WASHINGTON — The Obama administration is working to forge a sweeping international climate change agreement to compel nations to cut their planet-warming fossil fuel emissions, but without ratification from Congress.
In preparation for this agreement, to be signed at a United Nations summit meeting in 2015 in Paris, the negotiators are meeting with diplomats from other countries to broker a deal to commit some of the world’s largest economies to enact laws to reduce their carbon pollution. But under the Constitution, a president may enter into a legally binding treaty only if it is approved by a two-thirds majority of the Senate.
To sidestep that requirement, President Obama’s climate negotiators are devising what they call a “politically binding” deal that would “name and shame” countries into cutting their emissions. The deal is likely to face strong objections from Republicans on Capitol Hill and from poor countries around the world, but negotiators say it may be the only realistic path.
“If you want a deal that includes all the major emitters, including the U.S., you cannot realistically pursue a legally binding treaty at this time,” said Paul Bledsoe, a top climate change official in the Clinton administration who works closely with the Obama White House on international climate change policy.
Lawmakers in both parties on Capitol Hill say there is no chance that the currently gridlocked Senate will ratify a climate change treaty in the near future, especially in a political environment where many Republican lawmakers remain skeptical of the established science of human-caused global warming.
“There’s a strong understanding of the difficulties of the U.S. situation, and a willingness to work with the U.S. to get out of this impasse,” said Laurence Tubiana, the French ambassador for climate change to the United Nations. “There is an implicit understanding that this not require ratification by the Senate.”
American negotiators are instead homing in on a hybrid agreement — a proposal to blend legally binding conditions from an existing 1992 treaty with new voluntary pledges. The mix would create a deal that would update the treaty, and thus, negotiators say, not require a new vote of ratification.
More at the NY Times
Can ANYONE tell me when the un did ANYTHING that helped the USA? I can’t think of anything.
The only thing that has been established is that the global warming “science” doesn’t exist without manipulated date, suppressed results that do not support warming and lies. But, hey, let’s go ahead and wreck the economy and drive unemployment through the roof.
Marking time, just marking time. Not treaty, not binding! 1314 days to endure counting today.
Just like Pres Wilson.
No ratification, no funding.
May even result in a partial defunding of EPA.
“Name and Shame Countries” into compliance, Yes, an excellent idea: we destroy our economy, we can give billions to every dictator with a living cesspool of a country, so that he and his relatives can live in luxury for generations. Why would you need 2/3 senate approval of something so beneficial, so progressive and such a wonderful example of Wealth Redistribution.
And where is our DemRino Congress during all of this tyranny? Well, they’re lounging around with their thumbs up their rears and/or aiding and abetting King Putt.
Btw, you forgot to mention the new flood of unattended minor illegal immigrants instigated by the “Dream Act”. That’s right, we (as US citizens) will be further held financially accountable for our contributions towards global warming… er… make that climate change, yet our Governmut sees fit to allow the illegal and outright criminal importation of hyper-dependent and non-productive carbon foot print creating 3rd world minors (their poorly educated and chronically dependent parents join will soon be joining them here in the US). We US citizens will also, of course, be held financially accountable for this as well.
You can bet your bottom dollar that certain lawmakers are skimming off the top of those billions.
I’ve been looking throughout the Constitution and I can’t find the part that states where the President is empowered to go back and rewrite or alter ratified treaties. Not only is this administration hell bent on unilaterally rewriting Federal law, he now thinks he can rewrite agreements passed on a global scale. What dangerous utter arrogance!