Jim Geraghty reported the latest salvo in the Climate Change takeover: the Obama administration is helping the UN craft an “accord” to implement draconian cuts in fossil fuels, wealth transfers to third-world nations, and compel nations to enact laws reducing their carbon footprint.
It smells like a treaty. It tastes like a treaty. It looks like a treaty. But it’s not. Because a treaty requires that annoying and recalcitrant one-hundred-club—the U.S. Senate—to ratify it. According to the New York Times:
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.
What sorcery is this? Do these people really think they rule the world? Guy Benson at Townhall is scratching his head, like the rest of us.
Magic, swoons the guy from the left-wing environmental group whose homepage features a video from actor Robert Redford lashing out at "big oil." I'd call it confusing, at best. The US would be "legally required" (how?) to "enact" (does that require Congress, or are they just for show?) some form of "domestic climate change policies." What would satisfy that so-called requirement? Any bill at all? It's unclear. But then the emissions targets themselves would be entirely voluntary, even as signatory nations would be "obligated to report their progress" towards those voluntary, non-binding pledges. Some of those details are to be hammered out at a drafting session in Peru before Christmas.
The only way these “voluntold” pledges can have real effect is if Obama is succeeded in office by Obama II, someone who is willing to live up to the ersatz “treaty”. I guarantee Moscow, Delhi, and Beijing won’t live up to it, so what’s the point? Yesterday, Erick wrote,
Frankly, I think global warming is a religion of a secular left that rejects the God of creation in favor of worship of creation. I think many of those involved in the science of global warming oppose capitalism in general and the United States in particular. I think they are manufacturing a panic and their solutions are designed to hinder economic progress. More so, the hysteria over global warming has now increased at a rapid pace because a new breed of entrepreneur and huckster have found new ways to get rich off these idiots using your tax dollars.
It’s a deeper issue, because the panic is a cover for the “solution”, and the solution is going to be shoved down our throats. Regardless of the fact that the 1997 Kyoto protocol were unanimously rejected by the Senate under Clinton’s administration, the blame for the Earth’s imminent demise will be laid at Republicans’ feet—the whole Earth not just the USA. These people are trying to say that the U.S. Senate has the power to save or condemn our planet, and that Climate-Change denying conservatives are evil, Earth-destroying monsters, who deserve to be bypassed.
I believe that at some point, Climate-Change denial will be classified as a crime against humanity. First, it will be “accords” like this one, designed to “name and shame” nations who don’t meet voluntary carbon reductions. Then, it will be specific leaders and politicians who refuse to “enact” the legal basis for these reductions. Then, it will be those same power-grabbing world-rulers who will set up some international court to determine if such leaders are guilty of planet-killing. Finally, there will be indictments and trials.
Care or not about Climate Change (and I agree with Erick’s position), those who think they rule the world will do their best to enforce their will, using it as their sword. There’s no way we should let Obama’s negotiators get away with this. Congress would do well to craft legislation prohibiting us from signing the Climate Change accord in Peru next year—it’s a matter of preserving their own relevance and the rule of law.
Now would be a good time to call or email your Senator and Congressman about this.