Thread: Hurdles to New Climate Change Pact

Hurdles to new climate change pact

Published: Nov. 29, 2009 at 7:27 AM

Hazy skies block the sun as traffic on a major city ring road slows to a crawl in Beijing on July 8, 2009. China remains the world's top emitter of greenhouse gases blamed for global climate change, although its per capita emissions are still far less than in the United States. Both countries are major players in United Nations' talks aimed at reaching a new climate pact by the end of the year in Copenhagen.

(UPI Photo/Stephen S
WASHINGTON, Nov. 29 (UPI) -- Money and politics remain big obstacles to setting firm emission targets for a legally binding treaty to replace the Kyoto agreement, U.S. authorities said.

Emission targets proposed by China and the United States -- the world's two biggest greenhouse-gas emitters -- have boosted prospects for a deal at the summit in Copenhagen, Denmark, next month, negotiators said.

Wealthier countries, however, remain likely to balk at giving money to poorer countries to help curb climate change, The Washington Post reported Sunday.

Some members of the U.S. Congress also have said they cannot endorse an international treaty unless there are ways to assess the emission commitments of China and other countries who plan efficiency targets rather than absolute cuts, the Post reported.

Even under a best-cast scenario, the summit in Copenhagen is not going to solve the problem of climate change, said Keya Chatterjee of the World Wildlife Fund.

"But it is a deal that's going to create a foundation and an international architecture for resolving this issue over time," Chatterjee said.

http://www.upi.com/Top_News/US/2009/11/ ... 259497669/

Quote:
"But it is a deal that's going to create a foundation and an international architecture for resolving this issue over time," Chatterjee said.

I read that this is the real purpose, and danger, of this conference. Like passing a U.S. Health Care Bill nationally requiring that all have health insurance, the primary purpose here is to create "an infrastructure" and lay down precedent for coordinated (international) authority and action in this sphere - looking forward to the time when the U.S. Congress may become a "rubber stamp parliament" under global government.

The individual states have the constitutional right to overturn and/or nullify any treaty and/or legislation that runs contrary to our law.

The problems that I see are as follows; 1. If the states go up against the federal gov't how will the States back it up their position? 2. Even if the States vote on the issues to nullify law how can we be sure we are getting a fair vote with Acorn hanging around? 3. If States break away from the Union they will have to be able to manage much in the same way as a country, how will they do it? 4. States like Alaska will be vulnerable to take over by Russia. Russia has been licking its chops waiting for an opportunity to take Alaska back.

If the States suceed:

The States would not be responcible to pay for the Stimulus bill, Tarp. Cap and Trade if enacted and/or be financially responsible for paying for and/or being forced into the Health care system and/or be responcible for any other heavy handed legislation and/or financial obligations that obama criminally stuck the American people with and so States Rights and/or Sucession has great appeal.