British Climate Minister Boasts About Bypassing the US Federal Government

Guest essay by Eric Worrall

A senior member of the British government has just boasted about bypassing the US Federal Government, and coordinating British government policy directly with US cities.

UK bypasses Donald Trump to discuss climate change with US city mayors directly

Claire Perry, the Climate Change Minister, says British Government is now speaking to ‘other players’ in US about how to fight global warming

Ian Johnston @montaukian Tuesday 25 July 2017 14:21 BST

The UK has started bypassing Donald Trump over climate change, talking directly to city mayors and other officials committed to trying to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, the new Climate Change Minister has revealed.

Claire Perry, who was appointed to the post after the general election last month, said that British ministers had not “missed an opportunity” to tell the US President that they were disappointed he had decided to withdraw from the Paris Agreement on climate change, the news service Bloomberg reported.

She said she had been speaking to “other players” in the US, including the mayor of Houston, Sylvester Turner, who visited the UK last week.

“The UK is ranked third in the world in tackling climate change,” she said.

“I think we need to exploit and take that leadership position because we can change the world doing this and we can also generate highly productive jobs.

“I look at this and see it’s the way the world is going, so it’s not just about British businesses, it’s about global mega-trends, so how do we seize that opportunity to decarbonise our own economy and help other countries.”

Read more: http://www.independent.co.uk/environment/uk-donald-trump-climate-change-us-city-mayors-talk-direct-paris-agreement-houston-sylvester-turner-a7859291.html

In my opinion this British government initiative represents a crazy level of interference by a foreign power in US domestic politics. Imagine the outcry if the Trump administration started boasting about bypassing the British government, about coordinating US policy directly with British cities.

Advertisements

192 thoughts on “British Climate Minister Boasts About Bypassing the US Federal Government

      • According to the Guardian, Britain is proposing to ban sale of all diesel and petrol cars and vans starting in 2040. I think the adjective “Great” in front of “Britain” no longer applies. It is now being employed to make America Great Again!

      • Sorry about that Tim. This looks to have been attached to the incorrect thread. The link is to a PDF from the Climate Watch Network (should be clean since I can access it at work) and was posted in regard to the stories claim that the UK is third worldwide in efforts to minimise GloBull Warming. It lists 24 countries that are claiming to be doing something and gives them a rating. Currently the USA is 43 (really 40) and China is 48 (really 45) just a speck out of the Red Zone
        If you don’t wish to click on the link that is certainly an acceptable choice, how safe you wish to be is entirely a personal choice

      • Sanctuary cities are also illegal. The left, even those within branches of government, often see laws as fungible, especially when conformance to a law runs counter to their political ideology. Remember that climate science hasn’t been about the science part since it turned political more than 3 decades ago and political science doesn’t need to conform to the scientific method. Obama-care has only been around for 7 years and look how politically difficult this is to unwind …

      • MarkW and DrTorch – I disagree. The First Amendment protects the city leaders’ talks with anyone, so that action is not a violation of our Constitution, nor is it criminal; however, if they pass legislation cooperating with other nations, that is unconstitutional, as it violates the Senate power to make treaties.

      • >>
        Chad Jessup
        July 26, 2017 at 6:16 pm

        MarkW and DrTorch – I disagree.
        <<

        Sorry Chad–it clearly violates Article I, Section 10 of the Constitution. If States aren’t allowed to enter into individual agreements with foreign powers, then they can’t, by charter, give that power to cities.

        Jim

      • You’re missing Chad’s point, Jim. So far, all they are doing is talking. With limited exceptions, there is no constitutional violation for just talking. Nor is there any constitutional violation if they do something about it in their personal capacity (even if they then use their political office to brag about their personal action). Only when the mayor takes an action in his/her official capacity (such as signing an agreement) based on those talks would you be into prohibited territory.

      • >>
        You’re missing Chad’s point, Jim. So far, all they are doing is talking.
        <<

        It’s an interesting point of law:

        Any unconstitutional act of an official will at least be a violation of the oath of that official to execute the duties of his office, and therefore grounds for his removal from office. No official immunity or privileges of rank or position survive the commission of unlawful acts. If it violates the rights of individuals, it is also likely to be a crime, and the militia duty obligates anyone aware of such a violation to investigate it, gather evidence for a prosecution, make an arrest, and if necessary, seek an indictment from a grand jury, and if one is obtained, prosecute the offender in a court of law.

        So would talking about committing an unconstitutional act fall under federal and state conspiracy laws?

        Jim

      • re: “would talking about committing an unconstitutional act fall under federal and state conspiracy laws?”

        Maybe in theory. In practice, it would depend heavily on how clearly established the constitutional violation would be. (Think of Qualified Immunity as a parallel.) In other words, the constitution requires a republican form of government headed by a President. If you were to talk about the violent overthrow of that government (and as part of that talk, to make imminent and credible plans), yes, that would be conspiracy. But if you were to talk about the peaceful amendment of the constitution in order to change the title of our Head of State to Lord High Mucketymuck, that would definitely not be conspiracy even though it would be against the current constitution to call him that.

        It’s also not conspiracy to have speculative conversations, even about things that are clearly violations of the law. You and I, for example, could discuss our fantasies about robbing banks and living the high life. Until there is some credible evidence corroborating our intent to act on those conversations, there is no conspiracy. (For darker examples but easier to find in court precedents, look up the cases where conspiracy charges based on rape fantasies or conversations about murder were thrown out.)

        In this scenario, I think you would have a very hard time convincing a jury that merely talking about climate change is such a clearly-established and widely-known constitutional violation that a charge of conspiracy could be supported.

      • >>
        Maybe in theory. In practice . . . .
        <<

        That’s not really how it works. If it’s not legal in theory, then it’s not legal. When you have multiple defendants charged with a crime, such as a bank robbery, the prosecutors will usually tack on a conspiracy charge. If they committed the crime, then they obviously conspired to commit the crime. So the fact that before the crime was committed, it would be a hard sell to a jury, doesn’t make it any less of a crime. The usual problem is that the authorities may not know of the conspiracy. Intent also plays a part.

        Here the question is whether or not a discussion to commit an unconstitutional act protected speech. If it’s not after the fact, then it isn’t before the fact either–hard sell or not.

        Jim

    • Looks like she only believes in democracy when the results of elections agree with her beliefs.

      • That seems to be the prevailing belief throughout the world right now. You can ignore laws and elections if you don’t like the outcome. As long as no action is taken to end this type of lawbreaking, it will only increase.

    • Right you are, and Houston is also a sanctuary city, that is, dysfunctional and proud of it. Virtue Signalling? Is that Daniel Pearl Syndrome?

    • Let’s not get carried away here. A city normally has the right to enter into contracts with anyone, including a foreign govt, as long as it doesn’t violate U.S. federal laws, which is not the case here.
      But you have to wonder why England would expect an American city that believes in global warming (democraticaly controlled) would have any money to take any actions. Virtually all of them are bankrupt thru their union pensions. They can only pass regulations, which likely would drive businesses (and people) out of their city boundaries.

      • Yes and no. The Constitution is vague about how you would classify a contract (it is arguably an agreement), and the Logan act may apply as well. Whether or not this would be seen as a violation is a matter for the courts, but it’s certainly pushing the envelope.

      • “A city normally has the right to enter into contracts with anyone, including a foreign govt”

        Wrong, It is flatly unconstitutional. Article I Section 10 says: “No State shall, without the Consent of Congress, … enter into any Agreement or Compact with … with a foreign Power.” Cities are organs of the States that created them and are subject to the same restrictions. Congress has not authorized any state to negotiate with any foreign power.

        And, yes, IAAL.

    • The mayors certainly open themselves up to lawsuits from citizens of those cities, but I doubt anyone would find these mayors in violation of the Logan Act.

      • The real question is how many of these city mayors are going to pay into the Green Fund on par with what the Obama Administration committed to? By my reckoning, the $3 billion commitment equates to over $9 per capita. So will the mayor of Boston be sending the fund $6 million? Will Chicago be sending $25 million? Will towns like Exeter NH be sending their $129,000? I tend to think that their sentiments are purely political where they want the public adoration for their statements, but won’t really do the hard thing and pay the piper.

    • It actually isn’t a violation for them to talk, nor for cities or states to DO anything different from the Fed. It is only a violation for States or Cities to actually sign binding legislation with foreign entities

      • That would all depend upon how a judge viewed the relevant words in the Constitution. Nowhere does it say “contract” or “signed agreement,” just “agreement” (and a few other less applicable terms).

    • Well the USA is first in the world when it comes to CO2 mitigation.

      The USA Is the ONLY large land based CO2 sink on planet earth. The oceans are of course a CO sink but ALL other large land areas are either “carbon” neutral, or are significant “carbon” sources.
      “Carbon” of course being a euphemism for, soot, dust, methane, CO2, natural gas, petroleum, etc.

      It’s our intensive agriculture including forest farming, that makes The USA a large “carbon sink.”

      G

      NZ is also a carbon sink for the same reasons, but is just too small be above the horizon. And of Course the continent of Zealandia is one of the largest carbon sinks on the planet.

      • When I viewed the OCO 2 data I seem to recall that it appeared that Australia was a net sink.

        I also seem to recall Willis writing an article on whether countries are a net source or a net sink, and if I remember correctly, he placed Australia as the largest net sink

      • Arguably violates–and arguably does not, depending on what they actually do. But to your question, foreign policy is a federal matter. States have no authority, and cities are even lower on the scale. They have no federal existence but are solely a creation of the states.

    • It might take awhile to be realized, but it is UnConstitutional for states to make agreements with foreign entities. The same applies to cities. And the Brits need to realize that the mayors of these cities have little or no real power to do what they claim they want to do, as the people are going to go bananas when they find they are being singled out for Draconian climate policies that negatively impact their lives.

    • It feels like that should be true … but that doesn’t matter.

      To make that argument you probably have to cite court decisions. Everything constitutional has been heavily litigated with the result that things aren’t obvious or seemingly even reasonable. link With that in mind, it’s significant that conservatives predominate in the Supreme Court for the foreseeable future. link

    • I suspect very strongly that Britain and the states and cities and the other parts of the US, who continue to “decarbonize”, will notice a striking wealth difference, as their economies shrink, and the booming economies of parts of the US, who see the BS behind AGW.

      Wouldn’t surprise me for instance if California ceases to be the most populous US State.

      Donald Trump is instrumental in improving world economies. Even down under in my country, the price of gasoline has recently dropped from over NZ$2.00 to NZ$1.85 which is very likely the result of the US releasing local oil production and its effect on the world market.

      We could do with a Donald Trump here!

      Cheers

      Roger

      http://www.thedemiseofchristchurch.com

    • MarkW
      Ms. Perry got a geography degree.
      Not sure if, when she graduated, it was all about empathising with Geldoff’s refugees (Feed me this Christmas – admirable short term, but they have all come to the UK: – I think to thank us . . . ).
      But it suggests that her hard science education is not strong.

      Auto A little less enamoured of the LibLabTory party almost every day . . . . . .
      Free enterprise, small government, and, when the national debt is reducing [not increasing by £2,200 per family per year], reducing taxes on capital, income, innovation – even if consumption taxes do not fall, too.

    • Also, I think they will have a problem. California is already broke and the U.K. is already installing fossil fuel back-up systems to cover the failure of their windmills and solar.

  1. As a Brit, I couldn’t agree more. Trump should immediately call Mother Theresa and read the riot act.
    As a long-temp sceptic I am deeply embarrassed that the numpties in parliament (ALL parties) and all their friends in the MSM (especially the BBC) continue not to even countenance the idea that AGW may not be happening and we don’t, therefore, need to waste countless £billions on it. Related to this, there is, as yet, effectively no public debate on AGW in the UK. As I said, it’s embarrassing, as well as hugely expensive.

    • As another Brit, I agree with Ian. I personally have strong objections to my energy bills being loaded to pay windmill subsidies to the likes of David Cameron’s father-in-law (whether the wind blows or not!!) !

      Besides, even if AGW is happening, the Paris Accord (so-called) is a lunatic response, squandering an eye-watering number of Dollars/Pounds/Euros to destroy Western Civilisation for zero benefit to the Third World (a crude but conveniently concise term). Well, on second thoughts, maybe not so lunatic of the prospective payees, would you blame them?!

      Someone please remind me of the name of that UN employee who blabbed that they were/are ‘re-distributing global wealth using climate’ or words to that effect! (I can’t find the exact quote just now.)

  2. Extreme audacity and extreme ignorance.
    I still can’t believe that Britain, which for centuries expended blood and treasure defending freedom, has succumbed to the persuasions of authoritarianism.

    • You have to remember that Britain has been exporting many of its ‘best and brightest’ for more than fifty years now. The Brain Drain explains pretty much all you need to know about the current state of the country.

      • Well they specifically mention Houston. Houston of course looms large in the US list of important cities; well those big enough to have a Mayor.

        g

      • Chicago, Houston and most of the USA were never in “the Empire”.

        Since castles have been moved from European zones to America, perhaps we can ship them some “sanctuary” cities, in toto.

        What can be agreed to is questionable.
        My suspicion is that Claire Perry is basing her announcement on various mayors’ love for foreign travel and desires for being treated as distant royalty.

        That said, cities lack land for solar or wind farms. City agreements are unlikely to be greater than citizen involvement and installations.

        As for as cash payments? I doubt that cities would seriously risk Federal and State funding on such ventures.

      • The site of Chicago was indeed part of the empire. The peace settlements ending the Seven Years’ War (French and Indian War in the US) gave North America east of the Mississippi River to Britain and Louisiana to Spain.

      • wws July 26, 2017 at 8:24 am

        “Hey, Baltimore, Chicago, Philadelphia – you can have ’em!!!”

        No deal unless Detroit is also included.

  3. If I recall correctly, it is a violation of the US Constitution Article 1 Section 10 on States not being able to make treaties. As the whole thing is virtue signalling anyway, it is the same status as Obama’s signature on the Paris Accord–void.

      • City is granted its authority at the pleasure of the state and is therefore a state entity. Reality is though – these aren’t treaties, the cities are just proclaiming their greenness and intent to do green things – no matter how destructive. So I doubt treaty laws are being violated.

      • Cities have even less status. They are creations of state government and have only powers the state can and chooses to grant. From a federal standpoint, they don’t even exist!

      • @Mark T
        If a couple of people sit down over dinner and agree to do something, but no money changes hands and no consideration is offered or received and the agreement is non-enforceable, I’m not sure the compact clause would apply.

  4. didn’t the Germans and Chinese already make agreements with California?

    That’s the same thing surely?

    https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2017/jun/07/china-and-california-sign-deal-to-work-on-climate-change-without-trump

    http://www.dw.com/en/germany-and-california-agree-joint-fight-against-climate-change/a-39193649

    and this is just another demonstration that Trump’s pullout from Paris/views on Climate change are making no impression at all on any governments worldwide…

    • Doesn’t matter what impression it makes on other governments, they’re the ones who will be paying the Dane-geld to the UN, not the USA.

      • Which is precisely why they are all so hysterically desperate now. It isn’t Trump who’s stranded high and dry but all of those who are now going to have to slice off significant chunks of GDP and hand it over to foreign despots – on the basis of zero evidence of any climatic effect whatsoever. All trump has to do is say ‘sorry guys but I’ll renegotiate when you bring me some evidence but until then we’re out’.

      • Actually this cuts to the heart of why the entire issue is just ridiculous grandstanding that has no more meaning than a Punch and Judy show at the park.

        The only reason the US was ever needed in that accord was because Uncle Sugar was supposed to bankroll the entire thing. When Trump pulled out, that scheme fell apart, and the only piece of the Paris Accord that was meant to do anything was over, at that instant.

        None of these cities have any extra money to give away – in fact, most of them are broke. Plus, these cities generally do not have any large scale manufacturing under their control, just as they also do not have any power generation facilities, those having all been moved far away from heavily populated areas.

        So this is all just stupid people standing in front of a camera saying “blah, blah, blah, blah”, hoping to impress other stupid people, like Griff up there.

      • cephus – they aren’t desperate at all…

        They are plugging away at what they always intended to do and even stepping up the effort.

        Renewables have done no harm whatever to the GDP/economy of any European nation.

      • Renewables have done no harm whatever to the GDP/economy of any European nation.

        So says Griff. I say, RUBBISH! Try figuring out what the relative costs of energy production for renewables versus FF-generation. Ruinable energy is many times more expensive: that goes through to the bottom line of GDP.

      • “Renewables have done no harm whatever to the GDP/economy of any European nation.”

        GDP is what tells you that hiring half the population to smash windows and the other half to repair them will make you rich. Or that slashing the cost of US healthcare by 90% would be disastrous because GDP would fall by 15%.

        ‘Renewable energy’ probably increases GDP, because it’s so expensive and inefficient. But that decreases wealth.

    • Like the Paris accord, the deals are all non-binding. They call for investments in low-carbon energy sources, cooperation on climate research and the commercialisation of cleaner technologies. The agreements do not establish new emission reduction goals.

    • making no impression
      ========
      Then what are they running around signing agreements?

      Economic policies always win in the end. China with a 2% growth rate would have remained a poor backward nation. 10% growth and it became rich and powerful almost overnight beyond anyone’s wildest dreams.

      Government rules and regulation are already much too complex and complicated for any human being to fully comprehend. How is that serving the citizens of the nation.

    • And we should all want to be the popular kids, right. Because it’s more important to be liked than right. So we don’t have to actually worry about being right, just agree with the popular kids.

    • It appears that German, despite its rush towards wind and solar, has slipped from 27 down to 29 in the world with respect to its CO2 mitigation/reduction achievements. See: https://germanwatch.org/en/download/16484.pdf

      Germany continued its downward trend in this year’s CCPI. Although the country remains in the group of relatively good performers with respect to renewable energies (rank 18), Germany is not on track to reach its 2020 emissions reduction targets. Experts criticise Germany’s current domestic nego

      tiations on its long-term climate strategy, which is supposed to lay the foundation for the implementation of Germany’s part of the Paris goals. According to the experts, the negotiations have been dominated and continuously delayed by the self-serving interests of the coal industry and some of the other energy-intensive industries. To climb up the ranking in the coming years, Germany will have to increase its ambi
      -tion on sectoral targets for emissions reduction and come forward with an adequate plan to phase out coal.

      As I have often pointed out to you, it appears that Germany has come up against the buffers notwithstanding that it has been able to rely upon French Nuclear for backup. Since 2005, it has had little success in reducing CO2 emissions and last year they rose.

      There is no way that Germany will achieve its 2030 Paris Accord targets/commitments since wind and solar in reality have very little potential to reduce CO2 emissions because of the need for backup, and now that Germany is closing its nuclear, it is building coal powered stations for this back up.

      Germany’s success in reducing CO2 emissions below 1990 levels has been achieved almost exclusively by closing down heavy polluting East German industrial plants or increasing their productivity. Since that transition, there has essentially been little success and now with the migrant crisis the demand for energy, cars, extra public transport, new roads, new housing, new schools, hospitals etc will increase making the Paris Accord targets/commitments pie in the sky.

    • Griff July 26, 2017 at 8:12 am
      “and this is just another demonstration that Trump’s pullout from Paris/views on Climate change are making no impression at all on any governments worldwide…”

      I am glad you agree that the world does not need U.S, money to go forward with the Paris accord and as such reinforces the U.S. position that we won’t need to send any money.

  5. Claire Perry needs to wind her neck in. I didn’t vote for her to usurp the democratic rights of our best friend. She needs to stop virtue-signalling and get on with trying to figure out why there are so many greens in government who we do NOT vote for!!!

    • If you didn’t vote for Piers Corbyn’s brother then you can’t complain at the Greens running riot over the people and democracy.

      • Hang on, I’m still trying to figure out the litotes in that statement. It seems you are saying that if I’d actually voted for Jeremy Corbyn (your choice, I’m sure) there wouldn’t be any Greens influencing government policy. That’s one hell of a leap of logic – totally inconsistent with your normal contributions, which I enjoy (when they’re not political).

      • The entire UK political establishment is infested with Greens. It seems to be a compulsory part of the PPE course at Oxford. That’s on the left and the right.

        So the only hope is a leader who won’t bend for power (as shown over 30 years) and who has a family link to AGW scepticism… One who knows that the cost of AGW to the poor is not infinite and thus the Precautionary Principle can be ignored.

        That’s the only way that the unscientific political community can be restrained and retrained.

      • M,

        There is no love lost between the Corbyn brothers. Labour is even Greener than the Tories.

      • Brothers are not Buddies.
        But I saw Sky News the night before the election. They were at the Islington Rally, Jeremy Corbyn’s last of his very successful campaign. While the Sky journalist was trying to explain that Labour seemed very enthusiastic for J Corbyn he was pushed out of the way by Piers who was sharing in the celebratory mood.

        The brothers aren’t that ill-disposed to each other.

        And the fact that the Sky journalist didn’t recognise Pies Corbyn was slightly hilarious.

      • M Courtney: So you are prepared (silly question) to take all Corbyn’s Marxist baggage in order to rid government of greens – on the off-chance he won’t change his mind in the process (bearing in mind his history of voting)? Sorry, I don’t want to live in his ‘command economy’ being ruled over by the Momentum thugs he brings with him. Does Venezuela – which Corbyn and his colleagues lionises – not give you any pause for thought?
        But enough. Let’s keep it to the AGW scam, which we do agree on. :)

      • Gloateus

        “There is no love lost between the Corbyn brothers.”

        You’ve obviously not read much of Piers’ WeatherAction site or his tweets. He’s quite fanatical about Jeremy’s political ambitions. For example here’s his site from the eve of the election:

        “Piers says: “WE CAN DO IT! Now it’s up to you to go and VOTE Labour #JC4PM Today Thurs June 8th 2017.

        “The ‘Final opinion polls’ put it ‘neck and neck’ / ‘Labour just ahead’, however allowing for their bias (eg Brexit 8% swing error), their underestimate of social groups C & D and under 25s age group, one more day of further opinion shifting in trend AND the greater determination of #JC4PM supporters to CHANGE the UK FOR THE BETTER FOR YOU – YES YOU* INCLUDING normal Tory, LibDem and former UKIP voters who are switching to Labour in droves (*The Tax haven tax dodging 0.001% of UK excluded) – I think the final result will be LABOUR 8% ahead of Tories and #JC4PM wins – PROVIDING you/we go top gear to #GOTV – Get-Out-The-Vote.

        https://web.archive.org/web/20170625180932/http://www.weatheraction.com/displayarticle.asp?a=828&c=5

      • Harry Passfield,
        Wise words – Agreed.

        Let us keep to AGW, on which we agree. That fight need winning.
        We shouldn’t abandon alliances because we are not in complete concord on other issues.

      • Bellman,

        That Piers supported his brother doesn’t mean that they agree about manmade global warming. They disagree, to put it mildly.

        Thus, there is no reason to vote for the pol brother in hopes of getting policy based upon scientific reality.

      • I didn’t mean to suggest that Jeremy agrees with his brother’s eccentric claims on weather, climate or earthquakes. But it’s obviously not true that they hate each other.

  6. It would appear to me that Britain has more important cats to skin right now. This shows how unconnected the ‘elected’ people are.

  7. Should have added the goals of an authoritarian government:
    That which is not prohibited, is compulsory.
    Bob Hoye

  8. I wish someone would do something about our nutty politicians here.

    We can’t, no matter what we try.

    Now it has been decreed they’re going to impose EV’s on us by 2040, WTF!?

    From what popular mandate did than spring from?

    We now have a socialist, conservative (supposedly equivalent to America’s Republicans) government that deigns to ignore the concept of market forces they are supposed to support!

    SOMEONE GET ME OUT OF HERE, PLEASE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

      • wws,
        I agree100%, wish others would come to the same conclusion, especially those who want to model the European madness of today.

    • I’m pretty much at “beam me up Scotty” point too. These fruits are hell bent on Galactic annihilation and with no sign of any kind of responsible government appearing I’m seriously looking for an out now. V4 probably.

    • Anyone in Britain still believe that the politicians are actually going to proceed with Brexit???? They’re just an arm of the EU and they’ll continue to hold elections until the people resign to overturning Brexit in another referendum, if it actually gets that far.

      • It’ll be Brexit’ish.

        Now Gove is objecting to Chlorine washed chickens from the USA on animal welfare grounds.

        The fucking chicken’s already dead when it’s washed with chlorine to prevent gut bacterial contamination.

        We swim in goddamn chlorinated water in our swimming pools, but we cant wash dead chickens in the stuff!!

        Gove is insane!

  9. Collusion with a foreign socialist power…. If the Chinese or the Russians did it they would be nuked. Anyhow it shows how idiotic politicians have become. The current political establishment has reached the outer limits from what is acceptable for the average sane electorate. Let’s think about possible solutions about that problem.

    • ‘The only man to enter Parliament with honest intentions’ as people here are fond of quoting.

      (fun fact: his lantern is on show in Oxford’s Ashmolean Museum)

      • True. I’ve seen it.
        And the Ashmolean is free to enter.

        The pub across the road (The Eagle and Child) only takes cash but is the place where Tolkien and CS Lewis shared their story ideas.

        Brought to you by the Oxfordshire Tourist Board.

      • That’s it in the picture!

        and (while not wanting to be accused of working for the Oxford Tourist Board) may I also mention the Ashmolean has Pochahontas cloak…

  10. Article 1 section 10 paragraphs1 and 3 expressly prohibit anyone other than the federal government from entering into any agreement, compact or treaty with another country.

    The one glaring mistake the founding fathers made was to not include a criminal punishment for any politician, knowingly or not, violating the constitution. They are required to take an oath!

  11. It is also totally meaningless. The local voters in cities and states will no more put up with bearing mindless and expensive costs. They probably don’t mind as long as the are unaware. They are not going to put up with (or pay for) real substantive initiatives. Neither will local voters in Europe. If the international and national CAGW agendas run aground, you will never refloat them at the municipal level. Claire Perry is out of her mind & depth, politically speaking.

  12. The UK has started bypassing Donald Trump over climate change, talking directly to city mayors and other officials committed to trying to reduce greenhouse gas emissions

    Ha what this means is that they’re revving the engine in neutral. Vrooom! vrooom!

    • They are confusing Bloomberg’s promise to send money from his personal riches with that of a Mayor sending public money. By the way, where are all the other rich Greenies with their matching contributions?

    • Yes, Gerald. Claire Perry would look pretty damn foolish in Theresa May’s eyes if POTUS decided to pull the plug of US/UK trade deals because of her interference in a US democratic decision. (I’d pay to see that come-uppance!)

  13. In Australia we have a bunch of local governments which have in concert announced their own commitments to the global warming cult. Precedents for this in Australia go back fifty years when local councils would declare their territory “nuclear free zones”. More recently a Greens-controlled Council in Sydney announced it was part of the boycott and divestment campaign against Israel.

  14. The climate stupid is just relentless. Trump should offer the UK two options:
    1 carry on negotiating behind his back…and go to the back of the trade queue, or
    2. STFU about ‘climate’ and stay at the front of the trade queue.

  15. How amazing that Britain has a Climate Change Minister. Can I volunteer to be Minister for Phases of the Moon?

  16. There is no doubt that in the UK we are all doomed – doomed I tell you. We have a large collection of political parties which are socialist in action (even if one is called Consevative) and are full of stupid and gullible.politicians.

    • Couldn’t agree more, Mr Bratby. Hardly anybody realises what is about to happen to the UK in 2019 and nobody in government is capable of turning it around.

    • Write-in vote campaign for the “I want you all to get drownded together.” option. :]

  17. If we could obtain a comprehensive listing of the USA municipalities that have gone done this insane road of ‘colluding’ with foreign entities, and juxtapose that list with the cities that have previously signed on with the:

    “ICLEI: Local Governments for Sustainability, founded in 1990 as the International Council for Local Environmental Initiatives” (see again: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ICLEI and http://www.iclei.org)

    These issues continue to rise, and I have posted numerous times about these connections in the past. But, the relatively obvious connections cannot be ignored.

    In the city mayors’ minds, they are just following a course that they have previously agreed to, set years ago. Mind you, these cities already pay a fee to be a part of the ICLEI. To them, they are merely continuing down a path already started, and as you look at major US cities and their zoning regulatory changes over time, you would see the influence of this evil cabal.

    To them, it is ‘business as usual’, without the involvement of our beloved Uncle Sugar.

    But is it legal?

    Food for thought,

    MCR

    • To ICLEI you can add the “Global Parliament of Mayors”
      https://globalparliamentofmayors.org/

      On the home page as I write this are:

      “It´s time for cities to lead”
      “A global devolution revolution is already under way. In 2016, a Global Parliament of Mayors was created precisely to empower an international network of cities”

      GPM committed to meeting targets COP21
      “Underlines the imperative for cities around the world to assume the lead on climate change”
      “For example, we are currently exploring ways UK cities could mobilize financial assistance for US Sanctuary cities that are financially penalized by President Trump”

      Guardian article about Dr. Barber’s last book on Climate Change
      “How to fix climate change: put cities, not countries, in charge”

      Bloomberg’s Next Anti-Washington Move: $200 Million Program for US Mayors
      “Michael R. Bloomberg will throw his financial might into helping beleaguered American mayors”

      With traitors like these working behind the scenes, we are well and truly stuffed…

  18. As a Brit let me first apologise, and secondly wonder what the hell she is doing when May, the PM, made it clear she had NO comment on Trumps decision to leave the Paris accord.

  19. Being the third most idiotic government in the world is not something to be proud of especially when you think about those who ended up killed in the towering inferno at Grenfell as a result of this stupidity. Even if other factors could have minimised it we should not forget it was caused by a combination of environmental lobby group actions. Actions like changing to flammable coolants in refrigerators which has been responsible for other less publicised deaths besides those at Grenfell tower block which was the start of the original fire. A fire then compounded by the demand we conform to CO2 minimisation actions regardless of other risks which are now ignored and use the best thermal insulation not the safest one.

  20. United Nations is also addressing cities directly:
    https://www.compactofmayors.org
    “The Compact of Mayors was launched by UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon and his Special Envoy for Cities and Climate Change, Michael R. Bloomberg, under the leadership of the world’s global city networks – C40 Cities Climate Leadership Group (C40), ICLEI – Local Governments for Sustainability (ICLEI) and the United Cities and Local Governments (UCLG) –with support from UN-Habitat, the UN’s lead agency on urban issues. The Compact establishes a common platform to capture the impact of cities’ collective actions through standardized measurement of emissions and climate risk, and consistent, public reporting of their efforts. Through the Compact, cities are:

    Increasing their visibility as leaders responding to climate change;
    Demonstrating their commitment to an ambitious global climate solution, particularly as nations convene around a new climate agreement in Paris in December 2015;
    Encouraging direct public and private sector investments in cities by meeting transparent standards that are similar to those followed by national governments;
    Building a consistent and robust body of data on the impact of city action; and
    Accelerating more ambitious, collaborative, and sustainable local climate action.”

    • OK then let Little gulp Bloomberg pay all the USA dues,, he has already declared he will pay a part of the climate indulgences Trump has withdrawn.

  21. How much cash have US Cities pledged to contribute to the climate fund?

  22. I get a kick out of phrases like; “tackling climate change” and “addressing climate change” ha ha what hubris.

    • I used to but now I get nauseous. These gibbering, yammering, poo-flinging, half-witted, superstitious primitives from your worst nightmare are actually and for real in charge of the country and now really do believe they’re some sort of modern-day Canutes. It’s terrifying and there is no telling what slobbering-at-the-moon insanity they will announce from their ivory tower somewhere on the planet Zog next.

  23. Excuse my ignorance here, but when a municipality (or state for that matter) identifies an action that it intends to take, and that will require government financing, does it not have to specify the desired outcome in some concrete terms? A bridge will be large enough to handle X number of vehicles over some Y period of time and result in traffic flow Z.

    Could not citizens insist on some kind of impact statement? “This expenditure of $5 million will result in global temperature increase being reduced by 0.000000017% by 2100” for example. Might expose the effort for what it truly is. Pointless. It’s like a neighborhood on Toronto marching for “world peace.” Nice but pointless.

  24. It is quite clear the UK environment, energy and climate ministers and departments have handed policy over to the unelected NGO bodies, namely Greenpeace, WWF, Friends of the Earth, and any other crackpot Green organisations, and after today’s announcement the UK will no longer allow the internal combustion engine to be used after 2040, it demonstrates the UK is now on a path to return to the stone age. Thank goodness I am of such mature years that I will not be alive to see it happen, but I do fear for my children and grand children.

    • You’ll need to be seizing all foreign assets, because except for N Korea, the rest of the world is of the same mind and will be doing the same thing.

    • It’s not illegal to talk. That’s all it is, is talk. Green, Lefty mayors may have something in mind, but they have to answer to their local taxpayers, and I personally do not think many of them will be successful if they go asking local taxpayers for tax increases.

      Virtue signaling is what they are doing. Nothing meaningful will come of it.

      • Oh I can see some liberal mayors taking funds from municipally funded celebrations for Memorial Day and the 4th of July and sending those overseas. I would think that as long as there was no treaty, compact or agreement to do so but rather just the use of a Mayor’s discretion of spending appropriated funds, it would not be unconstitutional. Now, that’s not to say it may violate a city ordinance on spending or that some unhappy tax payers may take it out on such a mayor’s hide, but that’s the chance any mayor would have to take if they really believed in what they were doing was going to help.

  25. I’m surprised Rudd hasn’t commented. He usually has something to say regarding the legal aspects of the insanity we’ve been facing.

  26. I’m sure there are some federal judges appointed by Obama that will go along with this.

  27. This would be a good time and excuse to ban the clear cutting of US forests for wood pellets shipped to the UK. Or maybe clear cut the agreement cities instead.

  28. Someone above referred to the UK government as a socialist power!! That could hardly be further from the truth.The current government under Theresa May is simply a continuation of Cameron’s Conservative government. Their primary concern was to dismantle the welfare state so far as that was/is electorally acceptable, though they’ve been very adept at concealing the extent to which they’ve been successful. Privatisation of almost everything is their objective. Austerity has been their means. Free market economics is their gospel, allied to the old “perfidious albion” machinations, which Americans should be very well aware of! The rich, powerful, and privileged are still extremely influential, and when a Conservative government goes down the Green route it’s because there is something in it for them and their friends: money, advantage, power or some combination of the three. It’s the way the UK government works. It’s motives are never transparent. So look at the board very carefully before you reach conclusions about any moves the UK government makes or statements made by any of its ministers – who are also frequently jockeying for personal advantage. Green corporate power is gaining ground, rightly or wrongly, and some governments and functionaries will gamble on that bandwagon gaining momentum throughout this century.

    Things are rarely as they seem . . .

    • “when a Conservative government goes down the Green route”

      It’s no longer conservative then, is it?

      Conservatives in the U.S. are for individual personal freedoms. Are their any political parties in Britain like that? Did the British people vote for these current British energy policies, or were they imposed Obama-like? Is it conservative to try to control the market by banning gasoline-burning automobiles or fiddling with the energy sector?

      The whole CAGW hysteria is not conservative, yet all British political parties buy into the scheme. I’m sorry, I don’t see much conservatism in Britain.

      • The term “conservative” is a relative term, TA. Conservative in the US refers to a time in which all of these things you cite were the norm. At the time, those people would actually have been considered “progressive,” because their ideas were a radical departure from what had been the norm. Conservative in the UK means something similar, but not exactly the same as here in the US. Classic liberal is probably a better description of what you are describing, which is not entirely true of either set of conservatives today, btw.

      • I did say that things “are rarely as they seem” . . . and gave a few hints as to what makes them tick . . The name is only nominal, and a rough guide to their history, but the party is certainly predominantly right wing, at least as right wing as your Republican Party, especially behind the scenes, where I suspect that democracy is not held in high esteem though. Remember that our Conservative party originated prior to the democratic era. . . . many of the powerful figures in the shadows are more inclined to a feudal outlook. And all parties have to adapt to survive. That’s something the Conservatives do well. But it’s mainly about gaining advantage and this lot don’t do that in a transparent, linear way . . . If you’re wondering where principle fits into the equation, then that would be a mistake. It isn’t an important consideration for them, or for most politicians though of course they’d like you to believe that it is . . . At the moment Gove and company are probably trying to pressure Trump into returning to the Paris agreement by indirect means, or they’re looking to the future when Trump is gone . . . or they’ve got something else quite different in mind . . .

        Individual person freedoms? The Conservatives here are the closest party to your Conervatives, but freedom of the individual isn’t quite so important to them because of their history. Elected governments tend to have manifesto commitments as you know, but they’re free to try to enact legislation on other areas too, if they can get it passed through the usual democratic channels, often in response to pressure from lobbies – something which happens in the US too. And there are various ways in which the Parliamentary process can be bypassed here too and it’s probably done here more often than in the US.

        The Green lobby grows ever stronger. And it isn’t all left wing by any means. The Conservatives are mainly not very sympathetic to the notion of AGW, but now and again they’ll talk and act as if they are, for the sake of appealing to voters who might be persuaded by the AGW case. These people tend to speak in code. And the situation is complicated just now because different personalities have their eye on Theresa May’s job. She is unlikely to survive for very long given her performance at the recent election. Gove is likely to be a leading contender! He’s a very ambitious and devious man.

        All governments interfere with markets to varying degrees – just look at food safety. Road traffic legislation. Taxation of petrol, diesel etc. The list is very long.

        Be well, sir.

      • “but the party is certainly predominantly right wing, at least as right wing as your Republican Party”

        That can be taken more than one way. :) Sometimes I wonder just how conservative some of our Republicans are.

        Thanks for the detailed response, jim hogg.

  29. Why do I get the feeling that the ‘leave it in the ground’ mob Marxists have successfully managed to capture my government? (Ex PM) Major had a word for people like Gove….he was right.

  30. Perhaps they could deal with reality….

    WSJ

    EU Cautions U.S. on Russia Sanctions Bill
    Juncker said sanctions could have ‘unintended unilateral effects that impact the EU’s energy security interests’

    • The EU should calm down. If Putin tries his energy blackmail, the U.S. will step in and supply what you need. Aren’t you glad Trump has given you some choices. That’s better than being totally dependent on Putin, isn’t it? Yes, we are frakking away over here and you should be very happy about that.

  31. I have no problem with cities/states doing whatever they want. At least then I can choose to live there or not, and my federal tax dollars aren’t paying for it. Win-win.

    • True, but sometimes what they are doing can complicate, or create a mess of things for other cities/states.

  32. As far as I can see, she is not making any UK laws, and any US cities she claims to be talking to are not making any any US laws. This is on the same level as Scotland recently making a ‘climate agreement’ with California: Largely irrelevant talking shops for regional politicians who aspire to something ‘greater’ than their remit. Probably because it seems easier than doing what they were actually elected to do, which is respond to their local electorate.

    This particular minister is a political nobody in the UK, and deserves nothing more from a US audience. Just sayin..

  33. I’m just impressed that Britain has a “Climate Change Minister.” Do they have one for Space Aliens as well? How about a Loch Ness Monster Minister? That would be really cool.

    • In the last week of August 1976 Brits appointed Mr. Denis Howell as a ‘Minister for Drought’, but that was at time when the ‘new ice age cometh’ cry was on the vain.

  34. ..and there si no such post as ‘climate change minister’ since decc and defra were reshuffled.

  35. The Brits will now sell only electric vehicles after 2020. This does not stand even elementary analysis. Our mother country has forsaken reason.

  36. Hmmm. I wonder if any of these mayors could be considered treasonous – what with bypassing the feds to bargain with a foreign government?

  37. Any US city official, “negotiating” with British government on this subject in writing, becomes indictable under 18 U.S. Code § 953. The sentence is up to three years in prison.

  38. UK third most gullible, third most stupid, third most economically suicidal, etc………. some boast.

    • No, she was discussing climate…

      As were the Chinese and Germans who visited California.

      she is down to produce a green development plan this autumn.

      Renewables and climate change are mainstream, baked in, central pieces of the policy of UK and EU governments. and have been for a decade.

      • As I said up-thread, good for the UK and the EU. You don’t need U. S. money so carry on without us.

  39. Does the UK actually have a position they could call “policy?” Apparently one department is moving ahead to ban the sale of vehicles using fossil fuels, while another is finally moving out to approve fracking to provide reasonably priced energy to the nation.

    It is humorous to see the representative of a big oil city like Huston talking to a representative of a government moving ahead on fracking discussing ending the use of fossil fuels. Both are just posturing.

    • Any fracking conducted in the UK would be constrained by the limits on CO2 which can be produced under the climate act, future UK carbon budget targets and targets for percentage of renewable electricity.

      There is in effect a limit to how much gas can be burned in UK power stations/for heating.

      We might choose to frack for it, as N Sea output declines, or get it from Qatar.

      But the use of it will be constrained.

      So the policy on fracking is within the policy on Climate change.

  40. Blithering idiots, I’m glad I left. Just like the Boy from Tottenham in Australia, I believe.

  41. Are Dementocrat mayors colluding with foreign governments at the same time as complaining Trump colludes with a foreign government?

  42. That’s ok, Trump can take that into consideration during trade talks with the UK now that they’re leaving the EU. If the UK wants to interfere with US politics then they can be financially punished accordingly in any trade deals that the UK are desperate to make with the US.

  43. You got that right. The UK government needs to get the heck out of us domestic politics. We will take a giant dump on them. Really getting tired of Euro trash politics although I immigrated from there. Well maybe that explains that

  44. What party was it again that won the recent UK election? I could have sworn it wasn’t the Labour watermelons.
    Sounds like the UK is afflicted with a “sensible centre”, LabourLite government much the same as Australia now has as a result of the Turnbull night of the long knives.

  45. Claire Perry should be prosecuted immediately. Who is she anyway – totally unknown to the British electorate apart from her own constituency. Who is speaking for?

Comments are closed.