US planning to weaken Copenhagen climate deal, Europe warns

Source: guardian.co.uk

Europe has clashed with the US Obama administration over climate change in a potentially damaging split that comes ahead of crucial political negotiations on a new global deal to regulate greenhouse gas emissions.

The Guardian understands that key differences have emerged between the US and Europe over the structure of a new worldwide treaty on global warming. Sources on the European side say the US approach could undermine the new treaty and weaken the world's ability to cut carbon emissions.

The treaty will be negotiated in December at a UN meeting in Copenhagen and is widely billed as the last chance to save the planet from a temperature rise of 2C or higher, which the EU considers dangerous.

"If we end up with a weaker framework with less stringent compliance, then that is not so good for the chances of hitting 2C," a source close to the EU negotiating team said.


Read more: http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2009/sep/15/europe-us-copenhagen

Climate Change you can Believe In!

No further comment.

Unfortunately, it's a matter of what will pass the Senate with a 2/3 vote. What good would it do to agree to a treaty and then have it fail in the Senate? I agree that we should be ratifying Kyoto, but given the liklihood of it passing the Senate with a 2/3 vote, what's a president to do?



From the article:

The move reflects a "prehistoric" level of debate on climate change in the wider US, according to another high-ranking European official, and anxiety in the Obama administration about its ability to get a new global treaty ratified in the US Senate, where it would require a two-thirds majority vote. The US has not ratified a major international environment treaty since 1992 and President Clinton never submitted the Kyoto protocol for approval, after a unaminous Senate vote indicated it would be rejected on economic grounds.

It may be that this treaty - even if weakened - will do more worldwide, than Kyoto, ratified now would do. In addition, one comment Senator Kerry has often made is that the very act of responding by setting up a cap and trade could lead to reductions happening faster and at less cost - as happened with the sulfur cap and trade for acid rain.

I think the Kyoto treaty would have been rejected, but it is wrong to use the Byrd/Hagel amendment vote as a proxy. That vote was taken about 4 months before the treaty was finished. One thing it did was to say that the developing nations had to be included in some way. It is true that a treaty doing that would have been better than one that didn't.

This is my issue; this is also the most significant issue facing the world in all of history. None of his saving businesses,etc. crap.

and it "ain't" us.

pathetic servants of the wealthy.... and meanwhile killing ourselves in the process, for nothing.

This is Obama's biggest fault. He thinks that if he makes enough concessions, he'll get Republican support. Instead, he makes concessions, and they fuck him over even more.

would be formally considered an "International Treaty", it would require 2/3 approval votes in both houses of your Congress.

I can see how that would be tricky.

So, what about if the President were to promote a different, "purely Domestic", US law that would nevertheless apply essentially the same terms as agreed by the rest of the world in Copenhagen, but, I repeat, promulgating a purely US law: would that then not require a simple majority of votes in both houses for approval?

Given the importance of the underlying issues being addressed - rather more important than any relatively petty party or even international rivalries, I'd suggest - could this not be a workable way forward for, um, the reasonable majority in the US?

Hell, on past performance, a purely US domestic law might have a better chance of not only being passed but also being applied in practice, as opposed to International Treaties the USA has a history now of not respecting.

Any thoughts?

Of course it would first have to clear the 60 vote hurdle in the Senate to come to a vote.

The only downside I see to that is how the US is viewed by the rest of the world as far as not ratifying a treaty that most other nations have, and then expecting other nations (especially developing countries) to live up to that treaty.

effectively 60 votes would be required in the senate for a purely domestic law. This is the problem we're having with getting a decent healthcare bill.

Also, as far as the treaty, I think most countries would feel that it would be more effective with US participation. US participation would put pressure on other countries (such as China and India) to enter into it. Personally, I'd be ecstatic if we could get just a domestic law, since I don't think this treaty will be ratified by the senate anytime in the foreseeable future.

or conform to it?"

"The US is yet to offer full details on how its scheme might work, though a draft "implementing agreement" submitted to the UN by the Obama team in May contained a key clause that emissions reductions would be subject to "conformity with domestic law".

Legal experts say the phrase is designed to protect the US from being forced to implement international action it does not agree with. Farhana Yamin, an environmental lawyer with the Institute of Development Studies, who worked on Kyoto, said: "It seems a bit backwards. The danger is that the domestic tail starts to wag the international dog.""

It seems to me that Obama is frustrated by some existing international agreements like NAFTA and the WTO in which domestic laws are superseded by provisions of the agreements. They can always be renegotiated or withdrawn from, but those are cumbersome processes. This frustration may be why he is looking at "conformity with domestic law" in a climate change treaty. It would prevent "the US from being forced" to do something "it does not agree with", as is often the case with NAFTA and the WTO.

If the provisions of international agreements are subject to a "conformity with domestic law" clause, the treaties are both better and worse. Better because they are easy to amend; just change domestic law whenever you want, the agreement can't stop you. Worse because the treaty can no longer force countries to do the things that are necessary to achieve the purpose of the agreement. Does an international agreement that doesn't force compliance serve any purpose other than being a PR exercise?

Maybe it comes down to whether you agree with the purpose of the treaty or not. If you think the treaty is a great thing (like with climate change), you probably want strict compliance to be a strong part of it. If you think the treaty stinks (like with international trade), you probably want it to have a "conformity with domestic law" clause.