Revealed: the breakthrough 2015 Paris Climate Agreement – 'do your own thing'

The agreement (seriously! 🙂 ): everyone can do their own thing –

After untold millions of dollars, years of essential travel to exotic holiday locations, and embarrassing failure after embarrassing failure, the world appears to finally be on the brink of signing a legally binding climate agreement.

The proposed agreement is, everyone can do their own thing.

According to the Sydney Morning Herald;

The United States is considering a proposal to combat climate change that would require countries to offer plans for curtailing greenhouse gas emissions on a certain schedule but would leave it to individual nations to determine how deep their cuts would be, said Todd Stern, the nation’s chief climate negotiator. …  Negotiators are aiming to sign that deal next year in Paris.”

I guess we can all feel a sense of relief, that all that effort, time and money has not been a total waste of resources – that it has finally yielded something tangible.

h/t to Eric Worrall

0 0 votes
Article Rating
Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
October 16, 2014 9:04 am

At this point they are settling for everyone just agreeing it’s a problem! Amazing.

Reply to  Mike
October 16, 2014 9:21 am

De ja vu? A few weeks back I pointed out this very problem. They are preparing us for failure.

Guardian – 29 September 2014
Beyond climate change treaties: ‘a deal in Paris is not essential’
Ahead of the climate conference in Paris, there is increasing discussion of a new way forward that does not depend on international agreements, reports Yale Environment 360
……But behind the scenes, some are asking what happens if there isn’t a deal in Paris. Or even how much it matters whether there is such a deal. Failure is possible, after all. The political winds are even less propitious today than they were five years ago.. ….
It sounds bleak. Yet, strangely, all may not be lost. The answer may lie in Plan B — reframing the entire climate issue as one of national decision-making and self interest, rather than global treaty-writing. A close reading of national policies shows that many countries are taking action on climate not because they have made legally binding international commitments, but because they want to. ……

Reply to  Jimbo
October 16, 2014 6:54 pm

Well, If all nations can do their own thing…
Since the US is a Union of States operating under a Tenth Amendment to the US Constitution, It seems to me that each State could and should do their own thing.

Reply to  Mike
October 16, 2014 11:10 am

Well I agree it’s a problem, but disagree on what the “it” is.

Reply to  Alx
October 16, 2014 11:45 am

Don’t forget to define also, what “is” is.

Reply to  Alx
October 16, 2014 12:57 pm

“I used to be with it, but then they changed what it was. Now what I’m with isn’t it, and what’s it seems weird and scary to me, and it’ll happen to you, too.”

Reply to  Alx
October 16, 2014 6:25 pm

I think Alx and neil have got it right.

Reply to  Mike
October 16, 2014 12:50 pm

If someone could give us the plans to build an LENR we could just do our own thing at home. That way whatever happened in Paris would be utterly irrelevant.

October 16, 2014 9:11 am

If we could all just agree to be agreeable. 😉

Chris B
October 16, 2014 9:12 am

Maybe this brilliant conclusion will trickle down to state/provincial and municipal levels and individuals will be left alone to choose their own religion?

October 16, 2014 9:14 am

It is really very funny, and the clearest sign of all that this is about nothing but politics anymore.
From a political perspective, it is important for the Politicians to be able to say “We Have An Agreement!” with the hope that they will be able to convince the LIV’s (low information voters) back home that They Are Doing Something.
What is actually in such an agreement is trivial to them, and the result of that is an “agreement” which is nothing but empty words and moral preening. What politician wouldn’t agree to that? That’s like a boiled down version of their life’s vocation. And who’s going to fight it? Why waste time and energy fighting such a big nothingburger? It’s kind of nice to see our opponents wasting their time and energy on something so trivially useless. (Napoleon: Never interfere with your enemy when he’s making a mistake.)
And it’s also an admission that there aren’t enough “true believers” left out there for anyone to worry about annoying them – where else do they have to go? So they can get tossed a picked over bone like this every once in a while, and everyone knows that the True Believers are going to have sit out in the rain, chewing on it and telling everyone How Much they Love This and what a Great Victory it Truly Is.
Because it’s either that, or quit the movement completely.

Reply to  wws
October 16, 2014 9:21 am

They might have been wasting their time and energy, but they’re continuing to waste our money.

Reply to  LeeHarvey
October 16, 2014 1:56 pm

If they had to pay for their own trips and conferences, they would have no more.

Reply to  LeeHarvey
October 16, 2014 2:45 pm

I have come to the sad conclusion that as long as we live under a government which depends upon vote-buying to stay in power (and what western nation today doesn’t), then our money is going to be wasted no matter what we do.
It’s just a question of what it gets wasted on. Perhaps dinners and trips to exotic locales for the nomenklatura are some of the least harmful things they can do to the rest of us. Heaven save us from those crusaders who think they actually have to “Do Something!” The fact that they are all layabouts and frauds may be our best defense.

Boulder Skeptic
Reply to  wws
October 16, 2014 9:31 am

“From a political perspective, it is important for the Politicians to be able to say “We Have An Agreement!” with the hope that they will be able to convince the LIV’s (low information voters) back home that They Are Doing Something.”
From this passage, Neville Chamberlain, in 1938, with the Munich Pact in hand and proclaiming “peace in our time” comes to mind.

October 16, 2014 9:15 am

I propose we shoot for zero cuts in emissions and 100% containment and cure for ebola and other infectious diseases. I also propose we build cheap fossil fuel electric generation and distribution for the poor nations of the world so they can leave the stone age behind and live as well as our public servants.

Thomas Englert
Reply to  dp
October 16, 2014 12:35 pm

I propose increased emissions and the accompanying prosperity gains we are sorely needing worldwide.

Brian H
Reply to  Thomas Englert
October 17, 2014 1:25 am

Prezackly. Happy plants, happy life.

October 16, 2014 9:19 am

but would leave it to individual nations to determine……… much money they are going to give to developing countries

October 16, 2014 9:19 am

So in effect, an agreement to do nothing.

Reply to  richard
October 16, 2014 9:21 am

Is that anything like a show about nothing?

Leon Brozyna
October 16, 2014 9:24 am

I was wondering how long it would be until this little trick would be employed …
1. Get a treaty in place that is meaningless but everyone can agree to and endorse.
2. Get the meaningless treaty the Senate’s approval (what’s the harm … it’s just a show piece w/o teeth).
3. In subsequent years, the negotiators can then agree to administrative “adjustments” and “amendments” that would not require the Senate’s approval … voilà, cap and trade by administrative fiat (or worse).

Reply to  Leon Brozyna
October 16, 2014 10:56 am


Reply to  Leon Brozyna
October 16, 2014 11:33 am

I also agree. Any form of agreement simply puts the camel’s nose under the tent.
The entire CAGW scam is in a full rout. Their ship is sinking fast and they will soon be fighting over the lifeboats. More torpedoes now, not any form of salvage operation or rescue.

Doug And/Or Dinsdale Piranha
Reply to  Leon Brozyna
October 16, 2014 2:43 pm

A treaty requiring that there be no treaty requirements? That’s a neat trick.

Reply to  Leon Brozyna
October 17, 2014 7:11 am

Leon Brozyna on October 16, 2014 at 9:24 am
– – – – – – –
Leon Brozyna,
I tend to agree.
I think the US proposed plan “require[s] countries to offer plans for curtailing greenhouse gas emissions on a certain schedule but would leave it to individual nations to determine how deep their cuts would be” would allow creeping expansion within bureaucracy toward a total control of carbon.

October 16, 2014 9:27 am

I dunno – it might be the thin edge of the wedge. Once they have established a worldwide climate accord, no matter how tepid, they will be able to increment it up, little by little, until we are all in shackles.
This crap needs to be repudiated wholesale.

michael hart
October 16, 2014 9:28 am

You’re right. It is not an “agreement”. It is an acknowledgement.
An acknowledgement that other nations (China, India, Brazil, Russia, etc, etc) are going to do their own thing, come what may… And patronizing, neo-imperialist western environmentalists can take a running jump.
FFS, when will they get the message? Green-central need to focus on trying to actively make the world a better place, and not on trying to tell people how to live. You can’t legislate the world greener. Go out and get a fricking engineering degree, or something else useful. And at least get out of the way of people who actually make life better for other humans.
Rant over.

Alberta Slim
Reply to  michael hart
October 16, 2014 9:42 am

I’ll second that…………………

D.J. Hawkins
Reply to  michael hart
October 16, 2014 11:07 am

Move for unanimous consent…

Reply to  michael hart
October 16, 2014 11:35 am

They cannot get an engineering degree. Being mathematically and economically illiterate is a required deficiency for membership of the green brigades.

October 16, 2014 9:39 am

And there are still people on this planet (leftists) that think there exists a group of enlightened individuals qualified to run our lives. Fascinating.

Reply to  LogosWrench
October 19, 2014 12:42 pm


October 16, 2014 9:53 am

It will be interesting to see what comes of the US proposal. I doubt that the present administration is taken very seriously by other leaders worldwide. Especially interesting will be the reaction of Euro leaders.

oebele bruinsma
October 16, 2014 9:53 am

I think a good old fashioned brutal winter will help to sharpen some brains.

Mike Smith
October 16, 2014 9:57 am

It’s a glorious failure.

October 16, 2014 10:06 am

If ignorance is bliss, Paris will soon surpass Disneyland as the happiest place on earth.

October 16, 2014 10:07 am

In fact some countries have already given this idea some though and as an exclusive I can share with you what they will say.
China , its short but to the point
We promises that sometime in the future we mean consider a review of how we may go about an assessment of the country’s C02 emissions. Following this, we plan to review the process by which we can plan for possible reductions in these emissions, providing such emissions targets met the needs of on-going consideration of national interest.
Russia goes for the simple approach, NO
India , we agree with China but call for further consideration to be given to the review process and how such reviews will be organised.
France, we look forward to the cuts other countries will make in their fossil fuel generating capacity in effort to reduce their CO2 emissions.

October 16, 2014 10:10 am

An agreement to agree to disagree is an agreement.
So Paris? A Success…

Reply to  mwhite
October 16, 2014 10:58 am

It is impossible to for climate science/politics to not be successful based on the rules set up and bizarrely accpeted. It is like arguing with a evangelist; the bible said so, so there it is, the argument is settled, aong with the science. At the next conference, if half the attendees beat the other half senseless with hockey sticks, it would be construed a success because half of attendees did not have injuries.
And so it goes…

Reply to  Alx
October 17, 2014 3:14 pm

but they did beat attendees with hockey sticks… stick graphs that is.

Joel O’Bryan
Reply to  mwhite
October 16, 2014 11:14 am

They should go out to Versailles to sign the accord.

Reply to  Joel O’Bryan
October 16, 2014 12:14 pm

Great line Joel !

October 16, 2014 10:21 am

The only important decision that they all must agree on is the venue and date of the next jamboree. “We all have budgets which must not be underspent or else we will not be taken seriously”.

Reply to  WJohn
October 18, 2014 12:30 am

Well it is important to have enough five star hotels and somewhere to park the private jet and you need to consider their patterns to , for them enough high end shopping opportunities have to be available. So its not has easy a choice has you think .

October 16, 2014 10:23 am

I hope it fails. No agreement would be the only outcome I could be happy with. Any agreement would only get us further in the dead end that is called Global Warming. There is no problem, so we need no solution. CAGW and its solutions are only tools to further an agenda. That agenda must be stopped asap.

October 16, 2014 10:29 am

The proposed agreement is, everyone can do their own thing.
Which is what they do in any case.

Reply to  yam
October 16, 2014 11:08 am

It’s like Obama sits down with Putin, they both agree to do what is in the best interest of their respective countries and then have a joint press conference to announce success at coming to an agreement. (Leaving reporters spell-bound at the magnitude of the historic event.)
Here is my model for how all this works.
Climate science => politics => infinite absurdm.

Richards in Vancouver
Reply to  Alx
October 16, 2014 7:06 pm

Alx, I think you mean “absurdum”. In this context, never forget the “dum” in “absurdum”.

Doug Proctor
October 16, 2014 10:41 am

This agreement is like Global Warming/Climate Change: EVERY action proves the agreement worked, and NO action shows it didn’t work.
Send us plans and do a lot? Success!
Send us plans and then do little to nothing? Success!
Don’t send us plans, but do something? Success!
Don’t send us plans and don’t do anything? They’re working on the first part.
Now we need another conference to discuss the results of the last conference. See ya there!

Tom in Florida
October 16, 2014 10:44 am

Here’s their theme song (hope you enjoy):

October 16, 2014 10:51 am

It seems to me climate science has crossed into the realm of being a punch line to a joke that grew old and stale a while ago. How it seems to putt-putt along in science and politics after producing so little, is one of the great mysteries of our modern world.

Reply to  Alx
October 16, 2014 4:17 pm

It is not a mistery.
The strategy was unveiled in 1971 at the Stockholm summit of the UN – using environmental pseudocrises instead of military might to achieve world domination.
The climate scientists got drafted in 1975, at the time Schneider, Lovelock, Mead and Holdren decided that antropogenic CO2 would cause a new ice age. In the 80ies this was reversed to Global Warming.
It produced quite a lot: It wrecked the West and turned it into a corrupt crony system; ruined Europe; allowed large scale plunder (REDD, GEF a.k.a. World Conservation Bank).
A very convenient mass expropriation vehicle.

Jake J
October 16, 2014 10:57 am

We should require that all climate change conferences be held in Minot, North Dakota. That would weed out the junketeers.

Reply to  Jake J
October 16, 2014 11:20 am

Agreed. New years celebration extending for a couple of weeks of balmy climate

October 16, 2014 11:02 am

The only agreement that I would approve of is to tell Todd Stern to STFU. The entire ideology has been based on fraud and misdirection. It’s time to close this chapter of corruption once and for all.

Oscar Bajner
October 16, 2014 11:14 am

A close reading of national policies shows that many countries are taking action on climate not because they have made legally binding international commitments, but because they want to

Nope, it’s because they got ambitious bureaucrats, scheming politicians and greedy busnyshmen who are running a scam so jammy, they just can’t let it go.
‘Climate’ “Science” (TM) – It ain’t science and it’s not about the climate.

October 16, 2014 11:41 am

It’s a good compromise – at the moment.

ferd berple
October 16, 2014 11:44 am

It reminds me of the Church in Tonga. Everyone is free to donate what they can, but then the Church calls out loudly how much each family donates as they come forward. This forces people to borrow money to donate to the Church, so they won’t look bad to their neighbors.
This is the US agenda. Shame and blame, based on how much you can cut. Not on how much you emit. So big per capita emitters like the US can claim to be making big savings, while small per capita emitters like India cannot afford to make any cuts.
The US will make a big deal of how much they are cutting, then try and shame the developing world for not making any cuts. Much like Al Gore, huge carbon footprint, telling everyone else to cut theirs. Self-riches hypocrites.
Gluttons, living high off the hog, telling everyone else to eat less, to cut back from 1 meal a day to 0, because they have cut back from eating 10 meals a day to only 9.

October 16, 2014 11:45 am

Fwiw, I still don’t see China and India agreeing to any treaty no matter how watered down it is. They are still pushing for the possible benefits of their “Developing” nation status. They want our cash and technology, if that’s not part of the deal, they won’t sign.

October 16, 2014 12:13 pm

Does this announcement mean that the IPCC panel of scientists have completed their deliberations on the new information and results that have appeared since the last report ?
Was there a cutoff date for considering the published data, which could have debarred some of the very recent reports mentioned on this site that are trending towards a much lower climate sensitivity figure ?

Bruce Cobb
October 16, 2014 12:57 pm

It will be like pledge time at NPR. Just give what you feel you can afford, but remember, the future of our planet is at stake! And, you get an eco- tote bag.

Richards in Vancouver
Reply to  Bruce Cobb
October 16, 2014 7:14 pm

Don’t be so cynical. I’m still using my “Red Dwarf” mouse pad from 20 years ago!

October 16, 2014 12:57 pm

Waaait a minute, …
every country that agrees to this is accepting that we are causing the climate to change in a detrimental manner.
Ultimately, accepting the guilt means one must pay some form of reparation.
I am not getting a good feeling about this.

October 16, 2014 1:15 pm

By 2015 will Europe still be functioning.

October 16, 2014 1:26 pm

For some odd reason this clip came immediately to mind…….

Ian H
October 16, 2014 1:31 pm

There can be serious consequences even to such apparently toothless agreements. If Australia had been signed up to this agreement with respect to its previous emissions trading scheme, then it would have been more difficult for them to terminate that scheme as they did recently.
The effect of such an agreement is that it makes it more difficult for countries to back out of commitments they may have already made. I see it as a sign that the ecoloons are on the defensive and have given up trying to push for more crazy restrictions and have decided to settle for trying to hang onto what they’ve managed to get so far.

Reply to  Ian H
October 16, 2014 1:48 pm

Abbott really should be ‘shirt fronting’ these tossers instead of worrying about Putin. Nothing like a bit of ‘in your face’ to send them scurrying off to never show their pathetic backsides again.

October 16, 2014 1:38 pm

Why does all this remind me of the situation comedy whereby failure to acheive A is avoided by not having a plan for achieving A. After all, if there’s no plan, then the plan cannot fail.

October 16, 2014 1:50 pm

I’d watch out for the “fine print” no doubt at the back of the document.

Mickey Reno
October 16, 2014 2:29 pm

To my fellow Americans, vote for Republicans for the U.S. Senate, and push them to pass new legislation that limits the EPA and overturns the endangerment finding for CO2.

Reply to  Mickey Reno
October 16, 2014 3:36 pm

By my reading from afar, the Republicans might not be the ones to fix this. The USA has Democrat and Democrat lite. What the USA population needs to do is put more tea party candidates into Washington so that individual liberty, small and cheap government get onto the agenda. Then they should support a constitutional ammendment that returns the control of the public service to the representative government (congress) and gives a representative government the power to remove a President by simple vote or referendum without the need for an impeachment. The POTUS has far to much power for a single person.
Just for the spooks, hi there… America needs to stay strong and free for our sake as well as your own, the fact that a misbehaving President can be politically protected by a partisan congress or senate is a real risk to your democracy, The POTUS being a single person is not representative, not democratic in any way, the powers that a single partisan person has must be minimised in favour of the representative parliament. Nor does the USA have a tidy method for resolving a government deadlock like going back to the electorate. I think that’s a big problem. Westminster democracies are much better in this respect. I am very PRO USA but I think your political system is a huge risk.

October 16, 2014 3:30 pm
October 16, 2014 3:32 pm

The smell of desperation permeates the CAGW crowd. Despite controlling the media and politics supporting CAGW the meme is turning on itself as a caricature of the boy who cried wolf.

Paul in Sweden
October 16, 2014 3:38 pm

Hello! This is not going to work. The legally binding agreement was never about climate, it was about a massive transfer of wealth to developing countries. In Copenhagen most of the talk was about evil capitalism and climate justice(wealth transfer). Listening here in Sweden(as a US citizen) I was relieved to hear Hillary Clinton say that the USA would only agree to a substantial fund for developing countries if the developing countries were legally bound. The developing countries are still looking for their money, the UN machine still wants their world tax and control so how the heck is even this deal going to work out?
Oh wait… I know. In Paris they congratulate themselves on the historic legally binding agreement and will move forward with renewed fervor at future COP meetings at exotic locations to discuss a framework to redistribute the wealth of the developed world to the dictators of the developing world. This preserves the self-perpetuating machine of the UNFCCC keeping 10s of thousands of useless parasites pleased. Still the third world countries are not going to be happy.

October 16, 2014 3:45 pm

Wow, I’m impressed. Bet they won’t send out the template and do it all by webinar though…

Jimmy Finley
October 16, 2014 3:46 pm

Love that “consensus decision making”. Everybody gets a piece of pie!

October 16, 2014 4:07 pm

The goal has been achieved; the West has reached the Keynesian endpoint. Therefore, no further action will be necessary.

October 16, 2014 4:29 pm

But still not enough to undo the whole UN/EU/IMF/IPPC Climate Fraud, as in: and and and and etc.
Not to be overlooked is that virtually all states accept the IPCC bribe of Taxing Air (as the book with this title by Bob Carter* & John Spooner just published by Kelpie Press in Australia explains). Dead horse trading, if ever there was some: Carbon trading worldwide reached $126 billion in 2008 [Jo Nova’s SPPI paper Climate Money et al ], and just how much this IPCC collection of tributes costs the UK alone, is stated by Matt Ridley in his Angus Millar Lecture of the Royal Society of Arts Edinburgh, 31 October 2011: “Remember Britain’s unilateral Climate Change Act is officially expected to cost the hard-pressed UK economy £18.3 billion a year for the next 39 years and achieve an immeasurably small change in carbon dioxide levels.

johann wundersamer
October 16, 2014 7:43 pm

what when there’s XMAS and nobody comes.
Happy New Year 2015!
This zone is for loading and unloading. Only.

October 16, 2014 7:51 pm

This is “My United States of Whatever”:
Has it really come down to this? What a joke… We’re getting at the beginning of the end the CAGW scam:
New verse: So some UN dude comes up to me and says, ” Hey man, how much CO2 will you cut”, and I’m all like, “WHATEVA”…

October 16, 2014 9:31 pm

The truth is the truth …. even when spoken by a minority of one. How long will it be before I hear a politician ask “are we really sure there is a problem ?”

October 16, 2014 9:45 pm

That’s what happens when it doesn’t warm for 18 years – people yawn.

October 17, 2014 2:39 am

In Australia, the former Labor/ Greens minority Government took its advice on climate change from the Garnaut Review 2011, by Economics Professor Ross Garnaut, an update of his 2008 Report. The Review had 2 pillars –
1. The scientific case expounded by the UN IPCC has been confirmed ” beyond reasonable doubt”.
” The most important and straightforward of the quantitatively testable propositions from the mainstream science- upward trends in average temperatures and increases in sea levels – have either been confirmed or shown to be understated by the passage of time.” ( page 17 of the Review).Readers can gauge the accuracy of this from the “hiatus” debate.
2.” Against all odds, there is an international agreement on mitigating climate change ( a reference to the Cancun 2 degrees Agreement).The world is on its way towards substantially reducing emissions growth.” ( page 47).
It is difficult to overstate the impact of these documents on Australian public policy until Prime Minister Abbott’s government repealed the carbon tax this year. The likely cost to Australia of the former policy through to 2050 is estimated to have been one trillion Australian dollars.
Last year , Professor Garnaut wrote in the Australian Financial Review that the new model of national targets and international monitoring had much to recommend it. The following day , an apparent supporter of the CAGW hypothesis wrote a letter to the paper’s Editor stating that the new approach looked to be ” the child of failure”.
A perfect summary.

October 17, 2014 6:22 am

Does anyone trust these guys? The devil must be in the detail. Let’s read the fine print, because they’re not programmed to lose.

Reply to  Tim
October 17, 2014 7:21 pm

If I recall it right, the Obama Care legislation came with an exhortation, pass the bill and then you can read the fine print. So I agree with you, carefully read the fine print BEFORE agreeing to anything even if it is presented like you should not.
To be sold out on an issue so poorly constructed like this, is creating a can of worms for future generations along with much weeping, wailing and gnashing of teeth.
Demand data and truth in science first, when you get that debate the issue in public and then keep demanding answers before signing anything, even more so with a non event sweetheart deal created as a salve to the guilty, and an excuse to open the door to trickery, Mike’s “Nature Trick” got us into this, we don’t need another trick to give further life to the tricksters.

Marlo Lewis
October 17, 2014 3:08 pm

We should not underestimate the danger posed by the administration’s proposal. What Team Obama regards as “your thing,” is whatever policies a nation undertakes to meet its obligations under the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC), a.k.a. the 1992 Rio Treaty.
Rio is often viewed — mistakenly — as a “voluntary” agreement. As my colleague Chris Horner points out, the word “shall” — the term of legal obligation — occurs more than 100 times in the treaty.
Unlike Kyoto, Rio did not set specific emission reduction targets. Nonetheless, under Article 4.2(a), each Annex I country “shall adopt national policies and take corresponding measures on the mitigation of climate change, by limiting its anthropogenic emissions of greenhouse gases and protecting and enhancing its greenhouse gas sinks and reservoirs.”
So the UN FCCC, too, is a ‘do your own thing’ treaty. but it’s not ‘voluntary,’ because if you’re an Annex I country, you “shall” have a ‘thing’ and you “shall” ‘do’ it.
The administration interprets the EPA’s Clean Power Plan and other executive agency climate initiatives as the “thing” we “shall” do pursuant to the Rio Treaty.
Moreover, since Rio is already ratified, Team Obama claims there’s no need to obtain Senate advice and consent on whatever Obama negotiators commit to as our “thing.” For further discussion, see this New York Times column:
To be sure, the Senate Foreign Relations Committee explicitly rejected this open-ended interpretation of our Rio Treaty obligations. The Committee stipulated that any “decision by the executive branch to reinterpret the Convention to apply legally binding targets and timetables for reducing emissions of greenhouse gases to the United States would alter the ‘shared understanding’ of the Convention between the Senate and the executive branch and would therefore require the Senate’s advice and consent.”
The administration, however, could care less about a 22-year old committee ‘reservation,’ and no court would attempt to enforce it.
So Administration officials are using the Clean Power Plan etc. as a basis for demanding similar “pledges” from other nations. More importantly, they’ll try to use the hoped-for agreement to lock in Obama’s climate policies beyond 2016.
The game plan, as I see it, is to negotiate an agreement under which the next president and future Congresses won’t be able to upend Obama’s climate policies without violating our Framework Convention “pledges” to the “international community.”

Reply to  Marlo Lewis
October 18, 2014 2:30 pm

Marlo, they can demand “similar” pledges all they like, but all that will do is create further incentives to relocate manufacturing to non-Annex 1 countries. How much more industry does the US wish to lose to Maquilladora? One of the real implications of this that I see is that it’s great potential ammunition for protectionism against other Annex 1 countries.

Reply to  Marlo Lewis
October 18, 2014 2:33 pm

Marlo, it also makes a complete shambles of the Kyoto trading mechanisms, does it not? And where in all this is the key UNFCCC goal of north-south financial transfers?

October 18, 2014 8:05 am

The most important thing is the intention to sign. That means you need lots of trips to nice places for negotiations, all paid for by the taxpayer of course.

%d bloggers like this: