Climate deal must avoid US Congress approval, French minister says

[herding cats]

Source: The Guardian

The global climate agreement being negotiated this year must be worded in such a way that it doesn’t require approval by the US Congress, the French foreign minister said on Monday.

Laurent Fabius told African delegates at UN climate talks in Bonn that “we know the politics in the US. Whether we like it or not, if it comes to the Congress, they will refuse.”

If negotiators follow his plan, that would exclude an international treaty that has legally binding limits on greenhouse gas emissions — something some countries still insist on but which would have no chance of being ratified by the Republican-controlled Congress.

“We must find a formula which is valuable for everybody and valuable for the US without going to the Congress,” said Fabius, who will host the UN climate summit in Paris in December where the new agreement is supposed to be adopted.

Read more: http://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/jun/01/un-climate-talks-deal-us-congress

[NRaleighLiberal]

1. the line - "we know the politics in the US. Whether we like it or not, if it comes to the Congress,

they will refuse"

truer words were never spoken.

[MBS]

20. yes, indeed! n/t

[Loryn]

23. Sad.

Just sad.

[Elmer S. E. Dump]

35. Everyone knows this but our own brainwashed citizens

[Auggie]

2. The world disparages our congress yet we still keep electing the same bozos

[TygrBright]

3. Congress is like the rich crazy alcoholic aunt who keeps getting invited to family events...

...and exercises a de facto veto power by virtue of her money.

In fact... no, let me clarify further: Did you ever see the movie "The Ref"?

Congress is like the mother-in-law in that film.

It's just SO embarrassing, especially around more functional governments, which is most of them, unfortunately.

wearily,
Bright

[arcane1]

4. Embarrassing, isn't it?

[MBS]

21. " " " " n/t

[cui bono]

26. Exactly what I was going to say. n/t

[Ahpook]

5. It was only a matter of time

Before the US started to get excluded. Who wants to deal with a bunch of fucking gangsters?

Most of the critters in DC need thrown out on their ass.

[hughee99]

6. So if i'm reading this right, what he's looking for is a largely unenforcable agreement. n/t

[Jim Lane]

7. More optimistically, he's looking to explore the scope of executive orders.

There are at least some things that Obama can do unilaterally.

Of course, something like a minimum mpg requirement for all cars newly purchased by the federal government would have only a tiny impact on the overall problem.

[karynnj]

10. no, he is looking for a deal that works with executive orders

Or has a way to make doing so attractive to businesses.

Consider that the Senate failed to pass anything in 2010 when we had 59 Senators. Part of the problem is there were many coal state Democrats unwilling to vote for it. There were about 5 Republicans who were interested, though there never was a vote.

Here, I suspect that his opinion has been formed partly from speaking to Kerry. Note that Kerry was key on the deal with China, which does not need Congressional approval and has some real gains.

It is sad, but it is reality.

[hughee99]

12. Deals based on executive orders can easily disappear in 2017.

And any deals that require funding (like for enforcement) will likely have to go through congress anyway.

[karynnj]

14. true, but there is no way to pass anything.

The best hope is a Democrat wins and continues everything.

If there is an agreement, there will be costs to the US I if they abandon international costs. The gamble is that we get an agreement that actually makes it more advantageous to cut carbon, then waste it.

Believe me this is not the best way to do things, but there is no beer way available with the current Congress. Who knows maybe a Democrat will be President and Congress changes.

[Gore1FL]

17. It's a bigger deal to reverse something than it is to stop it.

In the unlikely event of a 2016 GOP presidential victor, the last thing they are going to do is start unraveling foreign policy just to please a base that will forget about it in 2 weeks.

[hughee99]

24. It depends on what the EO is.

If it's something that affects the bottom line of corporations, as it would likely be, it will be quickly undone. Even if the base doesn't remember in two weeks, the corporations won't forget.

[geek tragedy]

11. technically unenforceable, but the issue then becomes

whether leaving the agreement has greater costs than staying in the agreement.

Congress has no role to play in making climate policy.

[Jefferson23]

8. They have the indebted ones so pegged, it's not funny. n/t

[ananda]

9. Wise

nt

[pampango]

13. "Whether we like it or not, if it comes to the Congress, they will refuse.”

If negotiators follow his plan, that would exclude an international treaty that has legally binding limits on greenhouse gas emissions — something some countries still insist on but which would have no chance of being ratified by the Republican-controlled Congress.

“We must find a formula which is valuable for everybody and valuable for the US without going to the Congress,” said Fabius, who will host the UN climate summit in Paris in December where the new agreement is supposed to be adopted.

Those pushing for a legally binding deal in Paris include the European Union and small island nations who fear being wiped out by rising seas.

It is so frustrating that our republican congress will not approve a climate change treaty, the arms trade treaty, the disability rights treaty, the child support enforcement treaty, the Law of the Sea treaty, etc. Republicans are so irresponsible when it comes to the idea of countries sacrificing a little 'sovereignty' to achieve a greater good.

[SunSeeker]

15. Enough with the euphemisms! It's not "Congress," it's REPUBLICANS who are blocking every useful law.

It's REPUBLICANS who deny climate change exists.

We must accurately name the problem if we are to have any chance of fixing it.

Repeatedly referring to "Congress" when we mean Republicans covers up the crime...and now we've got the whole world doing it!

[MBS]

22. + 1000 n/t

[Nihil]

28. Enough with the excuses! It *is* "Congress": the *elected* House of Representatives. Own it.

It includes the Republicans, the DINOs, some genuine Democrats and a wide selection
of self-serving toadies of various stripes.

It is a fully elected body (barring the occasional temporary appointment by a governor)
so the points that you SHOULD be taking on board are

1) The wilful stupidity of the electorate who keep putting such corrupt pieces of shit into office.
&
2) The frustration voiced from the rest of the world - the people who had hoped that after the
insanity of 8 Bush years there might be a significant improvement, not just a cheap coat of
paint over yet another corporatist tool.


When senior diplomats state openly that the US administration is a lost cause thanks to the
hopeless stupidity of the latter, that really isn't a good time to play "Let's pretend that R is
different to D so please just focus on the pretty labels ...".

[SunSeeker]

30. Spare me the "D is same as R" bullshit. That is the fucking lie that got us here.

It's the standard line used to keep Dems home. GOP voters never buy that line, that is why they make sure to come out to vote, even at midterms. Their 2010 turnout, coupled with Dems staying home, is how we have the Republican Voter ID laws and gerrymandering that is further cementing the GOP voters' outsize effect on elections, even though there are more Dems.

Nope, fuck that false equivalence bullshit.

[Nihil]

33. Rubbish.

> the GOP voters' outsize effect on elections

The biggest expression of the "outsize effect" is through your dumbshit "electoral college".
The results outside of that are down to the voters themselves.

If you are saying that GOP voters always vote whereas Dem voters stay home then
you need to look at what is wrong, not just invent excuses.

Maybe it is that GOP voters are too stupid to see how they are hurting themselves?
If so, you've got a problem: You can't fix stupid.

Maybe it is that Dem voters are too easily disheartened?
If so, maybe they need a bit of genuine "Change" to give them "Hope".

Maybe it is that the undecided ones are pissed off at getting "R" when they voted for a "D".
If so, stop just repeating the same excuses, going through the same motions and expecting
to see a different result.


As I noted originally, there *are* some people with a "D" who actually act like it matters.
Unfortunately, they are outnumbered ... and will stay that way until you actually vote in
Democrats rather than DINOs, liberals instead of liers and progressives instead of pissartists.

False equivalence? There is nothing false about the statement that
a Republican corporatist is the same as a Democratic corporatist.
The problem comes when most of your "Democratic" representatives are self-serving
arseholes who are only interested in the bribes they can accumulate (legally or otherwise)
and those ones - like it or not - are no better than their "Republican" cronies.

[SunSeeker]

34. Nope. Even conservative Dems believe in science.

And they are pro choice. And they will let a vote go forward instead of block a Dem President's judicial and cabinet nominees. They are definitely not the same as a Republican. They are demonstrably better than a Republican.

[LongTomH]

16. This climate deal will be turned into a 'New World Order' conspiracy theory by the right......

........just as they did with the UN's Agenda 21:

Agenda 21 is a non-binding, voluntarily implemented action plan of the United Nations with regard to sustainable development. It is a product of the Earth Summit (UN Conference on Environment and Development) held in Rio de Janeiro, Brazil, in 1992.

Agenda 21: The U.N. Conspiracy That Just Won't Die

It’s been called “the most dangerous threat to American sovereignty”; “An anti-human document, which takes aim at Western culture, and the Judeo-Christian and Islamic religions,” that will bring “new Dark Ages of pain and misery yet unknown to mankind,” and “abolish golf courses, grazing pastures and paved roads,” in the name of creating a “one-world order.”

It’s been the subject of several forewarning books and DVDs; there are organizations dedicated to stopping it and politicians have been unseated for supporting it. Glenn Beck has spent a good portion of his career making people scared of it.

The Southern Poverty Law Center's report on right-wing paranoia about Agenda 21 exposes some of the groups and individuals responsible for spreading this paranoia. The state legislature of Alabama has passed legislation outlawing effects of Agenda 21. State legislatures in New Hampshire, Tennessee, and (of course!) Kansas have passed resolutions condemning it.

[goldent]

18. Not a smart thing for a French politician to say publically

It will only make things worse for Pres. Obama

[The Second Stone]

19. Tie it to a trade agreement so it gets fast tracked up and down

and that other countries pull out of trade agreements if it isn't up. When life gives you fast track on trade, you make environmental agreements into trade agreements.

[GReedDiamond]

25. "The Foreigners have taken over the world!"

Greed Diamond
Hollywood CA
1977

[pampango]

29. That would be a great Tea Party slogan. Add in: "So we need to build a higher wall to keep THEM out"

and the TP would have slogan that would justify almost all of their policy ideas.

[GReedDiamond]

32. Yup!...nt

[quadrature]

27. better idea ...do not include the US ...............nt

[mountain grammy]

31. The rest of the world knows our Congress better than Americans..

Americans should be embarrassed, but we're just too damn exceptional!