Chris White Tech Reporter
November 04, 2019 10:47 AM ET
Former President Barack Obama illegally entered into the Paris climate agreement, a lawsuit filed Monday says, citing a legal memo the Obama administration allegedly used to justify the deal.
The lawsuit asserts that the Obama administration argued the agreement could be signed without Senate approval because it does not set “legally binding targets and timetables.” Such justifications are a misrepresentation of the law, according to the lawsuit.
“This memo demonstrates the Obama administration’s unlawful entry into the Paris treaty,” Chris Horner, a former senior fellow at the Competitive Enterprise Institute, noted in a press statement attached to the lawsuit. The memo “represents a major political and legal scandal,” he added. Horner left CEI in April.
The lawsuit seeks documents related to the memo from the U.S. State Department through a Freedom of Information Act request.
Horner is an attorney at the Government Accountability & Oversight (GAO) in April. The nonprofit group filed the lawsuit on behalf of Energy Policy Advocates. He cited a legal memo that allegedly justifies Obama’s decision to enter the climate deal, which compels the U.S. and 200 other countries to cut greenhouse gas emissions 26% to 28% by 2025.
Senate approval is required for any international deal that seeks “to adopt 1 targets and timetables,” not merely those that are “legally binding,” Horner noted in the lawsuit, referring to a referendum produced by the Senate in 1992 after the Kyoto Protocol, an international climate agreement designed to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. The U.S. never ratified Kyoto.
President Donald Trump announced in 2017 his intention to leave the agreement. The president promised to “cancel” the deal during his 2016 campaign, but his own White House was split on the issue. He already issued executive orders to roll back Obama-era global warming regulations.
Trump can finally make the pullout official Monday. The terms stipulate that a partnering country cannot withdraw within the first three years of submission. Trump can send a letter to the United Nations Monday announcing his intention. It won’t become official until one day after the 2020 election.
The president said during the early part of his campaign that the Obama administration poorly negotiated the Paris Agreement and did not put American workers first. Trump criticized what he believed was China and other member countries that were benefiting from U.S. funding through the deal’s financing arm.
China, one of the more than 200 other countries that signed on to the deal, is the world’s largest greenhouse gas emitter and made no commitment to cut greenhouse emissions. Instead, the communist nation said it would reach peak emissions by 2030.
China is also not legally obligated to comply with the accord. (RELATED: Trump Announces US Withdrawal From The Paris Climate Accord)
The communist country has taken steps to close down coal mines and shut down coal-fired power plants as an attempt to solve China’s poor air quality. Beijing also recently became the first Chinese city to replace all its coal power with natural gas.
Obama’s former Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) administrator, Gina McCarthy, has not responded to the Daily Caller News Foundation’s request for comment. McCarthy crafted environmental policies while she was EPA chief that helped bring the U.S. into compliance with the Paris deal.
The White House has also not responded to requests for comment.
Beijing has replaced all its coal power with natural gas. That’s great for PR, provided no-one mentions how man coal fired power stations the are building in other places.,,
https://www.npr.org/2019/04/29/716347646/why-is-china-placing-a-global-bet-on-coal
“China, known as the world’s biggest polluter, has been taking dramatic steps to clean up and fight climate change.
So why is it also building hundreds of coal-fired power plants in other countries?”
https://www.forbes.com/sites/judeclemente/2019/01/23/coal-is-not-dead-china-proves-it/#5430065d65fa
“For production, China’s December coal output was 2.1% higher than it was in 2017, hitting the highest level in over three years. The country started up new mines last year and then ramped up production to meet high winter demand. Due to domestic gas supply shortages in recent years, China has been softening its stance to displace coal heating with natural gas.
China approved nearly $6.7 billion worth of new coal mining projects in 2018, and production increased 5.2% to 3.55 billion tonnes.
For imports, now a much larger portion of the supply mix, coal imports in China were up 9% last year.”
[Both reports quoted above are dated 2019]
Mike J, I find it hard to believe your claim that China has ‘replaced all its coal-fired power with gas”. They are the world’s largest coal miner, and consumer, and import about another 100 million tons annually as well, much of it high quality energy coal from Australia. If they are not using most of that coal for power generation, what are they using it for?
He didn’t claim that- he pointed out (correctly) that Beijing (the city) has replaced all of its coal-fired power plants with natural gas.
They finished that process in 2017.
The rest of China is still building a bunch of coal plants.
Except, apparently, they didn’t. Beijing Huaneng Thermal Power Station is still around. While unit 1 (of 5) was retired in 2017, the other 4 units (for a total of 770MW Capacity) are still operating and remain on standby, with no retirement date set.
Natural confusion. Referring to the capital is often an offhand method of referring to the country.
Boyfrom T
They replaced coal in all industrial heat applications and as a domestic fuel for heating and cooking. Any industry using coal was moved out of the province (Beijing is a small province).
Natural gas is used instead, and electricity but is not available in all places that need it.
Having lived in Beijing, I can attest to the fact that the air is much cleaner now than 11 years ago when I moved here.
That said, coal is still in use and I see the piles waiting to burn for the heating of water for the radiator systems. Most of those are privately or community owned, so if the government is saying that national government run power and heating has all switched to natural gas, that is at least as true as most of the restaurants saying mapo doufu is vegetarian (because it has less meat than other dishes).
Also, it is necessary to distinguish Beijing the city from Beijing the province. The outer districts of Beijing province (outside 6th ring road) can still find coal for winter heating from municipal systems to hutongs, but inside 6th ring, there are few coal stoves left.
Mike never said China replaced all its coal fired plants with natural gas. The reference was to the city of Beijing converting to NG and away from coal.
Beijing has replaced all its coal power with natural gas.”
That statement is clearly incorrect, and is not found in the article you quote. In heavily populated areas, China has replaced *some* coal with natural gas plants. China is still the number 1 producer and user of coal in the world today. Which doesn’t make it a surprise they are still building coal plants around the world.
the only surprise is that clueless enviro’s still take China’s laughing lip service to enviro goals seriously.
And some of that gas comes from coal gasification: total CO2 is increased, but the target is not to reduce CO2, but local pollution
From a post here on Wattsupwiththat, below:
“ The country still generates 70% of its power from coal, and will continue to consume about half the world’s coal until 2023, according to the International Energy Agency. It also approved 141 million tons of new annual coal mining capacity in the first half of this year; in the whole of 2018, Beijing approved just 25 million tons of new coal mining capacity.
wws,
The confusion may be that when you read “Beijing” you think “communist party and all of China”. The Beijing mentioned is just the city and the province of “Beijing”.
It’s like saying “Washington,” when you mean the District of Columbia.
Even taking that confusion out of the equation, the statement is not strictly true. There is still one Coal power plant in Beijing (The Huaneng Beijing power station). One of it’s five units was retired in 2017 but the other 4 remain on standby for the winter months (when gas is in short supply).
China has doubled its coal imports, is building close to 1,000 coal plants and financing another 750 worldwide.
You must be mistaken.
China is obviously building NG power plants but they are building them out of coal.
They conscientiously realized that to burn coal for any reason is a big, green no-no so they’re using all the imported/mined coal as building material. Coal instead of bricks.
If it was illegal, the treaty is not binding or valid.
depends on who the judges are as we have discovered in the UK
And one can reliably expect the Left Coast’s 9th Circuit court to ignore the law if it promotes liberal goals.
It was never a treaty, as far as the USA is concerned.
Has the USA paid anything to the Accord? <– do we get a refund?
Source: https://www.factcheck.org/2017/05/trump-paris-agreement/
Trump said that the U.S. “pays billions of dollars” for the Paris Agreement, but China, Russia and India have paid “nothing.” The U.S. has pledged $3 billion, but so far has paid $1 billion. The agreement requires developed countries, such as the U.S., to help developing countries, including China and India, with mitigating climate change. Russia has not ratified the agreement.
He said that “the agreement could ultimately shrink America’s GDP by $2.5 trillion over a 10-year period.” But that estimate is over 20 years, not 10, and it comes from a conservative think tank. Another analysis described the potential economic impact as “modest” and the cost of delaying action as “high.”
So, which dim bulb(s) paid 1 billion?
It is a stretch to call China a developing country. They sit on top of the 2nd biggest economy in the world. They are not in the same class as Ghana or Honduras.
So, which dim bulb(s) paid 1 billion?
That would be Obama. He made two $500 million payments between the accord’s green slush fund, the second of which he made days before leaving office.
John Endicott,
That’s what I expected as the House of Representatives holds authority over the Budget. So it’s likely Obama used the Presidential fund to allocate payments (this needs confirmation).
The term which jumps out “pledged” 3 Billion. A pledge isn’t a treaty but it is or can be considered a binding agreement/contract.
There’s a lot more to this freedom of information request and pending law suit than has been reported.
Obama repurposed the money from State Dept. funds.
Indeed. Congress never approved or authorized any funds (and indeed specifically said they would not), so Obama redirected State Department funds that where in an account that were “not earmarked by Congress for specific programs and activities” (according to Obama State Department spokesman John Kirby ).
Has the USA paid anything to the Accord? <– do we get a refund?
Yes, Obama improperly funneled $1 billion to the Green slush fund under the accord
No, we won’t be getting a refund.
Why not sue Obama for the billion?
John McClure, good luck with that.
If you ignore the 9th Circuit.
9th circuit has nothing to do with it. The US Constitution says you have to have 2/3 of the Senate approve before it is a treaty.
From Article 2 Section 2, “He shall have Power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, to make Treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur;”
The Paris Accord was never submitted to the Senate. It’s not a treaty, as far a s the USA is concerned.
The US Constitution has nothing to with how the 9th circuit rules. There isn’t a left-wing position the 9th circuit won’t bend and twist the law and the constitution into pretzels to support.
If it was illegal, the treaty is not binding or valid.
And by your reckoning, how many times (do you reckon) that’s mattered (or going to matter) to anyone of the Progressive faith when everyone else’s best interests were (or are) at stake?
It’s not even a real treaty.
“The communist country [China] has taken steps to close down coal mines…”
Well I have taken steps to reduce the size of my blobby belly, but don’t look like dropping a shirt size anytime soon.
Steps may speak louder than words, but they are still not actions.
Try “Eat Stop Eat” by Brad Pilon. It does work, …easily, … believe it or not! Amazon.com. You WILL need smaller shirts.
Friends,
I write to ask a question because I am genuinely curious: I am not an American and I hope my question will give me an understanding of the ramifications of this matter.
My existing understanding of this matter is as follows.
US Secretary of State Mike Pompeo has said the Paris Accord would have imposed unreasonable burdens on the US economy, and on behalf of President Trump he has formally announced the US is withdrawing from the Accord. President Trump will formally approve the announced withdrawal on Monday which is the first day the Accord’s procedures permit initiation of such a withdrawal. After that, the complex withdrawal procedure could be completed as early as February 21, 2021. This UN timetable provides the possibility that a change of US President in the coming US Presidential Election could result in cessation of the withdrawal process. Meanwhile, Chris Horner is making a legal case that ex-President Obama entered the US into the Paris Accord illegally. Such a case would take time and if successful would probably not be completed until after either President Trump had withdrawn the US from the Accord or his successor had bolstered the US involvement in the Accord. However, it seems unlikely that Horner would make such an expensive legal case for no practical purpose.
So, having that understanding, my question is,
Can the legal case being made by Chris Horner have any practical effect and if so what would that effect be?
With thanks to any Americans who can and do provide answer to my question.
Richard
What the CEI wants is a Federal Court order that does two things:
1) President 0bama’s Paris Agreement was unconstitutional without Senate ratification,
2) a Federal Court injunction against the executive branch using the Agreement to craft rules w/o Senate ratification.
#2 would preclude a Democrat President from “re-entering” the Agreement in 2021 and using it to impose regulations via the EPA on America’s energy and power production industries
As a #3), such a Court ruling would also be a political point for Republicans to tell voters that what 0bama did was unconstitutional.
It would take away “Paris” from any Democrat who tries to talk about the agreement during their campaign. Republicans would simply respond, “Oh you mean that thing 0bama did that was ruled unconstitutional by a Federal court? So what else do you want to do that’s unconstitutional Mr/Ms Democrat?”
Joel O’Bryan ;
Thank you. I understand you to be saying the Court case would have two practical purposes if successful; i.e.
1.
It would prohibit a US President from returning the US into the Paris Accord without Senate Approval.
2.
It would provide an electioneering talking point for the Republican Party.
As a ‘Brit’ that makes sense to me because in our system
(a) the government (i.e. the executive branch of Parliament) can only act in accordance with the law
and
(b) any subject of HM can take the government to Court to stop the government acting unlawfully.
The UK Supreme Court recently stopped the (existing) Johnson UK government from acting unlawfully and this can be expected to be an issue in the recently started UK General Election campaign.
So, your answer tells me that the US’s written Constitution has more than I thought which is in common with the UK’s unwritten Constitution.
Again, thank you.
Richard
Well no, not really. There’s supposed to be a separation of powers, the Parliament makes the laws and the Judiciary apply them.
The top dog is the Crown to which nothing is superior, the executive enacts the will of the Crown, which is acting on advice of its Government, the executive.
This Blair created Supreme Court have just made stuff up based on a hypothetical argument “What happens if parliament is prorogued for a year ? Whose in charge then ?” We say it’s us”.
The anti-democratic pro EU people in the establishment have been making stuff up as they see fit.
zemlik,
Most of what you said is right up to – but not after – you wrote “This Blair…”.
The Crown is supreme but even the Monarch is subject to the law: this was established at the Restitution of the monarchy following the Commonwealth of Oliver Cromwell.
Blair’s government did replace the Law Lords with the Supreme Court but the people doing that job did not change.
And it is simply the fact that the Executive did prorogue Parliament for an unlawful purpose and the Supreme Court stopped that.
The only people who have been “making stuff up as they see fit” are the Leave campaign: it seems you failed to notice the “stuff” they wrote in large letters on a bus.
Richard
Troll posting as B d Clark,
I will answer your questions when you have answered mine.
I yet again ask what is your real name and who is paying you to troll here?
Richard
(It is his real name, his e-mail address is legitimate and his IP address is valid) SUNMOD
I’ve told you through 3 posts now my user name is my real name, who pays me dick? No one pays me dick who pays you dick? What’s your real name, do you see how paranoid and ridiculous you are becoming ,answer the direct questions I have put to you
(His name is RICHARD, please use that name which is real, you need to dial back the snotty attitude and focus on the debate and on the topic better) SUNMOD
Troll posting as B d Clark,
It is good that you have stopped stalking me but I am intrigued by the “dick” whom you are stalking in this thread.
It seems this “dick” may be another fantasy of your imagining like the contents of your link which said the opposite of what you claimed.
Medical treatment for these delusions is available and I think you should obtain it.
Richard
(Let it go as he is not worth getting so agitated over, both of you have said enough about a particular discussion) SUNMOD
You have been asked countless times to answer questions you have failed, you have been called out by two other posters on the same subjects as me you dont reply, you accuse me of being a troll which is your default when you refuse to answer any questions, you accuse me of not being me without any knowledge of who I am I’ve told you repeatedly my user name is my real name, it does seem you are a aggressive troll who resorts to bad mouthing a fellow poster who is only asking you questions by replying to your posts, it seems to me you have a agenda that’s been callEd out.
Troll posting as B d Cllark,
I see no reason to waste more time debating your lies and delusions. Anybody who wants to know why can read my experience of doing that which begins at this post
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2019/11/02/nigel-farage-exposes-extinction-rebellions-plan-to-topple-representative-democracy/#comment-2838356
Richard
“(b) any subject of HM can take the government to Court to stop the government acting unlawfully.”
not the case in the US, the party seeking relief must show that they have “standing”, which means that they can show that they were personally and directly harmed by this action. It’s and obscure doctrine to most non-legal people, but a huge number of cases are tossed out each year for this. And I predict this case that the article is about will get tossed for lack of standing.
Federal Judges like to use it, the issue allows them to toss out a case at a very preliminary stage, without having to say anything about the merits of the claim at all.
wws,
Thank you.
I appreciate that clarification because it is a difference from the UK situation.
Richard
Your wrong yet again dick I can persue any one and any institution via the civil courts if I’ve been personally wronged ,the proof of burden for the claimant is less in a civil court than a criminal court,so you have completely no idea what your talking about dick,
B d Clark,
“dick” may be as wrong as you but if so then his comment has been corrected by my post.
Richard
(SNIPPED) SUNMOD
Good summary, Joel. I think there also is value in having the Paris Agreement declared invalid ab inicio, in that damages may therefore be sought as a remedy by those affected. It is clear that the Obama Administration realized that, given the Kyoto debacle-failure to be ratified in the Senate, that a Presidential Order was the only access to the USA entry into the Paris Accord, legal or not.
Richard,
How can the Crown be supreme but the Monarch subject to the law ?
The Monarch is the Crown, it has to be an actual person.
The executive did not act for an illegal purpose, it was a political purpose that has nothing to do with unelected judiciary.
As for “the bus” your Judges have decided there was nothing inaccurate in the statement.
Anyway the original point is that laws, conventions are ignored, reinterpreted if it doesn’t suit the Marxists both side of the Atlantic.
(The 1689 Bill of Rights contains the following oath: `I do declare that no foreign prince, person, prelate, state or potentate hath or ought to have jurisdiction, power, superiority, pre-eminence or authority within this Realm.’
makes all the treaties with the EU illegal.
try getting a court to adjudicate on that
Richard does not seem to get it, the executive make the decisions they run it by the crown the queen who then announces the executive decision, she maybe is asked for a opinion she may get a private amendment, but it’s the executive who make the decisions,I agree what the UK government did ie prologuing parliament was not illegal they said it was unlawful, which mean two different things ,the supreme court interfered in a normal parliamentary procedure to give a political advantage to a opposing side. Disgraceful.
zemlik,
You ask me,
“How can the Crown be supreme but the Monarch subject to the law ?
The Monarch is the Crown, it has to be an actual person.”
In the other thread the troll repeatedly cited a link the contents of which he repeatedly disputed !
However, the troll’s link does clearly state the answer to your question.
The troll first provided the link here
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2019/11/02/nigel-farage-exposes-extinction-rebellions-plan-to-topple-representative-democracy/#comment-2838633
and repeatedly stated the link in subsequent posts in that thread. It is
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Royal_prerogative
It says of the legal limits to the Monarch’s power in the UK,
“The scope of the royal prerogative is difficult to determine due to the uncodified nature of the constitution. It is clear that the existence and extent of the power is a matter of the common law of England, making the courts the final arbiter of whether a particular type of prerogative exists or not. Nevertheless, certain prerogative powers have been widely acknowledged and accepted over time, while others have fallen out of use.
The royal prerogative is not constitutionally unlimited. In the Case of Proclamations (1611) during the reign of King James VI/I, English common law courts judges emphatically asserted that they possessed the right to determine the limits of the royal prerogative. Since the Glorious Revolution in 1688, which brought co-monarchs Queen Mary II and King William III to power, this interpretation of there being a separate and distinct power of the Judiciary has not been challenged by the Crown. It has been accepted that it is emphatically the province of the court(s) to say what the law is, or means. This is a crucial corollary and foundation to the concept of the judicial power; and its distinct and separate nature from the executive power possessed by the Crown itself, or its ministers.”
(emphasis added. RSC)
The Leave campaign was found guilty of financial and other legal improprieties. The lies on the bus were trivial compared to that.
And you say,
“The executive did not act for an illegal purpose, it was a political purpose that has nothing to do with unelected judiciary.”
The quotation I have copied from the troll’s link directly refutes that when it says,
“It has been accepted that it is emphatically the province of the court(s) to say what the law is, or means. This is a crucial corollary and foundation to the concept of the judicial power; and its distinct and separate nature from the executive power possessed by the Crown itself, or its ministers.”
The judiciary alone have the power “to say what the law is, or means”.
Many – including the Speaker of the Commons – warned the government it was acting unlawfully and when the Supreme Court tried the matter it unanimously agreed the government was acting unlawfully.
Richard
My link was about the crown and that the courts have power over the crown your twisting what I’m reproducing for your own ends, you yourself was arguing the crown is supreme, it’s not, your clearly a confused old man who has little grasp on anything. The executive make all the decisions in the UK the crown announce these decisions
zemlik says:
Anyway the original point is that laws, conventions are ignored, reinterpreted if it doesn’t suit the Marxists both side of the Atlantic.
Yes, that’s the core of the matter. Here in the US. the judicial branch has been thoroughly infiltrated by the US neo-marxists over the decades. Trump has enabled a fair number of judicial appointments (thru Mitch McConnell) to counter that, but the infiltration has been very extensive. The judicial has just become another branch of the “swamp”.
Looking at Britain from America (though presently I happen to be in Liverpool), it is my understanding that the Magna Carta established the principle that the Monarch’s powers are limited, as opposed to the claim of many monarchs that their powers were “divine” and unlimited.
Did the requirements placed on William of Orange and Mary, who became King William I and Queen Mary, not just reaffirm and codify the Magna Carta principle?
Richard,
you say
“The quotation I have copied from the troll’s link directly refutes that when it says,”
but it doesn’t tho’ does it ?
As far as I can see it is talking about the Separation of Powers.
If you don’t get it then I guess you don’t get it.
zemlik,
I “get it” but it seems you cannot read.
You said,
“The executive did not act for an illegal purpose, it was a political purpose that has nothing to do with unelected judiciary.”
I pointed out that IT HAS EVERYTHING “TO DO WITH UNELECTED JUDICIARY” when I replied saying,
“The quotation I have copied from the troll’s link directly refutes that when it says,
“It has been accepted that it is emphatically the province of the court(s) to say what the law is, or means. This is a crucial corollary and foundation to the concept of the judicial power; and its distinct and separate nature from the executive power possessed by the Crown itself, or its ministers.”
The judiciary alone have the power “to say what the law is, or means”.
Many – including the Speaker of the Commons – warned the government it was acting unlawfully and when the Supreme Court tried the matter it unanimously agreed the government was acting unlawfully.”
I do not know what could be more clear than the link’s statement saying.
“It has been accepted that it is emphatically the province of the court(s) to say what the law is, or means.”
Proroguing Parliament to prevent Parliamentary scrutiny of a Government Treaty (i.e. Johnson’s ‘deal’ with the EU) was and is unlawful.
I hope you “get it” now.
Richard
The judicial system has nothing to do with parliamentary procedure, there was nothing illegal or unlawful with the suspension of parliament a opposing side used the courts several times to swing the decision there way,that’s a abuse of power by the courts stepping in and making a political decision. It’s not finished yet dick this will be challenged.
kwinterkorn,
You ask,
Looking at Britain from America (though presently I happen to be in Liverpool), it is my understanding that the Magna Carta established the principle that the Monarch’s powers are limited, as opposed to the claim of many monarchs that their powers were “divine” and unlimited.
Did the requirements placed on William of Orange and Mary, who became King William I and Queen Mary, not just reaffirm and codify the Magna Carta principle?”
Yes, you are completely right.
The matter is ‘spelled out’ in my above post in this thread here
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2019/11/04/lawsuit-says-obama-entered-paris-climate-agreement-illegally-cites-mysterious-legal-memo/#comment-2839512
Richard
No dick your not remembering or obfuscating the fact, the courts over rule the crown the crown takes its orders from the executive the crown has no power you just dont get it the crown just stamps the executive roles in its name only.it does not direct the executive and its agency’s.
Richard,
It is correct that the business of the Courts is to interpret and apply the law but you are confused about what the law is and to who it applies.
You are sounding like your typical remainer who is upset that the biggest democratic vote in UK history didn’t go the way you like.
zemlik,
Not everybody who supports the Rule Of Law is a “remainer”, and I am not one.
The end does NOT always justify the means, and the government acted unlawfully. Live with it.
Richard
Richard,
If Parliament can abolish the Supreme Court how can Parliament be subject to it ?
“What the CEI wants is a Federal Court order that does two things:”
Have you looked at the complaint document? It does not ask for that at all. It just seeks to compel the State Dep’t to produce a document requested under FOIA.
Nick, we all know that you are not that stupid. Why do you persist in acting like you are?
That’s what he’s paid for.
“It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends upon his not understanding it”
Nothing of substance on what the complaint actually demands?
I’ll throw this bit in.
Woodrow Wilson proposed The League of Nations after WW1. He agreed that the US would be a member. The Senate said NO!
The US was never a member of The League of Nations.
What Wilson said did not bind the US to The League of Nations.
What Obama said does not bind the US to Paris.
It never even CAME UP FOR A VOTE in the Senate.
Simple as that.
Yes, I know that some claim that since he didn’t say the US would be actually required to DO something, no Senate approval was required. Bull.
Why is the US required to adhere to the years long exit requirements? That sounds like the US is being required to “DO” something the Senate never approved. Doesn’t it?
Obama is Humpty-Dumpty — when he uses a word (law), it means just what he chooses it to mean — neither more nor less.
And
#4) We don’t need to jump through the hoops to withdraw from the agreement because we never validly agreed to enter it.
Richard Courtney: Have no idea how far down this thread this comment will appear, but here goes…
The suit may have a practical effect, but it should have been filed when Obama signed it. An american court could easily find that the Accord is nothing more than an executive agreement (i.e., can be undone by the next Pres.) To file it now may be better late than never, but it risks precisely what you say- a Pres. Warren could put the withdrawal on hold while this lawsuit is stuck in pre-trial motions. Full disclosure- I agree with CEI that the Paris Accord is not a treaty and not enforceable, and I think Obama knew it. He also knew that american press would not report it that way, instead it would be lauded as “the world unifies against climate change”. And so they have. Finally, I think the formal withdrawal is only necessary because we fear courts of other countries might find it somehow enforceable.
paul courtney,
Thank you. It is good to get another sensible reply in addition to those from Joel O’Bryan and wws.
The stalking from the troll together with other nonsense is becoming not worth the effort of contributing here. As you know, I withdrew from contributing on WUWT for some years for medical reasons, and I have recently restarted despite warnings about because I hoped my experience could be of use. I am starting to think the warnings were correct.
Again, thankyou for your information and your effort to provide it..
Richard
All you have provided is a inability to understand the monarchy vs the executive and a failure to understand there are coal plants operating in Beijing, you are wrong dick instead of holding up your arms and admitting as much ,you resort to name calling and character assassination because your ego is too big,
B d Clark,
All you have provided is stalking and trolling together with blatant falsehoods.
Crawl back under your bridge.
Richard
Clarke, I do not know if you or if Richard have the right of it.
But I do know that you are worry-wort.
give it a rest
No you dont know do you but you could if you actually read all the posts nice of you to stick your oar in
The stalking from the troll together with other nonsense is becoming not worth the effort of contributing here.
Well, Mr. Courtney, that would be a shame in my view, hence, if I may offer a suggestion?
What with Clark’s seeming obsession, i.e., his(?) plethora of reference to the male genitalia (especially in his(?) usage of the word “dick”) throughout this article, I had at first considered he(?) might be doing that which nasty little troll(ette?)s tend to do, that is, “resort to name calling” (quoting his likely hypocrisy above) by using the common nickname in place of your actual name.
Now? Well, I’m just not so sure.
Perhaps if you just informed [it] that you are already married it might be satisfied and go away. Of course, if that isn’t true well then my suggestion is useless.
All the best wishes for your continued contribution at WUWT!
I see you do exactly what you accuse me of doing “it” so can we just say your a hypocrite, did you notice dick is wrong of course if you did happen to read his responses you would see he is wrong and refuses to answer questions not only myself have commented on this fact, why would he avoid answering questions if he does not want to answer questions why respond with troll your not using your real name, throwing his toys out of the pram hes a childish person who cant admit hes wrong so he goes into attack mode, perhaps if you were a learned type you would read the to and throwing of questions before you make a informed comment
(Snipped)
(SNIPPED)
(Snipped)
Apologies Tom. Admittedly, I allowed a SmackDaddy, DoltTard, Stück Scheiße to get to me and cause an emotional reaction that overcame my reason. I made your job just that much more difficult and that was unfortunate. But the P.O.Scheiße just kept picking on a sick man, after all. I would’ve just opened a nice, big can of Texas whoop-arse on his worthless little behind had I known where to find ‘im . . .
MODERATOR a man who threatens another man who he does not know is a fool,a man who threatens another man on a climate /science forum has no place being here and is far worse than anything said in this sorry thread
But I have read all the posts.
reading all the posts on a subject in a blog does not lead one to an eternal verity.
It can help with filling certain blanks spots in
more importantly – it can give an insight into the character of a poster or a blogger.
sadly – you do not come out very well
Unsurprisingly neither do you,what a excuse for not seeing dick refuses to answer questions, I doubt you have the ability to understand very much at all,you are good at excuses though.
To file it now may be better late than never, but it risks precisely what you say- a Pres. Warren could put the withdrawal on hold while this lawsuit is stuck in pre-trial motions
No, Paul, that can’t happen. The withdraw process has started and will by complete the day after election day. Even if Warren is elected in that election, she can’t do anything until Jan, when she would be sworn in – the withdraw will long since be complete by then. What Warren could do is re-enter the accord (I recall reading somewhere that there’s a 3 month window after the withdraw is complete to do so which would take us to Feb 2021 which is after the Jan swearing in. Elsewhere I’ve also read that it only takes 30-days to join, so even without that 3 month window she could sign us back up easily enough, regardless).
As for a judge putting exiting it on hold due to the lawsuit, they’d have no grounds to do so (exiting an illegal accord will cause no harm whereas staying in an illegal accord would).
If anything the lawsuit could put re-entering it on hold, should it be going on when a Pres. Warren tries to re-enter the accord (as entering an accord illegally could be a cause of harm)
John Endicott: Thank you for your comment. I hope you are right, but we know that Obama wanted to “bulletproof” his unconstitutional treaty, and I have not dug into how many mines these folks put down to protect this “accord” (see, we didn’t call it a treaty”). I think the suit should have been brought earlier because the “accord” was a treaty wrapped in a shroud of obfuscation from day 1, and State Dep’t holdovers will do anything to stretch this to Feb. (notice the “witnesses” testifying to Schiff’s committee are mostly State Dep’t holdovers?).
I feel obliged to tell bd Clark to have more respect for Richard Courtney (no relation). You are a real name etc., but you trolled him. You seem to have no idea to whom you are talking, the fact that he posts here is one of the reasons this site is taken seriously by those who attack it. And if you want him to answer your questions about monarch v. exec., try posting at a site that cares.
I dont think you really get it Richard brought up the monarchy not me ,your yet again not paying attention to what happened in the thread,your remark would be better aimed at him. So this site and its members are unquestionable are they according to the amount of time they have been here,that’s what your saying right,regardless of what new members can bring to the forum regardless how wrong a old member may be ,protectionism above the good fight!
Mr. Clark: Figured a bit more rope would do it. Thanks for confirming that you’re not worth another……
(Snip)
I think the suit should have been brought earlier because the “accord” was a treaty wrapped in a shroud of obfuscation from day 1
Definitely agree with you there, it’s something that should have been done long ago in a more perfect world, however having a legal case that makes it to the inside of a court room (let alone win) isn’t always as easy as it might seem. This case, for instance, depends (in part) on a memo the knowledge of which might not have been known about back when the Paris accord was being finalized. It took Chris Horner and the CEI a lot of time and effort (and FOIA requests) to build any case that they might bring. And thank goodness for their efforts, would that mainstream news organization were as diligent about finding the truth.
John Endicott says, “would that mainstream news organizations….” Indeed. As we are learning, mainstream apply journo ethics um… a bit unevenly. You’re likely aware of ABC News quashing an Epstein story. Toward the end, the reporter laments, “we had the story… Clinton, everything….” And ABC felt photos were not up to their high journo ethics requiring “corroboration”. Best comment I saw was, “take one word out, “Clinton”, and insert “Trump”, and reporter’s story won’t run??!!
And I know CEI does great work chasing paper that D’s try to disappear. I don’t like to criticize them, but the argument is on the face of it, IMHO. No need to wait for these docs, as juicy as they may be. Used to be, one could say if Dems are not producing docs, they must have Dem dirt. Now, I think Dems refuse to produce docs just for the exercise!
“taken steps to close down coal mines and shut down coal-fired power plants as an attempt to solve China’s poor air quality….” And replaced them with new ones: https://www.carbonbrief.org/mapped-worlds-coal-power-plants
The Paris issue is of course a major reason for the constant efforts to remove President Trump and get a “Democrat” back into the White House, who would instantly reverse Trump’s Paris decision.
No prizes for knowing you won’t find any mention of it in the MSM.
>> The communist country has taken steps to close down coal mines and shut down coal-fired power plants as an attempt to solve China’s poor air quality. Beijing also recently became the first Chinese city to replace all its coal power with natural gas.
That’s completely incorrect!
The Chines are currently planning to build (at least) 1187 coal-powered plants!
Jaap Titulaer,
It is not “completely” incorrect.
You are right that China is building very many new coal-fired power plants but Mike Jonas is completely correct when he says,
“Beijing has replaced all its coal power with natural gas. That’s great for PR, provided no-one mentions how man coal fired power stations the are building in other places.,,”
Richard
Beijing has replaced all its coal power with natural gas” what made you think that dick ? Are you just reading the Chinese propaganda with wishful thinking from the western propaganda machine have a read dick
https://www.carbonbrief.org/mapped-worlds-coal-power-plants
Troll posting a B d Clark,
I see you are still stalking me here.
I have reported information from my Chinese contacts .
I again ask what is your real name and who is paying you to troll here?
Richard
So you dident read the live graph dick you did not respond to a direct question on topic ,instead of debating you resort to accusing of trolling,rather childish dick,why cant you respond to a direct question to the post you made, my real name is as you see it dick my email is a slightly shortened version, I have never used a different email or username on this site because this is the only time I’ve used this site,I’ve never joined here before under any other aliases seems to me you question my legitimacy because you refuse to answer any questions
Richard, surely you know how that looks? we only have your word that
1) you have Chinese contacts
2) that these unnamed Chinese contacts said what you claim they said
and
3) that “your Chinese contacts” are telling you the truth
B D Clark, on the other hand provided a link to a site that anyone who cares to can look at that says otherwise which you’ve provided no evidence that said links information is in error other than your word about what your unnamed Chinese contacts are whispering in your ear. Are these anonymous Chinses contacts paying your to troll? (it’s as fair a question as your accusations of trolling directed at B D Clark)
John Endicott,
Think whatever you want. My contacts derive from when I worked for them and I merely stated the truth to refute the troll.
Does the troll’s link really say what he claims?
I cannot be bothered to check because the link repeatedly cited by the troll in the other said the opposite of his claims and he argued against what it did say !
Richard
PS, I am assuming the troll is a he and not a they.
Theres no truth in your reply what so ever, instead of reading what I produced you claim you cant be bothered,
You rely on a previous post of your contacts, what contacts are they worthy contacts have they published ?I strongly suspect your misleading this forum at the least,and it would seem by your own admission you cant even be bothered to read what’s presented to you,how can any one take you seriously .
Richard, it’s not a refutation when nobody can independently verify what you say. “Trust me I have contacts”, is *not* a valid refutation of anything. At least B d Clark offered a link that everyone can read (even though you admittedly refused to do so) and evaluate for themselves whether or not it backs up his position, you offered nothing but your word (which is no better or worse than the word of any of the anonymous posters on the internet regardless of how much you value names over handles).
Oh and to be as charitable as you are being to B d Clark
My contacts derive from when I worked for them
Are you still working for them (the Chinese)? are they the ones paying you to troll? (see how easy it is to accuse those you disagree with of being a paid troll?)
Oh, and if you are referring to his link on Royal Perogative, it’s you who didn’t thoroughly read that link. You missed an entire section call “evolution” where the word Parliament appears several times (and specifically in reference to the UK) contrary to your claim that the article doesn’t mention UK parliament at all. Perhaps you should read that section before making such bold claims about what it doesn’t say.
Thank you John
Does the troll’s link really say what he claims?
Well, let’s see his claim was “Beijing has replaced all its coal power with natural gas” what made you think that dick ? ” and if you go to his link and look on the map, you’ll see there is still an active coal powered plant in Beijing (Huaneng Beijing Power Station powered by Bituminous coal with a 770 MW capacity), so yes it looks like the link backs up his claim that Beijing has not replaced all it’s coal power. What do you have to back up your claim that it has replaced all it’s coal power beyond unnamed anonymous contacts that nobody can verify?
That’s why he claims “he cant be bothered” to look at the link and acuses me of trolling ,he did look at the link and he was wrong, I have to thank you again John. And to be fair some one else did post the same link earlier than me I did not see it till after I posted.
Richard your attempt to character assassinate me failed your own lack of knowledge and ego .
John Endicott,
I said, “when I worked for them”.
If I were now working for them I would have said, “I work for them”.
This is called ‘tense’.
I am NOT trolling: I am fighting off a troll who is stalking me.
I am not payed nor employed by anybody.
And I would welcome information on how someone in my condition could obtain remunerated employment.
I have a range of experience gained over nearly three quarters of a century and I try to do what I can to pass that on while I still can.
Support the troll if you want. As I said, it is no longer of any consequence what people think of me.
Richard
No dick you said “I have reported information from my Chinese contacts” so then you change this to a past tense, so I will ask again what information ? Why have you not responded to my post that there are coal power plants in Beijing, your I have reported information from my Chinese contacts” for that statement to be relevant it must be a recent disclosure to you, relevant to the topic , so why do you not produce what you have ?
Friends,
For the benefit of onlookers, I am writing to refute an accusation that my defence against falsehoods from the troll was factually incorrect.
John Endicott wrote saying to me in full,
“Oh, and if you are referring to his link on Royal Perogative, it’s you who didn’t thoroughly read that link. You missed an entire section call “evolution” where the word Parliament appears several times (and specifically in reference to the UK) contrary to your claim that the article doesn’t mention UK parliament at all. Perhaps you should read that section before making such bold claims about what it doesn’t say.”
The link in question is this https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Royal_prerogative and
The dispute was that the troll had said (and has repeated in this thread) that the Monarch has no Prerogative Power and can only do what she is told to do. I quoted the pertinent Section of the link concerning control of and limits to the Monarch’s powers in the UK (I have copied it again in this thread) which says the judiciary alone decides the powers the Monarch can and cannot apply. I explained the main powers of the Monarch which are
to choose and to appoint the Prime minister (usually but not always the Leader of the largest Party in the Commons),
to edit the draft Queen’s Speech by redacting parts which the Monarch would not provide the Royal Assent, and
to provide or refuse the Royal Assent which enacts Bills approved by Parliament.
The Section of the link titled “Evolution” mentions the UK in one paragraph that says in full,
“In Britain, prerogative powers were originally exercised by the monarch acting, without an observed requirement for parliamentary consent (after its empowerment in certain matters following Magna Carta). Since the accession of the House of Hanover these powers have been, with minor exceptions in economically unimportant sectors, exercised on the advice of the Prime Minister or the Cabinet, who are accountable to Parliament, exclusively so, except in matters of the Royal Family, since at least the time of William IV.”
This says some powers are “exercised on the advice of the Prime Minister or the Cabinet, who are accountable to Parliament”. But it does NOT pertain to the limits of The Monarch’s powers which – as the link says – are decided by the judiciary alone. Indeed, the link’s information concerning the limits to the Monarch’s power makes no mention of Parliament (n.b. no mention, none, not any) because Parliament has no say in the matter.
Richard
No dick I never said the monarch had no prerogative powers I said the monarch has no powers ,you still dont get it do you yet you post like you do ,what you describe as prorogative powers are announcements decisions taken be the executive, the queen does not choose the prime minister a school boy of 5 knows the leader of a party is chosen by the party if that party gains power the party leader becomes prime minister,nothing to do with royalty at all ,she yet again endorsise this party decision by announcement. That’s all she does dick she appears now and again in parliament to utter a pre conceived government directive she does not instruct write in any form the governments business,nor does she campaign for any political party that the winning party manifesto has pledged to become law, how could she, your talking utter nonsense mis informing people and disrupting the thread.
Friends,
John Endicott queried my Chinese contacts and I answered,
“My contacts derive from when I worked for them and I merely stated the truth to refute the troll.”
Endicott replied by asking if I still work for them: I ignored the implication and answered,
“I said, “when I worked for them”.
If I were now working for them I would have said, “I work for them”.
This is called ‘tense’. ”
The troll says of this that I changed the tense !
This barrage of misrepresentations of my words is egregious.
Richard
Ah part quoting now dick this is what I said https://wattsupwiththat.com/2019/11/04/lawsuit-says-obama-entered-paris-climate-agreement-illegally-cites-mysterious-legal-memo/#comment-2839748 part quoting is deceptive dick, you still dont answer the question do you any one can follow the link and see the full response from me, your getting desperate.
Richard S Courtney November 5, 2019 at 4:36 am
may I suggest you ignore B d Clark.
He is dragging you into going off topic, stick with what you normally do and let him talk to himself.
michael
He wont ignore because hes wrong he has not got the grace to say he is wrong hes been told by others hes wrong try reading and comprehending, what this fool is saying.
Endicott replied by asking if I still work for them: I ignored the implication and answered,
Richard, you are mischaracterizing things, the very actions that have brought us this length off-topic tangent.
What I said was “Oh and to be as charitable as you are being to B d Clark” when I asked “are you still working for them”, I made it clear the question was not a serious implication but a means to show you how you are acting towards others. Why are you willfully mischaracterizing (or to be less charitable, lying) about what others are saying?
And, BTW, it doesn’t go unnoticed that you’ve completely ignored the point of this thread, namely whether there is any coal plants in Beijing or not. You claimed it’s truthful to say they’ve all been converted to natural gas (as you claim your unnamed chinses contacts tell you), it’s been pointed out to you that is not true (there is in fact 4 out of 5 units of one coal power plant still there/not converted to NG and not retired). I wonder why you’ve avoided acknowledging that fact? can’t admit when you (and your unnamed contacts) are wrong?
B d Clark,
Your antagonism is childish and uncalled for. Your constant use of ‘dick’ for Richard is very childish. You would do better if you stick to your argument and leave out the attacks. If you act this way when around people you run the risk of getting yourself hurt. Grow up and behave like an adult.
My antagonism I dont like being called a troll I dont like being told my name is not my real name the antagonism is fairly and squarely in dicks corner instead of answering on topic questions he resorts to the above,hes misleading the thread with his ego .
If you have really paid attention I have stuck to my argument, as for being childish a dick is a dick particularly when it acts like one.dont threaten me pal threating some one you dont know is childish and stupid.
If it were a play, his character would be –
‘Man Who talks loudly in Pub’
Unlike you a little man who’s gossiping with no input to the thread at all well done have you ever contributed anything to this site ?
“If it were a play . . . ”
Whaddya mean, “if”? Although I suspect rather than a play it’s more of a “Cabaret” sort of thang, if you get my drift (and even if you don’t, I know it does).
I’m EternallyOptimistic its stage name is “B d[ick] Clark.”
The “B”? Well in this context, with all the reference to Richard’s genitalia the best available evidence to what it desires us all to think that means seems obvious. *wink-wink, nudge-nudge*
Still not getting into on topic mode are you you are a typical name calling troll are you trying to dissuade me it really wont work,when dick comes back tomorrow to applaued his new found friends he will start by getting every thing wrong again. And name calling because hes been found out yay yet again.
Keep em comming
John Dilks November 5, 2019 at 1:53 pm
Don’t bother with this B d Clark he has a personal vendetta against Richard.
Take note of his ignorant statement, “his new found friends” . He cannot even imagine that many of us have known Richard for years.
Since B d Clark has not made even one comment to U.S. Constitutional Law regarding the Paris agreement I think the Mod may wish to take down all (yes mine) off topic comments.
michael
What personal vendetta care to explain dick has repeatedly posted wrong information I have asked to him to explain or told him he is completly wrong in constitutional matters ,I guess you missed his senseless replies because hes yourfriend try reading what’s before you pal your really not making any sense
As for the constitutional law you simply have not read what I have said, your wrong
Heres the link to my comment on topic about the American constitution and the UK constitution you did not read the thread and made a accusation that was wrong ,I guess you are a friend of dicks his friends so far seem to have a lot in common that is you dont research before you open your mouths.
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2019/11/04/lawsuit-says-obama-entered-paris-climate-agreement-illegally-cites-mysterious-legal-memo/#comment-2839293
John Dilks, his antagonism maybe childish but if you’ve been following the conversation over this and the comments in previous articles you’ll see it’s not entirely uncalled for. Richard was the first to devolve into childishness by calling B d Clark a troll and insisting B d Clark isn’t B d Clark’s real name (just because someone uses their initials doesn’t necessarily mean they are using a pseudonym). It takes two to tango, and just because Richard is a long time poster here doesn’t make him completely innocent in what’s been going on. Richard has a thing about dismissing what people he disagrees with have to say if he thinks they’re using a pseudonym instead of a real name rather than taking on the arguments on their on merits. and that can be very off-putting for those being so dismissed.
So while it’s great you want to stick up for those you know, it’s a bit misplaced in this situation, IMO.
John Endicott: Richard did jump the guy for being a troll, and he jumped to the conclusion that he was anonymous. But the guy is clearly trolling. If he wants to ever discuss climate and AGW fraud, he might find that Richard Courtney is a top dawg in the field of exposing this as a scam perpetrated by M. Mann and his associates. I know Mr. Clark is too far gone, but I’ve seen you post here, I ask you to look into Richard Courtney before you taunt him about his chinese contacts again. I know you’re just sniping back because Richard accused him of taking money with no support. But at this site, anywhere really, R. Courtney deserves respect. With that name, he’s probably descended from irish royalty. (That’s a joke- there’s no such thing as irish royalty!) I join the Morlock in asking mods to take down his “d” references, the rest of his stuff is enough.
(John, Paul and B d clark, there will be no more off topic posts about HIM. It has been said enough and with no end in sight, lets drop it, GET BACK ON TOPIC. I have deleted a few posts to remove unnecessary complaining that has been repeated enough times) SUNMOD
Paul,regardless of Richard’s long history with this site and any respect due him in the areas of climate science, he’s not innocent in this little skirmish (as I said, it takes two to tango and even you admit to some of the things he did) that the other guy was behaving badly as well doesn’t change or excuse that.
And I’m sorry but anyone that uses anonymous sources as a “refutation” of anything deserves any “taunting” they get for it, no matter who they are. YMMV
It is perfectly possible that a person who is pleasant can be wrong
equally a person who is unpleasant can be right
but surely we all want to be both pleasant and right
please up your game Clarke
My game is making sure the facts are presented old men who cant stand to admit there wrong and go ape instead of debate and acknowledging their wrong are not playing any game but there own,
The Paris Accord was never a treaty, as far as the USA is concerned. It is not even a Congressional Executive Agreement. It was, at best, an Executive Agreement. The Paris Accord was never binding on the US. As for investigating the Obama administrations justifications, what’s the point? Is anything meaningful going to come from such an investigation? At this time, such an investigation seems to be moot.
“The Paris Accord was never binding on the US.”
Legally, no. But that wouldn’t stop Hawaiian judges from treating it as binding.
Laws don’t matter when the legal system routinely ignores them and makes up its own.
Indeed if anything the past few years have shown, it’s the propensity of left-wing judges to ignore what the law actually says in order to rule in the way their political leanings demand.
It is curious.
The complaint mentions that the plaintiff already has a copy of the 175 memo. Where did they get it? They seem to be interested in the supporting documentation. Makes me think they got the memo from someone in the administration who wants the supporting documentation to see the light of day but can’t get the career bureaucrats to cough it up.
“The terms stipulate that a partnering country cannot withdraw within the first three years of submission. ” If the Koyto was never ratified and the Paris Agreement was illegal, why on earth would we be subject to the “three years of submission” rule?
The three year submission rule is a trap it allows a government to sign up to a agreement knowing that when it comes under scrutiny from EG the Senate it will be found illegal with the further barrier of 3 years to wait before you can leave,in my personal opinion it’s a cynical ploy based on hope,,that by the time it is scrutinized “every one will be on board” and no one will leave,,looks like it has failed yet again.
The UK on the other paw were far more devious in there action they anticipated the Paris agreement with this http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2008/27/introduction which circumnavigated a proper investigation into exactly what we were signing up too,another ploy of natural progression after every one is brainwashed ,make no mistake decarbonising has been planned for decades with no mandate from the people bit by bit legislation used to trap countries into this un agenda.
That was a lot of Govn’t doublespeak at that link. The UK is definitely finished. A UK citizenry, de-armed, submissive, in fear and easy to “Govern”. Why do we celebrate the 5th November in the UK? And why did we go to war, a few times, to prevent this kind of thing?
Yes there was double speak but the act paved the way to deceive and implement the Paris accord,and yes I agree we have been disarmed with a ever increase in arming the police who drive around in unmarked cars till there called to a domestic dispute with side arms and rifles!! Left wing judiciary bent on protecting the agenda,the UK is finished,it does look that way,unless we find a true leader that’s all it will take I’m not optimistic just now.
Interesting reading the latest green slime article on the BBC or rather the comments,more and more people are disagreeing with this climate agenda the opposing view is getting out there slowly.
I am originally from the UK, south London, I was fortunate to migrate away from the UK in 1995 to New Zealand, then Australia in 2005. It’s the same down under too, probably 10 – 15 years behind.
I have no problem with police forces being armed, crooks are so police should be too IMO. Unmarked cars? Well, to fight crime you have to be a bit sneaky, so no dramas there. I also believe citizens should be free to carry too however, Britons, NZers and Aussie gave away that right. But owning guns and using them can lead to problems too as I saw in NZ when a farmer shot at two people stealing property from his land (Quad bikes IIRC). He shot at them not to hit them just to deter, but he was convicted and went to jail. Crazy!
I lived in Belgium in the 80’s where armed police is the norm with the exception many carried Scorpion sub-machine guns, not slung, along with holstered pistols. I can’t recall New Zealand police if they wore arms, but Victorian police do and have for a long time and more recently in New South Wales (NSW) due to a murder of an accountant by an extremist muslim right outside the Police HQ. I actually worked for the NSW Police so I have seen the other side of the “Blue Line”. But get this, I recall in the 80’s in the UK when a teen was convicted and sent to jail for stealing cars. His father chirped up and said, I kid you not, “He’s only doing his job (Stealing cars??!), why arrest and convict him?” There can be no sense with this sort of mentality.
yeah , if its illegally signed by bummer
then to hell wit the 3yr limit
just tell em to rack off!
i read macron is huffing n puffing in another tantrum over it.
As everyone with half a brain knows, this agreement was simply a cash grab against the US. The US is under no obligation to do anything as it was never ratified in the Senate. However, I would agree with Joel’s #3 above. The “formal withdrawal” will put an end to it all as a political weapon.
The sad, even pitiful, aspect of the Paris deal is that no other major nation allowed one guy to approve it. Even authoritarian regimes required some kind of group authorization.
King Obama was the only one who believe “the State, it is I” and personally approved it.
See how other, better run nations handled this.
https://fabiusmaximus.com/2017/06/04/learning-from-other-nations-about-paris-agreement/
If I had my own News Foundation I think I would be upset if my “tech writer” stated the Paris Accord “compels the U.S. and 200 other countries to cut greenhouse gas emissions 26% to 28% by 2025.” My first thought was what is wrong with this statement? After that I thought what if anything is right with this? I don’t think the IPCC would be able to identify 201 countries (US and 200 others) signed on, and I doubt Mr. White could either. Then I would need Mr. White to show me what section of the Accord, which has been called a name and shame system even by its biggest supporters, would “compel” each country to cut emissions by 26 – 28% at any time let alone by 2025. I am certainly not a PA expert and it is possible I missed something. Is that line supported by those who are knowledgeable about the Accord?
That pretty much sums up the tactics and one track mindedness of the Obama presidency right there.
Did Congress ratify this treaty? No, therefore not legally binding and implementing it in any manner is illegal. Not complicated, not ratified then not binding and not legal.
The madness is that anyone really believes the Paris Accord means anything except to the Europeans and North Americans. The under developed countries are never going to escape poverty if they take subsidies from the “rich” . The donations will evaporate when the rich countries shrink economically and everyone is poor.
Gosh – Obama acted illegally as president? Say it ain’t so?
Next thing you’ll be telling me is that the press covered for him.
Well, now that you mention it, Joel, yes they did.