Pirate's Cove

Do not expect the Islamist attacks in Paris to stop the upcoming Conference On The Parties working vacation, which looks to increase government control over people, private entities, and economies, along with increased taxation solve the future doom from climate change. But, no worries, because the agreement will totally be sent to the US Senate for ratification. Oh, wait, it won’t

(Daily Caller) Secretary of State John Kerry walked back remarks that a future United Nations global warming treaty would not be legally binding. Now Kerry says a climate treaty would, in fact, be legally binding and not require Senate approval.

“Our position has not changed: the U.S. is pressing for an agreement that contains provisions both legally binding and non-legally binding,” the State Department told Politico regarding Kerry’s Thursday remarks.

Kerry told The Financial Times Thursday that a U.N. treaty to reduce global carbon dioxide emissions is “definitively not going to be a treaty.” At the same time, European officials were arguing the treaty would be legally binding — contradicting Kerry.

“The FT interview with Secretary Kerry may have been read to suggest that the U.S. supports a completely non-binding approach,” the State Department spokesperson said. “That is not the case and that is not Secretary Kerry’s position.”

Obama and Kerry are desperate to come up with some way to make any COP21 agreement legally binding without going through the Legislative branch, as required by the Constitution. They’re avoiding the word “treaty” at all costs. Every other country, especially the 3rd world nations who want all that sweet, sweet “climate cash”, want the targets and such to be legally binding.

What Obama plans is to make a U.N. treaty only politically binding, meaning countries are essentially making voluntary pledges to cut emissions. Somehow, the president also wants these commitments to be enforceable on an international level as well.

The other countries are calling this a treaty, a legally enforceable document. Of course, for all the hype and economy killing measures, not to mention the reduction of liberty and increases in the cost of living, what will we get?

This article investigates the temperature reduction impact of major climate policy proposals implemented by 2030, using the standard MAGICC climate model. Even optimistically assuming that promised emission cuts are maintained throughout the century, the impacts are generally small. The impact of the US Clean Power Plan (USCPP) is a reduction in temperature rise by 0.013°C by 2100. The full US promise for the COP21 climate conference in Paris, its so-called Intended Nationally Determined Contribution (INDC) will reduce temperature rise by 0.031°C. The EU 20-20 policy has an impact of 0.026°C, the EU INDC 0.053°C, and China INDC 0.048°C. All climate policies by the US, China, the EU and the rest of the world, implemented from the early 2000s to 2030 and sustained through the century will likely reduce global temperature rise about 0.17°C in 2100(emphasis added). These impact estimates are robust to different calibrations of climate sensitivity, carbon cycling and different climate scenarios. Current climate policy promises will do little to stabilize the climate and their impact will be undetectable for many decades.

This is not about science, it’s not about “healing the planet”. It’s about political ideology and redistributing wealth, while restricting freedom and controlling people and economies.