From
Greenwire, not a surprise, but interesting nonetheless:
As the U.N. climate talks in Bangkok wound down today, the chief U.S. negotiator acknowledged that the United States may not agree to cut greenhouse gas emissions in a treaty this year until Congress passes its climate legislation.
"It will be extraordinarily difficult for the U.S. to commit to a specific number in the absence of action from Congress," State Department deputy climate envoy Jonathan Pershing said. "The question is open as to how much we can do. It's not really possible to answer."
UPDATE: And
this view from Europe:
Obama’s scope is limited because the U.S. Congress may not approve a domestic law to control emissions before the December deadline for signing an international climate accord in Copenhagen, Karl Falkenberg, director-general for environment at the European Union’s executive body, said in an interview.
“Obama and his administration are very committed, and it will be more than an embarrassment for them if at Copenhagen they would have to admit they are not ready,” Falkenberg said late last night in Bangkok, where more than 180 nations are meeting for talks. “We can just help, but helping them also means directly telling them that the world has an expectation.”
7 comments:
What's the point ? Obama is now equal with Gore on the Nobel Peace Prize leader board.
I've seen a couple of articles about Bangkok, Koyoto, the USA, and Copenhagen today. None favorable to the USA.
Apparently, it hasn't been all George Bush's fault.
Now that's a surprise. What will we do with all those words already preserved for history?
Where's the bad news?
The last time a POTUS agreed to UN climate goals it was the Al & Bill show . . . they did just fine until the Senate got wind of what was happening.
I seem to recall the Senate vote to reject Kyoto was unanimous.
It seems to be politically unusual. There is a big difference between signing the protocol or agreement and ratifying the protocol or acceding to the protocol. Australia signed the Kyoto Protocol but did not ratify it. Nevertheless the Kyoto Protocol went into force without Australia and when the new government was elected it acceded to the Protocol. Al Gore was the consumate politician. He went into the high officials meeting of the Kyoto Protocol after the US Senate has passed a non-binding resoultion against the draft of the Protocol. Al Gore could sign anything knowing the US Senate will not ratify it. In fact the head of the delegation could even forego signing the protocol right after the meeting as normally the protocol will be open for signing for a specific time after the meeting for those delegation who could feels they dont have the authority to sign the protocol as it stands without detailed discussions from their capital. However, it is politically expedient to sign the agreement right after the meeting especially if there is a possibility the government does not intend to ratify it or does not have the numbers required in their constitution to ratify it. Saves the criticism befor and during the meeting. Signing the protocol within the period allowed after the meeting means detailed discussions have taken place and there is little reason left for ratifying it especially in parliamentay systems where the government of the day also holds the majority in parliament.
eo: Australia did ratify the Kyoto Protocol, on 3 December 2007. It was Prime Minister Kevin Rudd's first act after being sworn in. The Kyoto Protocol had already entered into force following Russia's ratification, which meant that both criteria in Article 25 of the Protocol had been met:
The Kyoto Protocol enters into force "on the ninetieth day after the date on which not less than 55 Parties to the Convention, incorporating Parties included in annex I which accounted in total for at least 55% of the total carbon dioxide emissions for 1990 of the Parties included in annex I, have deposited their instruments of ratification, acceptance, approval or accession."
The "55 parties" clause was reached on 23 May 2002 when Iceland ratified. The ratification by Russia on 18 November 2004 satisfied the "55%" clause and brought the treaty into force, effective 16 February 2005.
What Copenhagen is really about . . . it's a Foreign Aid Treaty at heart.
http://tinyurl.com/yjec3q5
Post a Comment