China: We’re not likely to agree to anything at Copenhagen
posted at 8:48 am on December 17, 2009 by Ed Morrissey
The US and other Western nations continue to press for an agreement on AGW policy in Copenhagen, but they have gotten caught in a vise of naked self-interests. Developing nations want tens of billions of dollars in aid as well as ruinous restrictions on carbon-dioxide emissions as a means to even the economic score. On the other hand, China — the world’s largest industrial emitter of CO2 — threw cold water on the entire process, calling an agreement on anything unlikely:
Seeking to unblock an impasse in climate talks, Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton said the United States would only commit to building the fund if nations gathered here for global climate talks produce an international accord that includes emission reduction commitments from both developed and major developing countries; financial and technological assistance for poor countries; and a way to independently verify the cuts all nations made.
“We’re running out of time,” Clinton said at a news conference. “Without the accord, the opportunity to mobilize significant resources to assist developing countries with mitigation and adaptation will be lost.”
Clinton warned that China — which has resisted attempts for international verification of emission cuts and told officials here before Clinton spoke that a global pact seems unlikely — must agree to monitoring if a deal is to reached. An international agreement, Clinton said, would be impossible “in the absence of transparency from the second biggest emitter” in the world, which is China.
China told participants earlier Wednesday that it cannot envision reaching an immediate, operational accord out of the negotiations here, according to an official involved in the talks. Another source said Chinese officials are now seeking a two-page agreement. The source added that it is unclear what specifics such an agreement might contain, although “you can get a lot into two pages.”
In the absence of a comprehensive pact, Clinton said, the United States would take its long-term financial pledge off the table. She did not specify how much the U.S. would contribute to the fund if a substantive agreement was reached. The European Union has also committed to building a longterm, $100 billion fund, while Japan has committed $15 billion in short-term funding to poor countries over the next three years if an agreement is reached.
You can get a lot into two pages? Not in international agreements. That would represent little more than a mission statement, an agreement on goals rather than any legal language on emissions and processes to implement them.
Think of the complexity of regulating a naturally-occurring gas that humans exhale every second. It would take a massive bureaucracy just to handle the verification of compliance. The table of contents for that portion of a treaty would take more than two pages.
Without China on board on an operational agreement, Copenhagen is useless. The US Senate will not reverse itself to ratify an agreement that excludes China or India. Without China and the US, the rest of the world may self-flagellate over their carbon dioxide, but given the exposure of the science as biased and unreliable, not too many of them will for very long. China may just put Copenhagen, and the AGW hysteria, out of its misery — and out of ours.
Blowback
Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.
Trackbacks/Pings
Trackback URL
Comments
Comment pages: « Previous 1 2
Can’t blame them for that, can we?
DarkCurrent on December 17, 2009 at 12:18 PM
CHINA…….The new owner of 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue.
PappyD61 on December 17, 2009 at 12:50 PM
China most emphatically does not want the USofA’s economy to completely collapse. If you owe the bank a thousand dollars and can’t pay, you are in trouble. If you owe the bank a million dollars and can’t pay, the bank is in trouble.
Slowburn on December 17, 2009 at 1:10 PM
I can read a wiki just as well as you, sir. In the end, the President is bound in his powers by both the Congress (in the case of Treaties, the Senate in particular), and by the Judicial. That’s Separation of Powers 10 — the stuff junior high schoolers learn in Civics.
Article III Section 2 defines a process under which international agreements other than treaties may be made — but note that the process must be defined by Congress via the lawmaking process.
It also defines that controversy with respect to treaties and the like are covered by the appellate jurisdiction of the Supreme Court.
Hence, any agreement of any of the three categories you state are subject to the interpretation not only of Congress but of the Courts.
The Treaty process has to start somewhere. The Constitution defines the treaty process as starting with the President — he or she is the original actor in the description of the treaty process outlined in Article II Section 2. How the subordinate clause “by and with…” is carried out is defined in our laws as Article III says they should be.
Here is the Senate’s view of the treaty-making/agreement-making process. Note that the Senate doesn’t use the three partitions you (or, rather, Wikipedia) defines — they use four, where the fourth comprises side agreements made by the executive which are subordinate to a treaty.
Note that treaties and executive agreements, in the eyes of the Senate, may trump state law (A ‘la State of Missouri v. Holland, but, in those same eyes, do not trump enacted Federal law which is contrary to the agreement or treaty. According the the Senate viewpoint, this position is well established jurisprudence.
As for your assertion that the President cannot just go around signing treaties or agreements by his whim or will, I say that it is false. He can indeed do so, and Presidents have done so (the Versailles Treaty is a definite case in point), and all of your asserting does not change one whit established history. As to what happened to those treaties and agreements — well, that’s in the history books too.
Thank you for playing.
unclesmrgol on December 17, 2009 at 1:26 PM
That’s your problem your using WIKI and not actually legal documentation on the constitution and it’s non-superficial meaning you are using!
Using the senate terminology considering they have ceded their constitutional powers within the last 40 yrs is like using one of the “For Dummies” series to explain the federal government.
I also, explained to you that Executive Agreements, Compacts, Treaties without senate approval of the signing is unconstitutional. Just because Wilson had the treaty signed then submitted to senate doesn’t mean it was constitutionally permissable. And as we know from history the treaty was rejected!
xler8bmw on December 17, 2009 at 1:40 PM
I bet you are very unhappy that the three branches of our government interpret the law differently than you do. You can rant about Wilson doing unconstitutional things, but you do have to consider that the Senate did indeed consider his Treaty — they didn’t consent to it. As is pointed out in the Senate article I link below, even President Washington endured that type of defeat.
All multi-person operations have to have a “point man”, and, again the Constitution defines the President as the “point man” for the treaty-making process.
As for use of wiki, all your talking points came from one article in Wikipedia. It’s a nice article, but written with a certain slant. I wasn’t using wikipedia alone — I was pointing out your sole use of Wikipedia.
I do think that Wikipedia has its place, but only as one input to research, and never a sole one when more authoritative resources exist (some of which may be discovered by the references in the Wiki article).
To truly understand why we do things the way we do, the Senate is the defining authority, for they (and to a minor extent, the House) have been the deciders of what by and with… mean.
unclesmrgol on December 17, 2009 at 2:08 PM
“You can get a lot into two pages.” Why is this so hard to believe, Ed? Let me try – I’ll even channel the Chinese premier’s thoughts…
Hell no – we won’t go!
Obama is truly a useful idiot.
Why did Gore & Obama get Nobel prizes?
We own the US – you work for us, not the other way around.
Hillary needs another pant suit.
Man-made global warming data is BS.
Go to hell – it’s hot down there because of excessive CO2 levels.
There is a lot of hot air and CO2 in Copenhagen now because of all of the useful American liberal idiots hyperventilating over this.
Psych!
(How’s that for less than 2 pages.)
Danny on December 17, 2009 at 2:16 PM
WOW, so glad to see public school has been well worth my tax dollars! The president has NO SUCH POWER as being”point man LMAO” in treaties! It is the legislative branch! And they have no power to cede their power…..Congress has the sole power to legislate for the United States. Under the nondelegation doctrine, Congress may not delegate its lawmaking responsibilities to any other agency. In this vein, the Supreme Court held in the 1998 case Clinton v. City of New York that Congress could not delegate a “line-item veto” to the President, by which he was empowered to selectively nullify certain provisions of a bill before signing it. The Constitution Article I, Section 8; says to give all the power to Congress. Congress has the exclusive power to legislate, to make laws and in addition to the enumerated powers it has all other powers vested in the government by the Constitution. Also, with that said EPA cannot assume power over climate legislation. OBAMA has no power to regulate that either!
“He shall have power, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate, to make treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur; and he shall nominate, and by and with the advice and consent of the Senate, shall appoint ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls, judges of the Supreme Court, and all other officers of the United States, whose appointments are not herein otherwise provided for, and which shall be established by law: but the Congress may by law vest the appointment of such inferior officers, as they think proper, in the President alone, in the courts of law, or in the heads of departments.”
xler8bmw on December 17, 2009 at 2:17 PM
You can repeat yourself all you want. I still disagree completely with your deductions.
unclesmrgol on December 17, 2009 at 2:19 PM
Lets not get carried away cheering about the possibility of Copenhagen failing. The EPA intends to shoot the U.S. economy in the foot treaty or no treaty. Without the treaty the other nations may just play lip service to CO2 reductions while our economy sinks due to the EPA policies.
agmartin on December 17, 2009 at 2:28 PM
Well then all I can say is your uninformed on the law of which our conastitution stands.
The fact that you completely IGNORE what I have just given you directly from the constitution (just read the first sentence)”BY AND WITH – ADVICE AND CONSENT quite dumbfounding. You really should stop using wiki and familiarize yourself with Cornell Law, West Law, Lexis Nexis
“He shall have power, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate, to make treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur; and he shall nominate, and by and with the advice and consent of the Senate, shall appoint ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls, judges of the Supreme Court, and all other officers of the United States, whose appointments are not herein otherwise provided for, and which shall be established by law: but the Congress may by law vest the appointment of such inferior officers, as they think proper, in the President alone, in the courts of law, or in the heads of departments.”
xler8bmw on December 17, 2009 at 2:39 PM
Oh and they’re not my deductions they are legal definitions and deductions. LMAO!
xler8bmw on December 17, 2009 at 2:40 PM
unclesmrgol on December 17, 2009 at 3:49 PM
Ok then you disagree with then constitution!
Article II
Section 2.
The President shall be commander in chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the militia of the several states, when called into the actual service of the United States; he may require the opinion, in writing, of the principal officer in each of the executive departments, upon any subject relating to the duties of their respective offices, and he shall have power to grant reprieves and pardons for offenses against the United States, except in cases of impeachment.
He shall have power, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate, to make treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur; and he shall nominate, and by and with the advice and consent of the Senate, shall appoint ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls, judges of the Supreme Court, and all other officers of the United States, whose appointments are not herein otherwise provided for, and which shall be established by law: but the Congress may by law vest the appointment of such inferior officers, as they think proper, in the President alone, in the courts of law, or in the heads of departments.
The President shall have power to fill up all vacancies that may happen during the recess of the Senate, by granting commissions which shall expire at the end of their next session.
xler8bmw on December 17, 2009 at 5:37 PM
Repeating ad nauseam a hunk of the Constitution which we’ve both discussed, and about which you disagree with txaggie’s interpretation, does nothing to convince me that you are right, especially when you state that the three branches of our Government also have it wrong.
You are certainly welcome to your interpretation, but, in my view, a prop from an alternate universe buttresses your argument.
unclesmrgol on December 17, 2009 at 8:07 PM
I disagree because you and txaggie are wrong. Oh and I will go by my interpretation because I am an attorney!
xler8bmw on December 17, 2009 at 8:32 PM
I’d never have guessed from your debating skills.
unclesmrgol on December 18, 2009 at 12:18 AM
Comment pages: « Previous 1 2