Mr. Obama took a long, massive fossil fueled trip to Paris for just a short 2 days, before jetting out. Any climate deal is supposed to be part of his “legacy”. Any deal is supposed to save the planet from certain doom. He thinks if we don’t Do Something fish will be swimming in the streets of Miami (which shows an utterly average .78 feet rise over 100 years trend). Strangely, he wants any deal to be mostly non-binding (like his Iran deal)
(UK Guardian) Barack Obama declared on Tuesday that some components to a global climate change agreement must carry legal force, easing one obstacle to a successful outcome at negotiations in Paris.
In an apparent compromise, Obama said the US would push for certain aspects of a climate change agreement to be legally binding – going some distance to meeting a key demand of the European Union and some developing countries.
However, Obama offered no change in the US position on the overall nature of the agreement sought at Paris.
The US has been clear from the outset that it will not sign on to a full-fledged climate change treaty because it would have virtually no chance of passage through a Republican-controlled Congress.
For someone who was supposed to be this super awesome communicator, and was going to do things differently in Washington, and bring everyone together, and who has a background in community organizing, Obama is not very good at convincing people to work together and do things, wouldn’t you say? Of course, back in 1998, even Democrats, including President Clinton, realized that joining any sort of international binding treaty on Hotcoldwetdry would be bad for the U.S. economy, hence, the Senate voted 95-0 against joining Kyoto.
On Tuesday, however, Obama said the US wanted one major component of the deal – the periodic review of emissions reductions targets – to be legally binding.
So, a mostly meaningless review. That’s what he wants to be legally binding. Of course, how can it be legally binding unless he submits it to the Legislative Branch?
[Obama] also said that his climate legacy would survive after he leaves the White House at the end of his presidency next year. “Whoever is the next president of the United States if they come in and they suggest somehow that that global consensus – not just 99.5% of scientists and experts but 99.5% of world leaders – think this is really important I think the president of the United States is going to think this is really important.â€
Perhaps 99.5% of those attending the working vacation in the lovely lovers spot of Paris. And, certainly, world leaders who want more control of citizens think it’s important. Against real issues for voters, though? Last or next to last. At the same time Obama was yammering in Paris, in Washington something else happened
Hours after President Barack Obama pushed for an international agreement to combat climate change, the GOP-led House of Representatives voted to block that effort and demonstrate the President didn’t have support in his own country.
The House passed a pair of resolutions, largely along party lines, that would prevent the Environmental Protection Agency from implementing rules the administration released earlier this year to curb greenhouse gas emissions.
Both measures, already approved by the Senate in October, now go to the White House, which has already vowed to veto them. Democrats maintain Republicans don’t have the vote to override any veto so they denounced the debate as a waste of time.
The resolutions cited Congress’ power under the “Congressional Review Act” to weigh in on new regulations. The bills would prohibit EPA from enforcing limits on electric utilities and coal plants. Republicans on the floor said they deliberately held the votes the same day as the president’s remarks at an international climate change conference in Paris to show the president faced opposition back home.
Well, that’s strange. The people who are tasked with passing laws and reviewing Executive Branch rules need to reign in an out of control Executive.
(Examiner) Obama also took another swipe at Republicans, saying, “Sometimes it may be hard for Republicans to support something that I’m doing, but that’s more a matter of games Washington plays, and that’s why I think people should be confident that we’ll meet our commitments on this.” Based on recent polls, it’s not just Republicans opposed to the president dragging our economy into the dark ages. A November poll showed 97 percent of registered voters aren’t worried about global warming. More telling, 94 percent of Democrats aren’t concerned about global warming.
Obama’s supposed to be this great communicator, but, all he’s able to do is be divisive and nasty. Is it any wonder Republicans really don’t want to work with him on anything? Especially when it comes to a junk science issue that is all about implementing far left fascistic policies?
I have said, more than once, that President Bush made a mistake by simply withdrawing our country’s signature from te Kyoto Accords; he should have submitted it to the Senate for ratification, knowing that it would be rejected.
However, part of that was the Senate’s fault as well. There is no legal requirement which says that they must wait for the President to submit a treaty for ratification. Senator McConnell, the Majority Leader, should simply take whatever agreement President Obama signs, and hold a treaty ratification vote on it, knowing that it will be rejected. It would be interesting to see if the Democrats tried to filibuster a vote on something that President Obama signed.