US Senate warns: No money for Obama’s Paris climate promises 

Posted: November 20, 2015 by oldbrew in alarmism, climate, Politics
Tags:

Much ado about nothing?

Much ado about nothing?


The Paris climate conference is already looking like an expensive waste of time, judging by this report.

The US Senate sent a powerful and unmistakable message to UN climate delegates this week: Don’t expect any US money for Obama’s climate promises.

52 U.S. Senators voted to block an Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) rule this week that would curb carbon emissions from existing coal-fired power plants. Passing the resolution without a veto-proof vote (the President has already promised not to sign it) makes this act of defiance symbolic only. But with the Paris climate summit just a week and a half away, it’s powerful symbolism indeed.


The Senate is sending a clear message to the world’s climate delegates, who are busy prepping for the impending COP21 conference: This legislative body won’t ratify any kind of binding Global Climate Treaty (GCT), so don’t even try.

Secretary of State John Kerry tried to side-step this problem last week when he insisted negotiators wouldn’t be working on a treaty in France, a comment that immediately inspired backlash and spurred the French foreign minister to suggest that Mr. Kerry was probably “confused.”

But let’s clear any confusion up now: The United States won’t sign on to a binding, enforceable GCT. So what else is there for UN delegates to work towards, if such a treaty is off the table?

Report: US Senate Sends The World A Message: Don’t Expect Any Money For Obama’s Climate Promises | The Global Warming Policy Forum (GWPF)

Comments
  1. goldminor says:
    November 20, 2015 at 10:26 am

    This is great news, and yes Kerry is always slightly confused.

  2. Gail Combs says:
    November 20, 2015 at 12:19 pm

    You missed the fact that the Congress instead ratified a stealth treaty. It was kept completely secret and only and up-down vote by Congress, with no modification was allowed. Thursday they just released the 5,544-page text of the Trans-Pacific Partnership The agreement involving 12 countries comprises nearly 40 percent of global economic output.

    I did read ALL of the Obummercare bill and the Food Safety Modernization bill but I just don’t have the will to read this monstrosity.

    I found a Synopsis FROM THE US GOVERNMENT
    It had this nasty surprise:

    ENVIRONMENT
    As home to a significant portion of the world’s people, wildlife, plants and marine species, TPP Parties share a strong commitment to protecting and conserving the environment, including by working together to address environmental challenges, such as pollution, illegal wildlife trafficking, illegal logging, illegal fishing, and protection of the marine environment….
    They reaffirm their commitment to implement the multilateral environmental agreements (MEAs) they have joined. The Parties commit to provide transparency in environmental decision-making, implementation and enforcement….. Finally, the Parties commit to cooperate to address matters of joint or common interest, including in the areas of conservation and sustainable use of biodiversity, and transition to low-emissions and resilient economies.

    THE TEETH!
    Unlike some other treaties the TPP has enforcement. Worse, as can be seen if you read between the lines it has ENFORCEMENT FOR OTHER TREATIES! The Groniad says this about the Trans-Pacific Partnership trade agreement:

    Leading arbitration lawyer, George Kahale (chairman of Curtis, Mallet-Provost, Colt & Mosie LLP, an international law firm) says there are critical loopholes in the Trans-Pacific Partnership’s investment chapter that leave Australia wide open:

    ….an MFN clause is tantamount to a classic wipeout move. It would enable foreign corporations from TPP states to make a claim against Australia based on the ISDS provisions in any other trade deal Australia has signed, no matter which country it was signed with. That means it does not matter how carefully the TPP is drafted: foreign investors can cherrypick another treaty Australia has signed, and sue the Australian government based on the provisions included in that treaty…..”
    http://www.theguardian.com/business/2015/nov/10/tpps-clauses-that-let-australia-be-sued-are-weapons-of-legal-destruction-says-lawyer

    Back to the US Government synopsis we find:

    DISPUTE SETTLEMENT
    The Dispute Settlement chapter is intended to allow Parties to expeditiously address disputes between them over implementation of the TPP. ….TPP Parties aim to have these disputes resolved through impartial, unbiased panels. … hearings will be open to the public unless the disputing Parties otherwise agree, and the final report presented by panels will also be made available to the public. Panels will consider requests from non-governmental entities located in the territory of any disputing Party to provide written views regarding the dispute to panels during dispute settlement proceedings.

    Should consultations fail to resolve an issue, Parties may request establishment of a panel, which would be established within 60 days after the date of receipt of a request for consultations or 30 days after the date of receipt of a request related to perishable goods. Panels will be composed of three international trade and subject matter experts independent of the disputing Parties, with procedures available to ensure that a panel can be composed even if a Party fails to appoint a panelist within a set period of time. These panelists will be subject to a code of conduct to ensure the integrity of the dispute settlement mechanism. … The final report must be presented no later than 30 days after the presentation of the initial report and must be made public within 15 days, subject to the protection of any confidential information in the report.

    To maximize compliance, the Dispute Settlement chapter allows for the use of trade retaliation (e.g., suspension of benefits), if a Party found not to have complied with its obligations fails to bring itself into compliance with its obligations. Before use of trade retaliation, a Party found in violation can negotiate or arbitrate a reasonable period of time in which to remedy the breach….

    So it looks like we got the Climate treaty only they called it the Trans-Pacific Partnership treaty. Anything agreed on and signed by Obummer in Paris is then enforcable under THIS TREATY that WAS RATIFIED by Congress. They really are sneaky b…stards.

    I won’t even get into the immigration open borders parts of this %&$%$#!

  3. Gail Combs says:
    November 20, 2015 at 12:29 pm

    A bit more on the USA and the signing of treaties.

    Under International Law the President of the United States can sign binding contracts with other Nations. These contracts are considered treaties under International Law and unless their unconstitutionality was manifestly obvious to the other nations at the time the treaty was contracted the United States is stuck with it even if it is later found Unconstitutional within the United States.

    U.S. law distinguishes what it calls treaties, which are derived from the Treaty Clause of the United States Constitution, from congressional-executive agreements and executive agreements. All three classes are considered treaties under international law; they are distinct only from the perspective of internal United States law…..”

    ……“So for instance, if the US Supreme Court found that a treaty violated the US constitution, it would no longer be binding on the US under US law; but it would still be binding on the US under international law, unless its unconstitutionality was manifestly obvious to the other states[nations] at the time the treaty was contracted.”…..
    (wwwDOT)allacademic.com/meta/p_mla_apa_research_citation/0/9/7/3/1/p97319_index.html?type=info (This is an old URL and all copies have been wiped.) So See
    (wwwDOT)alipac.us/f19/united-states-law-must-read-29691/
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treaty_Clause

    This is why a WORLD SUPREME COURT means a complete loss of sovereignty.

    The two biggies to be agreed on in Paris in December is a guilt tax on the USA of ONE TRILLION DOLLARS A YEAR, and a WORLD SUPREME COURT to enforce that tax. However with the TPP treaty I discussed above the Court is really not needed.

    31 Oct: STEALTH AGENDA: New UN Tribunal to Judge US for “Climate Debt”

    The official draft text of the climate treaty for the soon-to-start UN Climate Summit in Paris proposes to establish a global Supreme Court that would rule on issues such as “climate justice,” “climate finance,” “technology transfers,” and “climate debt.”
    Tucked away on page 19 of the 34-page document is the call for establishing an International Tribunal of Climate Justice. The text, which is still heavily bracketed with text that hasn’t been completely resolved and agreed upon, reads:

    “An International Tribunal of Climate Justice as][A] [compliance mechanism] is hereby established to address cases of non-compliance of the commitments of developed country Parties on mitigation, adaptation, [provision of] finance, technology development and transfer [and][,] capacity-building[,] and transparency of action and support, including through the development of an indicative list of consequences, taking into account the cause, type, degree and frequency of non-compliance.”

    Courting Climate Tyranny
    With all of the world’s politically correct politicians and all of the world’s “progressive” journalistas and Big Media commentariat daily hyperventilating over the ever-growing list of alleged threats and catastrophes caused by global warming, it might be expected that there would be some mention of this planned environmental judicial system for the planet. However, since the text was released on October 20, there has been a virtual blackout in the major media regarding this revolutionary development…

  4. pyromancer76 says:
    November 20, 2015 at 4:46 pm

    Thanks to tallbloke, oldbrew, and Gail Combs. How to get a handle on this juggernaut!?! In the U.S., I think it is Donald Trump. It must be borders first, national sovereignty second, limited government power third. Then, threaten fraudulent scientists/government agencies and their altered records/raw data with jail time. After that what to do about the IT corporations being part of the Borg and the problem of very little free press (bought by and for the purposes of the Borg). Thanks to sites like tallbloke’s for doing the work of the fourth estate.

  5. Gail Combs says:
    November 21, 2015 at 11:46 am

    pyromancer76 I agree Donald Trump. If you use support for CAGW, immigration amnesty and the Trans-Pacific Partnership, it wipes out just about everyone else!

  6. oldbrew says:
    November 21, 2015 at 3:45 pm

    ‘Three senators introduced a resolution Thursday stating their objection to the United Nations climate talks in Paris.’
    http://www.thegwpf.com/us-senators-obamas-climate-deal-will-have-no-force-or-effect-without-us-approval/

    Definite signs of resistance to climate bulldozing tactics in US political circles.

  7. oldbrew says:
    November 22, 2015 at 1:23 pm

    For anyone who may have missed it…

    ‘Inhofe reiterates Green Climate Fund is not getting a US contribution’
    http://junkscience.com/2015/11/inhofe-reiterates-green-climate-fund-is-not-getting-a-us-contribution/