Send the Paris Climate Treaty to the Senate

American capital building in Washington DC .

The most far-reaching international agreement ever must get Senate advice, consent and vote

Paul Driessen

Article II, Section 2 of the US Constitution is simple and direct: “The President … shall have Power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, to make Treaties, provided two-thirds of the Senators present concur.” It served America well for 225 years.

Then, in 2015, the UN’s “international community” of climate activists gathered in Paris to hammer out language requiring that developed nations slash their fossil fuel use, tighten greenhouse gas emission targets every five years, and become “carbon neutral” within a few decades – to prevent a manmade climate chaos forecast by computer models but not supported by Earth history or real-world evidence.

Developing countries would be under no such obligations. Most incredibly, economic, military and tech powerhouse China was included among the developing countries, and thus is under no such obligations.

In short, the Paris accords would force the United States to engage in a massive, painful transformation of its entire economy – electricity generation, transportation, manufacturing, agriculture and much more – under the aegis of the United Nations and UN and foreign country activists, politicians and bureaucrats.

Aside from ending major wars, what was concocted in Paris is probably the most far-reaching, impactful agreement this country was ever asked to sign. It is the very embodiment of what our Founding Fathers had in mind when they wrote the language requiring Senate debate, advice and consent for all treaties.

However, President Obama unilaterally decreed that Paris was not a “treaty,” but merely an agreement, an accord – some lesser document that he could personally sign, committing the US to it, making an end-run around our constitutional and democratic process, and giving Congress and America no opportunity to examine, discuss and agree to or reject this intrusive, destructive treaty. In so doing, Mr. Obama set the stage for coordinated efforts by liberal politicians, activists, bureaucrats, state attorneys general, forum-shopped judges and corporate CEOs to make the Paris language binding on every American.

President Trump recognized how unfair and disastrous the Paris Climate Treaty would be. In 2017, he announced that the United States was withdrawing; the withdrawal became effective November 4, 2020.

Joe Biden has made it clear that he will recommit our nation to the Paris not-a-treaty, possibly within hours of being sworn in as president, if lingering vote issues are resolved in his favor. Fortunately, President Trump can easily prevent this disaster. As Paris Treaty experts have suggested,  

Mr. Trump could and should submit the treaty to the Senate for its advice and consent – and Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell should quickly schedule a debate and vote. Every Senator will have an opportunity to go on record: for or against a treaty that would make the United States, and every individual state and family, subjects of unelected, unaccountable UN and foreign powers.

President Trump should do this posthaste – thereby preventing another unilateral executive action and what Government Accountability & Oversight lawyer Chris Horner has described as a well-coordinated “climate litigation industry” plan to commandeer our courts in an endless series of lawsuits to make every Paris Climate Treaty provision legally binding on every US state, industry, business and family.

For example, Massachusetts AG Maura Healey promised Michael Bloomberg’s State Energy & Environmental Impact Center that, if its deep coffers provided her office with privately hired lawyers whom she could utilize as “Special Assistant Attorneys General,” she would put them to work “ensuring that Massachusetts and neighboring states meet the long-term commitments set forth … in the Paris Agreement” – whatever those might be or could be creatively interpreted to be. She’s already doing it.

Another scheme involves reviving the reviled Obama era practice of sue-and-settle lawsuits, under which environmentalist groups sue government agencies to implement and impose rules that the litigators and regulators both want but aren’t clearly supported by law or would face strong public opposition if they went through a normal rulemaking process. The parties select a usually cooperative court and, instead of fighting the lawsuit, the government agency caves in, agrees to settle the case, and consents to whatever demands were made by the agency’s handpicked pseudo-adversary. The citizenry and parties impacted by the new rules never get their day in court, and rarely find out about the rule until it is imposed on them. 

The schemes are audacious, outrageous, an abuse of law and authority, and in many minds treasonous. Activists will employ them and the Paris Climate Treaty as weapons of mass destruction against America’s energy, economy, living standards and freedoms.

Horner also notes that rejoining the Paris Treaty would subject America’s energy and economic policy to a UN climate “conciliation commission” that could allow “antagonistic” nations and parties to file complaints about alleged US non-compliance with Paris, block infrastructure development, and impose carbon taxes. He and Competitive Enterprise Institute senior fellow Marlo Lewis also point out that:

* allowing the Obama “climate coup” to stand would allow future presidents to adopt any treaties they and foreign elites want, without Senate review and ratification, simply by deeming them “not a treaty.”

* the Paris Treaty would imperil American self-government – by empowering administrations to make long-term commitments without congressional authorization, and by making US energy and economic policies beholden to the demands of foreign leaders, UN bureaucrats and international pressure groups.

If We the People ultimately decide we do want to transform our energy and economic system, reduce our living standard, curtail our liberties, and subject ourselves to international governance, we can do so through proper nationwide debates and legislative processes. We should not have these decisions imposed on us via collusion, corruption, chicanery and unconstitutional power grabs.

Too many of our ruling elites disdain business, industry and working classes; rarely if ever did serious manual work; and most often belong to a Democrat Party that once stood up for workers, but now has turned its back on working men and women. These elites would help ensure that same families pummeled hardest and longest by Covid lockdowns will be punished in perpetuity by Paris Climate Treaty edicts.

All that red on county-by-county 2020 voting maps is where jobs, economies and living standards will hammered hardest. Many of these counties have manufacturing jobs … farmlands, forests, scenic and open spaces, habitats where birds, bats and wildlife flourish … and the best wind and solar sites.

This is where land will be blanketed with millions of wind turbines, solar panels, battery complexes and transmission lines, to “replace” billions of megawatt-hours of reliable electricity with intermittent power – decimating many rare, threatened, endangered and just plain magnificent species.

It’s where new dust bowls will arise, as biofuel crops replace today’s grasslands. It’s where factories will close, because the Paris Treaty will make electricity intermittent and expensive, and petrochemical raw materials too costly or simply unavailable.

Will President Trump and Senator McConnell let a Biden-Harris Administration – in league with squads of America-denigrating politicians and Deep State activists – do this to our country?

Or will they preserve the Constitution, the Trump energy, economic, employment and military legacy – the livelihoods, living standards and liberties, not only of MAGA Trump voters, but of all Americans?

This may be their last opportunity to do so. I therefore urge them – and I’m certain I’m joined by tens of millions of my fellow Americans in urging the President and Senate Majority Leader:

Present this defective, destructive Paris Climate Treaty to the Senate. Let the assembled Senators debate it, vote on it – and send it to history’s dustbin, where it belongs.

Paul Driessen is senior policy analyst for the Committee For A Constructive Tomorrow (www.CFACT.org) and author of books and articles on energy, environment, climate and human rights issues.

The climate data they don't want you to find — free, to your inbox.
Join readers who get 5–8 new articles daily — no algorithms, no shadow bans.
0 0 votes
Article Rating
118 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Paul Johnson
December 9, 2020 7:08 am

There’s another angle here.
A Biden administration would clearly re-enter the Paris Accord and act as though it were a binding treaty. They would enact executive orders, and perhaps legislation, that would seriously damage American industries. If those industries sue, friendly courts will back Biden’s actions as reflecting the will of the people. If the Accord is submitted as a treaty and soundly rejected, plaintiffs would have a much stronger case for rejecting onerous requirements.

paul courtney
Reply to  Paul Johnson
December 9, 2020 8:02 am

Mr. Johnson: Indeed. Submitting for a down vote is a political move, on a political question. Our friend Mr. Stokes thinks Presidents are prohibited from using plain language in the Constitution to make a politcal point, that makes it more difficult for the other side to move (as dems have openly stated) to use the courts and admin agencies to accomplish democrat political goals when they lack votes. If that fails, dems will propose allowing senate votes by paper ballot. Dems can’t govern, but they can steal an election.

Paul Johnson
Reply to  paul courtney
December 9, 2020 2:39 pm

As with the Kyoto Protocol, the Senate can initiate its own resolution like the Byrd-Hagel resolution to pre-emptively disapprove any international treaty the exempts developing countries and harms the U.S. economy.

John Endicott
Reply to  Paul Johnson
December 10, 2020 2:46 am

The problem, Paul, is such a move would require a cloture vote, Just as there isn’t a 2/3rds majority that would ratify the treaty, there isn’t the 60 votes needed to move past cloture.

paul courtney
Reply to  John Endicott
December 11, 2020 11:00 am

Mr. Endicott: Mr. Stokes said “can’t”. Not gonna race ahead with him to other things. Not sure cloture applies to treaties, not even gonna look it up. Can President submit? Where does it say he can’t? If you have something on that, love to hear it. I noticed Mr. Stokes disappear when he could not race ahead. I don’t think that is what you were doing.

John Endicott
Reply to  John Endicott
December 14, 2020 2:46 am

Paul, that cloture comment was in response to the other Paul’s post, not Nicks. I agree with you about Nick’s “can’t” being nonsense, he’s even been given examples of past presidents going to the senate *before* anything was signed. In this case, we have a “treaty” that’s been signed once and is threatened to be “signed” again next month, plenty of scope for the current president to fix the past ones error in not sending it to the senate/prevent the next guy from making the same error by submitting it to the Senate’s “advice and consent” per the constitution

John Endicott
Reply to  John Endicott
December 14, 2020 2:51 am

Oh, and to be specific, since you seem a little confused, the cloture comment is not in regard to treaties themselves (which require a 2/3rds senate vote to pass, which is more than the 60 votes needed for cloture anyway, making cloture irrelevant even if it did apply IE if you have enough votes to pass, you have more than enough for cloture). It was in regards to resolutions (such as the Byrd-Hagel resolution that was passed in anticipation of Kyoto. Kyoto itself was never submitted to the Senate for ratification because the Byrd-Hagel resolution made it clear it would not pas.)

John Endicott
Reply to  Paul Johnson
December 10, 2020 2:50 am

In short, the senate it too closely and deeply divided today, where everything (particularly in regards to deeply political issues such as so-called “climate change”) happens along party lines, you won’t see the kind of bipartisan co-operation on a Byrd-Hagel resolution type resolution today that you saw back then.