Guest essay by Eric Worrall
A few days ago WUWT published an article urging President Trump to kill the Paris Agreement by submitting it to the Senate. I disagree with this view. Quite apart from the risk the thing might actually be ratified, if enough RINOs cross the floor, an act of restraint which occurred in the final days of the Obama administration provides a reason to reconsider.
‘The Planet Could Become Ungovernable’: Climate Scientist James Hansen on Obama’s Environmental Record, Scientific Reticence, and His Climate Lawsuit Against the Federal Government
By David Wallace-Wells
JULY 12, 2017James Hansen is the former head of climate research for NASA, the author of the legendary early “zero model” for climate change, and is now the lead scientific figure in a lawsuit being brought against the federal government alleging complicity on climate change, which Hansen and his fellow litigants argue is a violation of the equal protection clause — since the costs of change will fall unequally on future generations.*
…
Sounds like a political winner.
Yeah. So why can’t we get it done? I wrote a letter to Obama after he was elected in 2008, and tried to explain this.What happened?
I couldn’t get John Holdren to deliver the letter — he was chosen to be the science adviser. He said he couldn’t do anything until he was confirmed. And finally, near the end of the Obama administration, I tried to get Obama to settle our lawsuit. Which would have made sense. Actually the judge in Oregon was puzzled as to why Obama was fighting us. Because Obama, when he talked about the planet, he sounded like us.…
Then, as soon as Trump was elected, I said, this is now really a time the Obama administration should settle the case.
It would have been a sneaky way to lock in some climate policies …
So I sent an email to John Podesta, and surprisingly got a response almost immediately, asking me to use a different email address — I’d used the one that was hacked.Wow.
And he did try to help. Eventually, though, Obama rejected the idea, because his lawyers preferred his plan, his Clean Power Plan, which is being challenged in various courts.…
Read more: https://nymag.com/intelligencer/2017/07/scientist-jim-hansen-the-planet-could-become-ungovernable.html
Just as Obama showed restraint in the final days of his administration, and rejected James Hansen’s plan to bind Trump’s hands on climate policy, so I believe it would be wrong to prevent Biden from fulfilling his manifesto promise to restore the Paris agreement, if Biden is sworn in as the next President.
I detest the Paris Agreement. I cheered when Trump announced he was cancelling the agreement, I cheered when the USA officially left the Paris Agreement. I would have cheered if Trump had submitted the Paris Agreement to the Senate a few years ago, as a way of killing it off once and for all.
But submitting the Paris agreement to the Senate at this late stage would be seen by many as an act of political sabotage.
Two can play that game. A tit-for-tat escalation of Presidents sabotaging their successors could worsen the USA’s political tensions.
Eric you fail at the basic understanding the Separation of Powers built into the US Constitution. The Senate was given the power to approve or disapprove of Foregin treaties the Executive may make because they become “law.” And the Constitutional framers made it a high bar, 2/3 of the Senate to ensure broad support of the agreement.
Obama tried to side-step that with both the Paris Climate Agreement, regardless of the ‘voluntary’ INDCs (emissions) targets, the agreement obligated the US Treasury to send billions of dollars to the UN’s climate Aid Fund. Obama did that without Congress’s approval. That was a clear unconstitutional move that Dementia Joe wants to restart.
I think it is clear you fundamentally do not understand the US Constitution and why it has been so successful at stop Executive over-reach and how it places lots of checks on an abusive President.
Trump abided by the terms of the Paris Agreement leaving period. I agree it’s a messy situation, and that a Presidential agreement does not have proper standing.
Joel,
Trump does not have a treaty to submit. There is no treaty on the table. Even if the Senate did not approve of the past agreement if submitted, there is nothing to stop Biden and the Dems from joining a different agreement that would essentially be the same. The focus has to be on fighting back against any climate agreement that is entered into without Senate approval. And you know they will try to do that.
Tom, “a different agreement” means getting the other countries back to the table and signing on to another agreement. Even if that “other agreement” is identical to the current one, that is a process that take up lots of time. Time that can be spent by the good guys to do just as you suggest: fighting back against any climate agreement that is entered into without Senate approval. Assuming the good guys can find a spine and some balls, something Eric’s appeasement suggest requires them not to do.
Short memory, Eric?
“Barack Obama transfers $500m to Green Climate Fund in attempt to protect Paris deal.
New instalment leaves $2bn owing, with Donald Trump expected to cease any further payments.”
“Barack Obama has heeded calls to help secure the future of the historic Paris agreement by transferring a second $500m instalment to the Green Climate Fund, just three days before he leaves office.”
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2017/jan/18/barack-obama-transfers-500m-to-green-climate-fund-in-attempt-to-protect-paris-deal
I hear you. But this didn’t sabotage Trump, the way settling Hansen’s lawsuit might have.
Yeah, what’s $500m to the American taxpayer, Eric?
From the Guardian article.
“The Obama administration is refusing to let president-elect Trump’s posse of oil barons and climate deniers dictate how the world responds to the climate crisis,” said Tamar Lawrence-Samuel, of Corporate Accountability International, which led the campaign.
“This victory is the climate justice movement’s opening salvo to the Trump presidency. And we’re not going away.”
I don’t think this equates to sabotaging an electoral manifesto commitment, but I understand people taking a different view.
There is no different “view”, it directly sabotaged Trump and America. THAT WAS ITS INTENTION AS STATED BY BARRACK HUSSEIN OBAMA. Wake the f***k up. Stop defending America’s enemies.
It sabotaged America, Trump is an American so it did indeed sabotage Trump.
Eric
Read Crisis and Leviathan, by Robert Higgs.
I’m still in favor of submitting it.
I don’t see it as sneaky or underhanded, it’s a way to get the Senate to go on record.
I understand that Biden won’t submit it, and will try executive order, but an order conflicting with a rejected treaty might be more easily challenged.
I understand. The EU experience, when the EU constitution was rejected, the just renamed it the Maastricht Treaty, and pretended it was a different document. Biden seems to have plenty of activist judges at his call who would support such a fiction.
It is Lisbon Treaty, and has never been submitted to a popular vote. The EU is very careful after France and Netherlands rejected the constitution.
Me bad, wrong globalist nasty document sorry.
But the reality is that, based on the paleoclimate record and the work done with models, the climate change we are experiencing today is caused by the sun and the oceans over which mankind has no control. Despite the hype, there is no real evidence that CO2 has any effect on climate and there is plenty of scientific rationale to support the conclusion that the climate sensitivity of CO2 is zero. It is all a matter of science. There is no climate emergency. But even if we could somehow stop the Earth’s climate from changing, extreme weather events and sea level rise would continue because they are part of the current climate. We do not even know what the optimum climate actually is let alone how to achieve it. Sacrificing the economy in the name of fighting climate change is not such a good idea.
But even if CO2 did he effect on the Earth’s climate like some say that it does, the reduction in CO2 emissions that would be achieved via the Paris Agreement would not have a significant effect on the Earth’s climate so why bother. And now the UN wants to make the Covid 19 lockdown both global and permanent for all time in the name of fighting climate change. I guess that in the future we can all wear uniforms, live in dormitories or barracks, and just do what we are told in the name of Big Brother.
Sabotaging a successor? You mean like framing them as an agent of a foreign power?
I sympathise with this point of view. My argument is breaking one of the few remaining platforms of unspoken cooperation will not make things better.
My argument is breaking one of the few remaining platforms of unspoken cooperation will not make things better.
Eric, our perspectives obviously differ, but from what I see, NOTHING will “make things better” other than the complete surrender of one political philosophy. And even then I’m not so sure.
We all know how this could end, I’m hoping there’s a way out which doesn’t lead to lots of people being hurt.
So you choose not to use the existing legal tools available to fight against something guaranteed to hurt lots of people (energy poverty hurts the world’s poor the most)? That’s sure a funny way of looking for a way out which doesn’t lead to lots of people being hurt.
Won’t make anything better by simply going along with the scam.
Apropos “political sabotage”, Patric more had an interview on Instagram, but it was soon removed.
Patric Moore on Global Warming CO2 and Energy December 15th 2020
Dr. Patric Moore just fires the facts in a short interview.
This interview was shortly after removed from Instagram.
Is it really that bad if the conned population hear the truth?
Hardly. It would be merely taking the legitimate political process to it’s formal conclusion instead of leaving it in limbo to be toyed with by successive political ne’re-do-wells.
I’m surprised to hear this from you, Eric. In a political climate where the opposition has shown a willingness to play very very dirty, you appear to be advocating against taking an approach which is well within the rules and well within the currently ‘accepted’ rules.
The only real hope we have for a Biden Presidency is that he is simply too “old-school” and set in his ways to do some of the crazier things that are being put forward by his associates. People who are probably already plotting his downfall.
Further, one of the problems of UK membership of the EU was that UK politicians would go away and “negotiate” (i.e cave-in to) agreements that were then presented as a fait-accompli to the nation.
This was a convenient way of passing legislation that would never have been agreed to domestically, but now we had to do it “because of Europe”.
Whether true or not in individual cases, the US would do well to avoid the precedent of having further laws enforced domestically because a feckless US President had already agreed it with some even worse foreign cronies.
I completely understand people taking a different view. In a war its easy to yield to the temptation to grab and smash anything you can reach if it will hurt your opponents, but if you smash everything, what do you have left when the dust settles? I’m just arguing for not smashing one thing.
your argument – if you must be reminded – is that Trump/Senate action will have dire consequences – but you’re unwilling to prove that there would be dire consequences – it’s just a hunch on your part – yes – you have a right to your opinion – but don’t be surprised if people ask for more than a tingly feeling – like evidence? – or even a little logic for what you think will happen
instead – you based your case on Obama’s supposed self-discipline – ie not taking a similar step – but you neglected to point out that he COULDN’T have – due to a GOP senate – so your model for good behavior is a bull in a china shop who didn’t try to bust the china too high for its reach
“The only real hope we have for a Biden Presidency is that he is simply too “old-school” and set in his ways to do some of the crazier things that are being put forward by his associates. ”
That would assume Biden has any say in anything. Most of us do not believe that, his handlers and the Democrat leadership are calling all the shots. Just look at some of “his” potential appointees. Biden is simply a front man who will come out and say anything he is told to. This is going to be 4 years of “Weekend at Biden’s”, if he lasts that long.
Indeed. the betting pool will soon be open for how soon after inauguration that the 25th is invoked. After all Nancy said she wasn’t setting up the 25th commission to get *Trump* out of office.
RINOS at this point are blood thirsty savages of whom you can have absolute certainty to do anything to hurt Trump. FIX news is now a worse place for facts than CNN for a case in point.
Who fixed the fox, I wonder….
Thanks for the post, unpopular as it seems to be.
I’ll disagree, in the respect that: if Democrats are going to treat the Paris Accord like a binding treaty, it should go through the Senate wringer and become one. Poisoning the well doesn’t really enter into it, since it should have been done when the O did his magic executive move.
There’s a difference between doing the legally aboveboard (this one) and doing the procedurely possible (the ACA). They’ll scream, but they always do.
Some here are making mountains out of molehills.
President Trump should pardon both Snowden and Assange – then watch the green swamp creatures flap!
Barr has been disbarred – he is so swampy he cannot see the others.. (as someone said on Fox).
“Barr has been disbarred – he is so swampy he cannot see the others.. (as someone said on Fox).”
Attorney General Barr did not get disbarred. He resigned from the job.
Barr is one of the few people I would trust in Washington DC. I hate to see him go. I hope he appoints a special counsel to investigate the Bidens before he leaves Office, thus making it much more difficult for Traitor Joe to fire the special counsel and stop the investigation.
Barr’s statement about finding no fraud in the elections, was miscontrued by the leftwig media and then misunderstood by lots of people, which was the purpose of the miscostruing in the first place. Propaganda and lying works for the Left.
Here is the case FOR ending PARIS.
WORLD AND US PRIMARY ENERGY CONSUMPTION AND CAPITAL COST
https://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/world-total-energy-consumption
SUMMARY OF CAPITAL EXPENDITURES, CAPEX
The analysis in this article includes two scenarios: 1) 50% RE by 2050, and 2) 100% RE by 2050.
The CAPEX values exclude a great many items related to transforming the world economy to a low-carbon mode. See next section.
50% RE by 2050
World CAPEX for RE were $2,652.2 billion for 2010-2019, 10 years
World CAPEX for RE were $282.2 billion in 2019.
World CAPEX for RE would be $24,781 billion for 2019 – 2050, 32 years; compound growth 5.76%/y
US CAPEX for RE were $494.5 billion for 2010 – 2019, 10 years.
US CAPEX for RE were $59 billion in 2019.
US CAPEX for RE would be $7,233 billion for 2019 – 2050, 32 years; compound growth 8.81%/y
100% RE by 2050
World CAPEX for RE were $2,652.2 billion for 2010-2019, 10 years
World CAPEX for RE were $282.2 billion in 2019.
World CAPEX for RE would be $60,987 billion for 2019 – 2050, 32 years; compound growth 10.08%/y
US CAPEX for RE were $494.5 billion for 2010 – 2019, 10 years.
US CAPEX for RE were $59 billion in 2019.
US CAPEX for RE would be $16,988 billion for 2019 – 2050, 32 years; compound growth 13.42%/y
THE BIGGER CAPEX PICTURE FOR THE WORLD AND THE US
World More-Inclusive CAPEX
The above CAPEX numbers relate to having 50% RE, or 100% RE, in the primary energy mix by 2050, which represents a very narrow area of “fighting climate change”. See Appendix for definitions of source, primary and upstream energy.
This report, prepared by two financial services organizations, estimates the world more-inclusive CAPEX at $100 trillion to $150 trillion, over the next 30 years, about $3 trillion to $5 trillion per year
https://www.investmentexecutive.com/news/research-and-markets/funding-the-fight-against-global-warming/
US More-Inclusive CAPEX
The ratio of World CAPEX for RE / US CAPEX for RE = 16,988/60,987 = 0.279
A more-inclusive US CAPEX could be $27.9 trillion to $41.8 trillion
The US CAPEX could be less, because, at present, the world is adding a quad of RE at about $58.95 billion, compare to the US at about $102.78 billion.
It is unclear what accounts for the large difference.
Part of it may be due to differences of accounting methods among countries.
This would echo the CO2 situation.
Presently, there exists no standard way to verify the CO2 emissions and RE build-out claims of various countries!
The opportunities for cheating/fudging/obfuscation are endless.
NOTE: The CAPEX numbers exclude costs for replacements of shorter-life systems, such as EVs, heat-pumps, batteries, wind-turbines, etc., during these 30 years. For comparison:
Hydro plants have long lives, about 100 years.
Nuclear plants about 60 years
Coal and gas-turbine plants about 40 years
Wind turbine systems about 20 years
Solar systems about 25 years
Really, bob? California, Oregon and Washington are the only states that have openly discussed secession from the Union. They are Republican states? Really?
“Seems to me the blue states should be “all over that”, then. No more obligations to the “takers”, right?”
No, we would probably still have an ambassador to the new confederacy. And we would have to guard against illegal immigration for the good health care and better jobs. Also, we would have to minimize cross border damage from the additional confederate superfund sites resulting from their minimal environmental safeguards.
FMI, which blue state has objected to it? The reason it hasn’t happened is that red state legislators know what a self inflicted Gong Show they would be hosting. Better just to get subterranean posters to whine ineffectually about it.
“Really, bob? California, Oregon and Washington are the only states that have openly discussed secession from the Union. They are Republican states? Really?”
Review the posts. The reference to secession in the comments was definitely NOT from a progressive. And please link to any significant such “open discussion”. But even thre had been any such action, it would only back up my facts about who would benefit from the current state giver/taker stati…