PDA

View Full Version : President Obama won’t talk climate change in Copenhagen



PoliCon
10-24-2009, 12:17 AM
From The Times
October 24, 2009
President Obama won’t talk climate change in Copenhagen

Giles Whittell, Washington

President Obama will almost certainly not travel to the Copenhagen climate change summit in December and may instead use his Nobel Peace Prize acceptance speech to set out US environmental goals, The Times has learnt.

With healthcare reform clogging his domestic agenda and no prospect of a comprehensive climate treaty in Copenhagen, Mr Obama may disappoint campaigners and foreign leaders, including Gordon Brown and Ed Miliband, who have urged him to attend to boost the hopes of a breakthrough.

The White House would not comment on Mr Obama’s travel plans yesterday, but administration officials have said privately that “Oslo is plenty close” — a reference to the Nobel ceremony that falls on December 10, two days into the Copenhagen meeting.

The White House confirmed that the President would be in Oslo to accept the prize, but a source close to the Administration said it was “hard to see the benefit” of his going to Copenhagen if there was no comprehensive deal for him to close or sign. Another expert, who did not want to be named, said he would be “really, really shocked” if Mr Obama went to Copenhagen, adding that European hopes about the power of his Administration to transform the climate change debate in a matter of months bore little relation to reality. The comprehensive climate change treaty that for years has been the goal of the Copenhagen conference was now an “unrealistic” prospect, Yvo de Boer, the UN official guiding the process, said last week.

Chinese and Indian resistance to mandatory carbon emission limits has so far proved an insurmountable obstacle to crafting a successor to the Kyoto Protocol that is acceptable to the US. America has also slowed the process through its reluctance to accept climate change science or the carbon cap-and-trade mechanism to combat global warming.

Only 57 per cent of Americans believe that there is strong evidence that the world has grown warmer in recent decades, down from 71 per cent a year ago, according to a new poll. Partly as a result, the White House is having to wage a vote-by-vote battle in Congress for a climate change Bill that would embrace cap-and-trade. The Bill will not be signed into law until next year at the earliest but is considered essential for any global deal.

CONTINUED (http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/environment/article6888165.ece)

Rockntractor
10-24-2009, 12:19 AM
Good find polyp. I'm 23% happier now!:D

PoliCon
10-24-2009, 12:20 AM
Good find polyp. I'm 23% happier now!:D

of course the whole story could just be a smoke screen put out by the administration to take the heat off . . . .:(

Rockntractor
10-24-2009, 12:22 AM
of course the whole story could just be a smoke screen put out by the administration to take the heat off . . . .:(
That thought crossed my mind too.

JackKetch
10-25-2009, 07:25 PM
wish i could believe this story. i've been reading too much about obama signing the copenhagen treaty and thereby placing the u.s. under u.n. rule, which will force us and other industrialized nations with big carbon footprints to give much of our money away in reparations to low carbon footprint poor nations. george soros is said to be behind this.

what have others here read about this?

Rockntractor
10-25-2009, 07:28 PM
wish i could believe this story. i've been reading too much about obama signing the copenhagen treaty and thereby placing the u.s. under u.n. rule, which will force us and other industrialized nations with big carbon footprints to give much of our money away in reparations to low carbon footprint poor nations. george soros is said to be behind this.

what have others here read about this?
Wouldn't it also require ratification by congress?

JackKetch
10-25-2009, 07:34 PM
Wouldn't it also require ratification by congress?

not from what i read but i admit i'm tired, could have missed it, probably should quit reading for the night. i'll be looking for more info tomorrow.

Rockntractor
10-25-2009, 07:38 PM
Somewhere along the line the President got far more power than was ever intended.

PoliCon
10-25-2009, 07:56 PM
not from what i read but i admit i'm tired, could have missed it, probably should quit reading for the night. i'll be looking for more info tomorrow.

any treaty would require a 2/3 approval by the senate.

http://www.senate.gov/artandhistory/history/common/briefing/Treaties.htm#1



The Constitution gives the Senate the power to approve, by a two-thirds vote, treaties made by the executive branch.

The Senate has rejected relatively few of the hundreds of treaties it has considered in its history. Many others, however, have died in committee or been withdrawn by the president rather than face defeat.

Some presidents have found it helpful to include senators in negotiating treaties in order to help pave the way for later Senate approval.

The requirement for a two-thirds vote ensures that a treaty will need bipartisan support to be approved.

The Senate may also amend a treaty or adopt various changes, which may lead the other nation, or nations, to further negotiate the treaty.

The president may also enter into executive agreements with foreign nations that are not subject to Senate approval.


While Obama could bypass the senate with an executive agreement - such an agreement would only be binding while Obama is president and would expire the day he leaves office.

Average Voter
11-03-2009, 10:38 AM
n/t

lacarnut
11-03-2009, 11:14 AM
Let's hope that the Dummiecrats lose all 3 elections today and this idiot goes in hiding for a while.

JackKetch
11-04-2009, 10:27 PM
any treaty would require a 2/3 approval by the senate.

While Obama could bypass the senate with an executive agreement - such an agreement would only be binding while Obama is president and would expire the day he leaves office.

thanks, PoliCon. this and the health care bill have been in the back of my mind nagging at me while i've been away on business. i am worried about the possibility of obamessiah using an executive agreement. a lot of harm could be done in three years, more in seven. [please, God, not again.]

the WH must have been counting on Americans not knowing how close Oslo is to Copenhagen when they floated that story. smells like a smokescreen, but i hope i'm wrong.

Troll
11-05-2009, 08:01 PM
Actually, I'm pretty sure that 2/3 ratification thing changed not long after NAFTA was enacted.