No Treaty? No Problem! Obama Plans to Push Ahead Anyway
Posted by boycott in Copenhagen Treaty, President ObamaObama’s plans for Copenhagen accord may violate US Constitution
President Obama’s plan for an international cap-and-trade agreement negotiated at the upcoming Copenhagen climate conference to go into “immediate effect†may violate the United States Constitution, claim representatives of the No Cap-and-Trade Coalition (see www.NoCapAndTrade.com).
Quoted in a Reuters news story today, Obama said, “Our aim is not a partial accord or a political declaration but rather an accord that covers all of the issues in the negotiations and one that has immediate operational effect.â€
“Today President Obama exhibited the arrogance commonly associated with dictators and tyrants,†said Jeff Davis, executive director of NoCapAndTrade.com. “It’s hard to believe that a former constitutional law professor could forget that treaties require Senate ratification.â€
President Obama made the remarks amid heavy criticism from Europe about the lack of progress in the U.S. toward cap-and-trade legislation and the expected failure of the imminent Copenhagen negotiations.
But such “immediate operational effect†is impossible, said Davis.
“Article II of the Constitution requires that treaties are approved by two-thirds of the Senate, so President Obama can’t just sign-up the U.S. and then start enforcing treaty provisions,†observed Davis. “Additionally, the cap-and-trade bill now in the Senate isn’t anywhere close to having the 60 votes necessary to avoid filibuster ─ trying to get 67 votes for a climate treaty looks pretty unlikely right now,†Davis added.
President Obama might have been thinking of using the EPA to regulate carbon when he made his statement. The EPA has proposed to designate carbon dioxide as a hazard to the public welfare and to regulate it under the Clean Air Act.
“If President Obama signed an agreement in Copenhagen and then tried to implement it through the EPA and Clean Air Act,†observed JunkScience.com’s Steve Milloy, the President would immediately be at war with Congress, including almost a two dozen Democratic Senators who are concerned about the harm cap-and-trade would do to the economy.â€
The German magazine Der Spiegel criticized President Obama this week, asserting he’d been “lying to†and “betraying†Europe in failing to advance cap-and-trade in the U.S.
“President Obama is Europe’s last hope for ensnaring and crippling the U.S. with cap-and-trade,†said Milloy. “His desperate statement today indicates he’s feeling that pressure.â€
Entries (RSS)
All this about “betraying Europe”….
There are too many nutters here in Europe,
crying in their beer about the need to cut down and save
and imposing unwieldy inefficient bureaucratic Cap and Trade
together with equally inefficient and unfair Energy Efficiency regulations
with bans on everything from light bulbs to dishwashers to types of buildings.
The worldwide energy efficiency craze
(as also seen by the California ban on some TVs)
is unwarranted
- given renewable energy development, there is no shortage,
and if there was,
then the price rise would reduce consumption anyway.
No need to legislate for it.
It might sound great to
“Let everyone save money by stimulating the manufacture of energy efficient products”
However:
Inefficient products that use more energy can have performance,
appearance and construction advantages, along with a lower price.
Examples (using cars, buildings, dishwashers, TV sets, light bulbs etc):
http://ceolas.net/#cc211x
For example, big plasma TV screens have image contrast and other
advantages along with their large image sizes.
As for EMISSIONS,
electrical products don’t give out gases – power stations do.
The need or not to deal with CO2 can be debated,
but to the extent that it’s good to reduce emissions for all else they contain,
such measures can of course be done by dealing directly with the problem.
Notice that Cap and Trade is pointless
whether one is for or against CO2 reduction
We have already seen that here in the EU
with carbon prices low and so cheap and meaningless as in recession times,
or too high to lead to any reduction at other times, when evasive
action for example involves paying off third world emitters (who
according to a recent Economist article can simply be set up to rake
in cash ie would not be emitting otherwise), or tree planting
exercises of dubious effect, which may in any case be fast growing
non-native trees which changes local ecosystems.
So our Soviet EUnion wants to drag the USA into this mess?
And President Obama is happy to agree?
Emission Trading (Cap and Trade)
http://ceolas.net/#cce5x
Basic Idea — Offsets — Tree Planting — Manufacture Shift — Fair Trade — Surreal Market — Allowances: Auctions + Hand-Outs — Allowance Trading — Companies: Business Stability + Cost — In Conclusion