Free Markets, Free People

Climate change treaty: “Constitution? Obama don’t need no stinkin’ Constitution!”

Well, if reports are true it appears our self-crowned king has decided he’s found a way to obligate us to a treaty without following the Constitution’s proviso for doing so.

In seeking to go around Congress to push his international climate change agenda, Mr. Obama is echoing his domestic climate strategy. In June, he bypassed Congress and used his executive authority to order a far-reaching regulation forcing American coal-fired power plants to curb their carbon emissions….

American negotiators are instead homing in on a hybrid agreement — a proposal to blend legally binding conditions from an existing 1992 treaty with new voluntary pledges. The mix would create a deal that would update the treaty, and thus, negotiators say, not require a new vote of ratification.

Countries would be legally required to enact domestic climate change policies — but would voluntarily pledge to specific levels of emissions cuts and to channel money to poor countries to help them adapt to climate change. Countries might then be legally obligated to report their progress toward meeting those pledges at meetings held to identify those nations that did not meet their cuts.

“There’s some legal and political magic to this,” said Jake Schmidt, an expert in global climate negotiations with the Natural Resources Defense Council, an advocacy group. “They’re trying to move this as far as possible without having to reach the 67-vote threshold” in the Senate.

“Political magic”?  Is that the state of our nation now – we resort to “political magic” when we can’t get our way as the Constitution requires?  Well, yes.

Here’s how:

President Obama seems to be following a script laid out in May, 2014 by former Undersecretary for Global Affairs Timothy Wirth, who was the Clinton Administration’s lead negotiator for the Kyoto Protocol, and former South Dakota Senator Thomas Daschle who astutely asserted that “the international community should stop chasing the chimera of a binding treaty to limit CO2 emissions.” They further noted that more than two decades of U.N. climate negotiations have failed because “nations could not agree on who is to blame, on how to allocate emissions, or on projections for the future.”

Wirth and Daschle are advocating that the climate negotiators adopt a system of “pledge and review” at the 2015 Paris conference of the parties to the UNFCCC. In such a scheme nations would make specific pledges to cut their carbon emissions, to adopt clean energy technologies, and to wring more GDP out of each ton of carbon emitted. The parties would review their progress toward reducing greenhouse gas emissions every three years and make further pledges as necessary to achieve the goal of keeping the increase in average global temperature under 2°C. Since there would be no legally binding targets, there would be no treaty that would require politically difficult ratification. If insufficient progress is being made by 2020 they argue that countries should consider adopting globally coordinated price on carbon.

Now this isn’t to say that this is going to work or even have an effect, but it is a blatant attempt to have one’s way (via “political magic”) while avoiding the unpleasantness of a failure to get a ratification by tw0-thirds of the Senate (its all about getting the leverage to pass a carbon tax).

And, as usual, Mr. Obama doesn’t care one whit about much more than getting his way – just ask Senate Democrats:

President Obama’s election-year plan to win a new international climate change accord is making vulnerable Democrats nervous.

The administration is in talks at the United Nations about a deal that would seek to reduce global greenhouse gas emissions by “naming and shaming” governments that fail to take significant action.

The State Department on Wednesday denied a report in The New York Times that the plan is to come up with a treaty that would not require Senate confirmation, but that appeared to provide cold comfort to Democrats worried the issue will revive GOP cries about an imperial Obama presidency.

One Democratic strategist said the proposal would put swing-state candidates who are critical to the party keeping its Senate majority “in front of the firing squad.”

“You’re … making it more difficult for them to win and certainty putting them in a position to lose,” the strategist said.

Silver linings … always look for the silver lining to those storm clouds.

And then there’s immigration …


13 Responses to Climate change treaty: “Constitution? Obama don’t need no stinkin’ Constitution!”

  • “They further noted that more than two decades of U.N. climate negotiations have failed because “nations could not agree on who is to blame, on how to allocate emissions, or on projections for the future.”
    Not to mention 2 decades of failed predictions and lies about climate change. Move along, nothing to see here.
    don’t matter anyway, we’re likely to have our hands full with ISIS in 2 weeks and the whole game will probably change then.
    No one is exactly afraid of Professional Golfers.

  • I honestly cannot find ONE thing that Pres. ScamWOW has done that was unambiguously pro-American.
    And I have a pretty good imagination.

  • Gonna be greaT when a GOP Pres uses “political magic” to criminalize abortion

    Or create strict voter id laws

    Or gut taxes

    Or roll back gun control laws


  • That apparently “easily defeated” ISIS thingy seems to have stymied puuuurrrrr Barracula. STILL can’t figure a strategery to try.
    Maybe they need to call the Maven Of Moosesqueeze in for a consult…

    • I’m sure the guys in that military thingie on the other side of the river from his crib have a few ideas they’ve suggested. Not that Valerie is going to let that happen.
      Give him a couple months, he’ll come around to something they suggested 3 months prior and when it doesn’t work because well, it’s not his fault that things changed while he was golfing and going to FUND raisers in the intervening months. I mean, what difference could a couple of months make in executing a military plan?
      Fund raisers for buddha’s sake, golf, no plan.
      I’m feeling no pity for my country though, maybe the collective that voted for him can pull some of their 2008 feel good bullshirt delusion out of their hats now and make all this go away like they did when the oceans stopped rising and the world stopped getting warmer.

      • Oh, and if a guy would willingly blow himself to vapor with a suicide vest, what would keep him from voluntarily contracting Ebola and getting on a plane for New York City?

        • Been thinking that since the outbreak and the rush of Honduran ‘children’ over our southern borders.
          Or maybe one of our grateful Somali refugees ‘from Minnesota’.
          or… or… or….
          This isn’t just Dale’s kangaroo (hop hop hop), this is a brigade of kangaroos, hopping across the naked plain in close order to intersect the highway in front of us.
          I mean, who could possibly predict what’s going to happen!
          Whatever it is the professional golfer will find out about it on the 5:00 news on Friday night like he does everything else, and I’m SURE he’ll have a speech on it within 24 hours, which he’ll schedule, and show up 1/2 an hour late for, then he’ll fly to 4 fund raisers, and he’ll get back to us with his plan in 2 months which will involve executive orders that violate Constitutional boundaries.

    • Oh, and we want them to know, even though we might be bombing them from on high, we’re NOT at war with them. Well, THAT’S good to know!
      I guess this must be, like, a pub fight, where we’re not really MAD at anyone, ‘ware juust in et fur the foightin ya see’.

    • Now did you ever think the infrastructure would suffer when Hugo declared that nasty greedy people who invested money in his country didn’t have any claim to their investments any more?

      • It’s kinda like the looter’s economics…
        The expropriations will continue until you running dog imperialists raise your foreign investments in the peeples.

  • Pledges and reviews sounds like more hot air. The methodology is to publicly sign the treaty, blame the Republicans for the Senates failure to ratify, then order the EPA to issue rules to accomplish the treaty’s goals. The EPA complies and the Senate Dems stop any legislative veto of their efforts.