What Say To An “International Tribunal Of Climate Justice”?

October 25, 2015 – 8:33 am

Just the very name alone should provide the clue that this whole ‘climate change’ push is about far left political policies, not science

(CFACT) Negotiators at the UN climate talks in Bonn, Germany resurrected the “International Tribunal of Climate Justice” and inserted it into the text they are preparing for nations to agree to at the big UN summit in Paris in December.

The draft text will allow developing nations to sit in judgment over the U.S. and its allies, but not subject those nations to the tribunal’s jurisdiction themselves.

From the October 20th UN draft text (full text available at CFACT.org):

“[An International Tribunal of Climate Justice as][A] [compliance mechanism] is hereby established to address cases of non-compliance of the commitments of developed country Parties on mitigation, adaptation, [provision of] finance, technology development and transfer [and][,] capacity-building[,] and transparency of action and support, including through the development of an indicative list of consequences, taking into account the cause, type, degree and frequency of non-compliance.”

Over 130 developing nations led by South Africa and instigated by China and India are insisting that they will not sign a climate agreement in Paris unless it contains massive redistribution of wealth from developed to poor nations.  Now they want the power to haul the U.S. and its allies before a UN Star Chamber to enforce compliance.

Obama and Kerry, who will be leaving office in a little over a year, would love nothing better than to embroil the United States in an international agreement on ‘climate change’ to burnish their so-called legacy, while leaving the middle and lower class citizens to pick up the tab for this far left Progressive agreement, transferring their wealth to other nations under the dubious auspice of ‘climate change’.

Of course, the big question will be how the deal is worked out, because if this is a treaty or a long term commitment, he’ll need two-thirds of the Senate to vote in approval. Obama can try it via the sole-executive agreement route, but, since this would involve the transfer of wealth to other nations and rules that limit greenhouse gases and such, it would have no force of law without Senate consent. But, then, when has the law and Constitution ever stopped Obama?

Crossed at Right Wing News.

Save $10 on purchases of $49.99 & up on our Fruit Bouquets at 1800flowers.com. Promo Code: FRUIT49
If you liked my post, feel free to subscribe to my rss feeds.

This entry was written by William Teach and posted on at 8:33 am and filed under Global Warming, Progressive Goals. Bookmark the permalink. Follow any comments here with the RSS feed for this post.
Both comments and trackbacks are currently closed

4 Responses to “What Say To An “International Tribunal Of Climate Justice”?”

  1. Conservative Beaner says:
    October 25, 2015 at 9:34 am

    Break out the rack, whips and the Iron Maiden, Grand Inquisitor Torquemada is back in town.

    You will be made to see the sins of your energy use. You will hug the trees, live in abject poverty all in the name of saving the planet. All this while the Grand Priests of Climatology live in luxury travelling by air and gas guzzling limos to spread the word of climate change.

    Confess your sins to the Church of Climatology you will be forgiven. Tithe until it hurts because if you don’t we will insult you and take your money anyway.

  2. Dana says:
    October 25, 2015 at 12:52 pm

    Our esteemed host wrote:

    Of course, the big question will be how the deal is worked out, because if this is a treaty or a long term commitment, he’ll need two-thirds of the Senate to vote in approval. Obama can try it via the sole-executive agreement route, but, since this would involve the transfer of wealth to other nations and rules that limit greenhouse gases and such, it would have no force of law without Senate consent. But, then, when has the law and Constitution ever stopped Obama?

    There is the possibility of an executive-congressional agreement, which requires a simple majority of both Houses of Congress, rather than a 2.3 supermajority in the Senate. Of course, such would never pass either House, and even if the result of the 2016 election is a Democratic president and Democrats controlling the Senate, the GOP will retain control of the House of Representatives at least through the 2020 elections.

  3. Jeffery says:
    October 25, 2015 at 2:39 pm

    The lying liars at the ironically-named cfact are just trying to pique your fears. It’s what right-wing authoritarian (RWA) leaders do to their followers.

    Rucker omitted informing you that this was one option listed in the DRAFT document, and not even the 1st option (it was #2).

    Rucker omitted the final sentence in this short section of a long DRAFT document:

    The mechanism shall be facilitative, non-punitive, non-adversarial and non-judicial.

    In other words, it’s a subgroup urging the signatories to do what they pledged to do.

    In other other words, c”fact” is hoping to stimulate and excite RWA followers with a scary name! It’s a TRIBUNAL! With CLIMATE JUSTICE in the title!

    It’s all about staying afraid.

  4. jl says:
    October 25, 2015 at 7:27 pm

    “It’s all about staying afraid.” You’re talking about what the alarmists are trying to do with the general public, correct? Yes, I’m correct.

Pirate's Cove