a sudden conclusion.
“Need not be intrusive”? By definition, it will be the most pervasive regulation of human life conceivable.
Number three, we must have financing that helps developing countries adapt, particularly the least developed and most vulnerable countries to climate change. America will be a part of fast-start funding that will ramp up to $10 billion by 2012. And yesterday, Secretary Hillary Clinton, my Secretary of State, made it clear that we will engage in a global effort to mobilize $100 billion in financing by 2020, if -- and only if -- it is part of a broader accord that I have just described.
Again, this is transparently nonsense. Mr. Obama has no legal, constitutional authority to make such a commitment. Legislators do not like presidential hubris which simply takes their compliance for granted.
The United States of America is essentially broke. If our nation were a corporation or a family, it would already have declared bankruptcy. Are we going to borrow billions of dollars from the Chinese, who are earning that money by being the biggest producers of “greenhouse gases” on the planet? How high is the "debt ceiling" supposed to go to fuel one man’s aspirations?
Mitigation. Transparency. Financing. It's a clear formula — one that embraces the principle of common but differentiated responses and respective capabilities. And it adds up to a significant accord — one that takes us farther than we have ever gone before as an international community.
Yes, the question is whether that will be “beyond the point of no return.” Personally, I don’t think so. The theory that was the legitimization for this entire conference is “on the ropes,” as they say. What is needed is for pressure to be applied on Congress for hearings that will investigate the “Climategate” scandal. Every recipient of federal funds in the form of research grants, pilot projects, etc. related to this theory needs to face scrutiny. That’s the “transparency” which the people need, and which has been sorely lacking for a long time.
According to the latest update at the official conference website, those who would be presume to be the masters of the world’s destiny are further revising their immediate expectations in the wake of the failures of the past week.
A new draft for a global climate deal in Copenhagen has leaked to the press. The draft has been named the “Copenhagen Accord”, Reuters reports.
Earlier it was reported by the media, that the heads of state and government could not agree on what to call the text negotiated.
In the new draft a reference to an end-2010 deadline for reaching a legally binding treaty was removed, compared to a previous draft, Reuters reports.
The draft did still include a limit of a maximum two degree Celsius global average temperature rise.
According to Danish media, a probable scenario at the end of Friday afternoon is that the world leaders continue negotiations until the early evening.
Earlier it was reported by the media, that the heads of state and government could not agree on what to call the text negotiated.
In the new draft a reference to an end-2010 deadline for reaching a legally binding treaty was removed, compared to a previous draft, Reuters reports.
The draft did still include a limit of a maximum two degree Celsius global average temperature rise.
According to Danish media, a probable scenario at the end of Friday afternoon is that the world leaders continue negotiations until the early evening.
Of course, the world won’t be safe until these delegations are all safely on their way back home, but perhaps the worst has been averted for now. What legal status, if any, such a “Copenhagen Accord” will have is unknown at this point. For now, the conference appears to have simply degenerated to the unintended humor of a UN resolution declaring that the "limit of a maximum two degree Celsius global average temperature rise" will be in effect. Good luck on that. While the delegates are at work on that, perhaps they can adopt an immediate resolution canceling the blizzard that is supposed to hit the east coast. Perhaps a "standing committee" can go to work determining how many sunny days various regions are to be allotted per year, too.
SOURCE:
http://www.jbs.org/jbs-news-feed/5782-copenhagen-conference-appears-ready-to-end-in-failure
