JoNova

A science presenter, writer, speaker & former TV host; author of The Skeptic's Handbook (over 200,000 copies distributed & available in 15 languages).


Handbooks

The Skeptics Handbook

Think it has been debunked? See here.

The Skeptics Handbook II

Climate Money Paper


Advertising

micropace


GoldNerds

The nerds have the numbers on precious metals investments on the ASX



Archives

Obama, Chinese Pres to hold hands, sign carbon chastity vows — hollow PR Victory, but has a sting

Today the Paris Agreement jumped from including 1.1% of global emissions to 39%. It’s part of the performance art, the Grand Act. Including those emissions means nothing as far as emissions go (China will keep putting out more), but it carries political leverage unless we expose the game.

Make no mistake: there is nothing at all legally binding about the Paris Agreement, but it can be politically binding — like a Chastity Vow. Right now, it’s about shame and social standing, not about megatons, but inasmuch as bluff and bluster can pull it off, the UN will eventually want the shapeshifting chastity vow to be treated as a legal force.

This soft vow has the advantage that is completely two faced –  it can be all things to all people. To the green-passionate crowd it will be a historic, landmark agreement of the world working together. That’s “momentum”. To the free world, it may look like a failure, but that’s an advantage — it disarms the protests.  Watch the Pea — (it’s really a bee). The sting is hidden. That’s ACT III.

After the Copenhagen disaster, the Global Worriers realized that they would have to sneak in a mechanism to keep the Climate Gravy Train running, despite the will of the voters, and crumbling economies, so here is how the plot goes to conjure obedience, and confuse dissenters:

ACT I was the two week PR cabaret in Paris where countries signed their Carbon Chastity Vows — vows that amounted to no actual outcome, other than coming back to ratify it all again later. The important part in Act I was to manage expectations so that the Paris agreement “looks” successful no matter what. It was easy for countries to sign. Each nation brought its own “To Do” list, and it was not legally binding anyway. Success, was a low bar, just the achievement of signatures, not any reduction of CO2 emissions, or God-forbid any actual change in the climate. What matters is that the junkets and subsidies continue.

ACT II is the “ratification” where people  “sign into force” an agreement that has no legal force. (Except potentially through tricky subclauses that tie it to legally enforceable documents in each country. See ACT III).

ACT III is the pincer move with domestic legislation. In the US that’s through things like the EPA’s Clean Power Plan (CPP). It can also work through things like the TPP — the Trans Pacific Partnership  (where it stings Australia too). The sting is hidden in domestic legislation that creates “arbitration tribunals” and effectively commits nations to meet their international “carbon chastity vows”. (Read more about that below)

ACT IV– repeat ACT I. This play never ends.

The point is to avoid giving voters a choice

The Paris agreement is deceptive and deliberately undemocratic

Politico quotes Inhofe: “This is another attempt by the president to go around Congress in order to achieve his unpopular and widely rejected climate agenda for his legacy. The Senate does not support the Paris Agreement which is why his administration prefers to not call it a treaty.” — Sen. Jim Inhofe, chairman of the Environment Public Works Committee.

“The agreement was crafted to help the U.S. avoid Senate ratification, as is constitutionally required for treaties. Instead the structure of the agreement, which lays out goals but contains few legally binding requirements, allows the U.S. to formally join the agreement by having the president sign documents and then submit them to the U.N.

Republican presidential nominee Trump has threatened to “cancel” the climate agreement if he is elected, but putting it into force could make such an action more complicated.

Myron Ebell explains that this document has no effect until Congress votes on it

No one should be able to sign a chastity vow on your behalf, right? Even the UN themselves quietly call this a treaty, which means Obama cannot just declare it to be so:

Negotiators at COP-21 went along with the charade that it’s not really a treaty for the United States.  However, the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change Secretariat considers it a treaty.  The relevant UNFCCC web page is headlined: “Paris Agreement—Status of Ratification.”  The information note prepared by the UNFCCC Legal Affairs Programme on the Entry into Force of the Paris Agreement: Legal Requirements and Implications begins: “1. The Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties states that ‘a treaty enters into force in such manner and upon such date as it may provide or as the negotiating States may agree’.”

Moreover, every other country considers it a treaty and is going through its normal procedures for joining a treaty.  Patrick Goodenough in CNS News reported recently that even in China, which is ruled by a Communist Party dictatorship, the government has referred the treaty to the Standing Committee of Parliament for its approval.

The TPP is part of the Sting:

Article 20.4 of the TPP says: “The Parties [recognize] that multilateral environmental agreements to which they are party play an important role, globally and domestically, in protecting the environment and that their respective implementation of these agreements is critical to achieving the environmental objectives of these agreements. Accordingly, each Party affirms its commitment to implement the multilateral environmental agreements to which it is a party.

– Howard Richman, Jesse Richman and Raymond Richman

The TPP can be a vehicle to enforce the Paris vow:

“Also, chapter 27 of the TPP creates “Arbitration Tribunals.” These tribunals, according to the Richmans, “can impose multi-billion dollar fines upon the U.S. government if the U.S. violates anything that is in the pact.”

“In other words, the tribunals can force whatever Obama negotiates in Paris upon the American people, and Congress will have very little say,” argues the Richmans.”

  — Alex Swoyer

What’s the solution?

First, let the voters know that the Paris agreement is a bluff. It is not legally binding unless domestic legislation, or Congress or Parliament makes it so. As Marlo Lewis said the Paris Agreement Is a Real Tiger:  recognise that the Paris Agreement is a treaty, and it must pass the US Senate.  Marlo Lewis, explains why it is a treaty and not an executive agreement. Steven Groves of the Heritage Foundation discusses it too.

Second: Even if it was a real agreement, it’s pointless. Tell the world that China and India will be producing more CO2 regardless. By 2030, Australia’s entire 25% cut in annual emissions will be undone by 2 whole days of Chinese output.

Third:  As Marlo Lewis said in the Paris Agreement Is a Real Tiger: Free nations need to legislate something like  the Byrd-Hagel Resolution which was passed in 1997 to counteract the Kyoto Treaty.

Fourth: Be ever vigilant about local legislation that mentions terms like “multilateral environmental agreements.”

It’s all bluff.  We can still stop it, but we have to tell the world what this shapeshifting vow is.

For more information see:

VN:F [1.9.22_1171]
Rating: 9.4/10 (57 votes cast)
Obama, Chinese Pres to hold hands, sign carbon chastity vows -- hollow PR Victory, but has a sting, 9.4 out of 10 based on 57 ratings

Tiny Url for this post: http://tinyurl.com/ha73n4b

67 comments to Obama, Chinese Pres to hold hands, sign carbon chastity vows — hollow PR Victory, but has a sting

  • #
    Yonniestone

    This will not end well regardless of the outcome, Jo has a unique gift in political writing that ironically is under threat of being abolished by the very subject being discussed, speaking the truth!

    283

    • #
      F. Ross

      One struggles to find anything that Pres. Obama has touched that ended well.

      303

      • #
        Sceptical Sam

        However, this can end well for those who stand firm against the anti-west ideology perpetrated by Obama and Hillary and the rest of the Democrat establishment.

        Jo has outlined four actions to take:

        What’s the solution?

        First, let the voters know that the Paris agreement is a bluff. It is not legally binding unless domestic legislation, or Congress or Parliament makes it so.

        Second: Even if it was a real agreement, it’s pointless. Tell the world that China and India will be producing more CO2 regardless

        Third: ….. Free nations need to legislate something like the Byrd-Hagel Resolution

        Fourth: Be ever vigilant about local legislation that mentions terms like “multilateral environmental agreements.”

        We can still stop it, but we have to tell the world what this shapeshifting vow is.

        There is more to be done. There is a fifth action to be taken.

        The fifth action is to do whatever you can to avoid having a Democrat as the next President of the USA.

        OK, you might not be a citizen of the USA and hence have no vote, but you can still influence those who do.

        Become an international political activist on the conservative side. God knows there’s enough socialists, greens, communists, anarchists and Democrats acting against the best interests of the free world.

        Get onto some USA web blogs on which you can comment. Run the “Hillary unfit to be President line”. No need to push the Paris Agreement if you sense it is not part of the “culture” of the particular blog – but the number of coal fired power stations being constructed is a very good indicator of the number of American jobs that are going to be lost in the future if something isn’t done.

        Run Hillary’s Benghazi cowardice, run the Hillary untrustworthiness line, run the Hillary health cover-up line. Run the treason line in the context of the Clinton corruption associated with the cash for influence and the Clinton Foundation.

        Do something. Select three commentary sites and blog regularly from the comfort of your study or your kitchen table.

        You can then tell your grand-children that you helped save the world.

        142

      • #
        Ursus Augustus

        The man is a narcissistic weasel and its all about him. It was plain just what lack of genuine character he had when he accepted that ludicrous Nobel Prize before he actually did anything. His precipitate withdrawal from Iraq has left the poor Iraqi’s with a disaster that may have been at least mitigated if not avoided and his lip quivering, blinking over Syria did what? It emboldened Assad and the Russians, it encouraged Erdogan to go all out for his thugocracy, it has let Putin believe his thggery is the way to go and has emboldened China.

        He has taken the tragedy of “Peace in Our Time” and turned it into ‘piss on our time’. He is the one who has been such a sad joke and has made an arrogant, bombastic cretin like Trump look plausible. He makes Jimmy Carter look like Harry Truman.

        122

      • #
        Peter Miller

        Ross

        A couple of hundred years ago, some liberating redcoats burnt the US White House to the ground, which brought a much needed touch of reality to its incumbents.

        200 years? Hmm.

        Perhaps it is time to do it again, as ecolunacy is clearly not a presidential characteristic. Mind you, this might become even more urgent if Arch-Ecoloon Hilary wins the upcoming election. If she wins, perhaps a better name for the USA would be the LOA, or Lights Out America.

        82

  • #
    Dave in the States

    I was listening to a Constitutional Lawyer talking about such treaties/executive agreements a few days ago. He was talking specifically about the Iran nuke deal, but he said that the Senate does not need to wait until these treaties and such are presented to the Senate by the president, which Obama will not do, but they can act unilaterally on these things. They can declare it a treaty and vote it down themselves. It would then be null and void regardless. This would be an interesting strategy to explore, but will they?

    223

    • #
      Rereke Whakaaro

      One of my American associates, who is usually very terse in conversation, went to great length to explain how the Senate could introduce and pass a very watered down treaty, which Obama would decline to sign, thus creating a stale-mate.

      The draft treaty would then become front and centre in the presidential race, effectively putting it to the voters to decide. Timing in this will be everything.

      Is that your understanding, Dave?

      133

      • #
        Dave in the States

        Well I had not heard of that particular strategy before, but it is another option that should be looked at.

        52

  • #
    tim spence

    Another step toward world government.

    75

    • #
      Albert

      Both the US and China need power, they will continue to build coal fired power stations while we tax ourselves to death. It will be suicide if we follow or do we have a choice ?

      103

      • #
        Peter C

        “Do we have a choice? ”
        Probably right now we do but maybe not for much longer!

        Try registering an expression of interest on Australian Conservatives. You do not have to join a party or contribute any money. Cory Bernadi says he has 60,000 names so far.
        With increasing numbers there is a good chance that he can exert real pressure to stop Turnbull/Hunt/Bishop from ratifying the Paris agreement against our will.
        http://www.conservatives.org.au/?utm_campaign=wdcs_160706&utm_medium=email&utm_source=conservative

        113

      • #
        RobK

        There’s always a choice. Some are more pleasant than others.

        23

        • #

          We thought we had a choice, did we not, when we
          elected Tony Abbot as PM on a promise of no carbon
          taxes? That choice was taken from us by the Turnbull
          coup. Now with little difference between Turnbull’s
          ‘Liberal Party’ and the Opposition re climate policies,
          (and high taxes) where’s the choice?

          62

          • #
            RobK

            Beth,
            The country is still relatively “free”. People can choose to participate more vigorously in the political process. Whilst I don’t agree with all that independents say, I cherish their ability to get involved. You or I could always choose to do more. If the state is more totalitarian such choices become more dire but they are still choices. There are choices right up to your final breath.

            40

  • #
    CheshireRed

    Our ‘leaders’ demonstrate yet again they’re nothing of the sort, instead merely being useful cyphers to a stinking Supranational-dominated future promoting failed energy systems that aren’t fit for purpose. Meanwhile the single greatest technological leap forward in human history – the ability to extract energy stored in Mother Natures pantry and use it to create electricity, light and heat – thus advancing humanitarian progress at a genuinely unprecedented speed – is demonised (if they had their way) to the point of extinction. Absolutely stark raving bonkers.

    83

    • #
      delcon2

      The last dark deed of the Howard Government was the passage of the National Greenhouse and Energy Reporting Act in October 2007. That act is the auditing basis of the carbon tax.

      Mr Howard’s plan was to get the auditing system bedded down, then start taxing. Labor’s carbon tax would be a couple of years behind schedule if Mr Howard had not laid the bureaucratic foundations for it.

      The evil that men do lives after them, and in Mr Howard’s case that is a possible future in which Australia does not have a cement industry, a steel industry, oil refining, a multitude of other industries and, most importantly, a synthetic liquid fuels industry.

      That is the part of the Howard legacy that many of us have toiled mightily to avoid. That legacy is now with us, and we stare into the abyss of a continually shrinking economy.

      The list of carbon tax plotters is a lot longer than Howard, Rudd and Gillard.
      We all blamed labor for the carbon tax,but in fact it was”Little Johnny Howard”who started the ball rolling.And now Turdbull has brought it back in.
      This is from a speech by David Archibald,Perth-based climate scientist and energy analyst.

      31

  • #
    Robin Guenier

    An updated version of the article to which Paul Homewood refers (see Jo’s link) can be found here: LINK.

    The bottom line is that, under the text agreed in Paris, and now ratified by the US and China, the “developing” economies (responsible for over 65% of global GHG emissions) are exempt from any obligation, moral or legal, to reduce their emissions. In other words, as I said in an earlier thread here, China – supported by India and other major emerging economies – has dug a trap for the West. And the West is cheerfully walking into it. No wonder President Xi is looking so cheerful today.

    183

    • #
      Rereke Whakaaro

      “What is created by a stroke of the pen, can be negated by a stroke of the pen.”

      An agreement only remains an agreement for as long as all the parties continue to agree.

      Will nations go to war over this question? I think not.

      They may use the principle of an agreement as an excuse to go to war, in order to access tangible resources. But that is a different matter entirely.

      123

      • #
        Dave in the States

        This is exactly why the regime is marshalling everything than can think of to defeat Trump. He says what he thinks, and does what he says. He has already said that Paris will not be honored. And if they try to fine the US for noncompliance he will tell them to go pound sand. He will say:” We ain’t writing any checks, ever.”

        73

    • #
      Albert

      Developing economies are using the advanced technology of the West, they should not be excluded with the West paying for everything
      How would the developing countries fare without power stations, cars, trains, aeroplanes, steel, cement, education, Universities, Hospitals, vaccines and medication, ALL developed by the West

      83

    • #
      RobK

      Correct, ongoing worldwide wealth distribtion/equalization for the proletariat, dispossessed and middle class is about to hit top gear. The ruling elite will remain appropriately shielded.

      83

    • #

      The consequence of exempting the developing countries from the process is shown very clearly in a single graph produced by UNFCCC.
      It shows comparisons of future emissions estimates.
      1. No change to current policies, which on a global scale are near zero.
      2. If every country fully implements all the INDCs – the indicated policy proposals.
      3. Emissions path required for 2C of warming scenario.
      4. Emissions path required for 1.5c of warming scenario.

      The message is clear. All the vague proposals in the Paris Agreement, if fully implemented, will make little difference.

      http://unfccc.int/files/focus/indc_portal/image/jpeg/fig2exec_syr_update_v27apr2016_905_withlegend.jpg

      These are the easy reductions. To go further will be much more costly and damaging.

      61

    • #
  • #
    el gordo

    A Pyrrhic Victory.

    China will manufacture wind farms and solar panels, then encourage the Third World to adapt to second rate energy, which is better than next to nothing.

    43

  • #
    helen

    What a deal…..one side to pay and the other to join in 30 years. PS many voices seem to stopped already

    53

  • #

    As I understand it; China’s chastity vow is to have as much promiscuous intercourse as possible for the next 9 years and then to consider the possibility of being chaste.

    Does that make the Paris Agreement a French letter?

    153

    • #
    • #
      Peter Miller

      Berne

      That’s a very good question.

      French letter? Chinese Panda Sheath might be more appropriate.

      The Chinese gave the US the finger over this climate agreement/treaty/whatever, somehow Obama managed to declare this a ‘victory’, but I guess he definitely needed something, no matter how intangible, for his supposed legacy.

      32

      • #
        delcon2

        Well Obongo said the Iran deal was the best deal for the “West”did he not?

        02

      • #
        Mari C

        Obama will go down in history as a lame duck, a failure, the same as Jimmy Carter did. Carter is a kind, thoughtful, compassionate, highly intelligent man. He sucked at being a president. Obama may leave a legacy, but in 20 years it will be apparent the legacy is one of shame. I wonder if he will have the cojones to admit he was wrong?

        I can live without A/C and switch my lights over solar but as I live in the cold realms off Lake Erie, I cannot live off the grid in my current dwelling. Which means I will be broke, once again, rather than managing a modicum of savings and looking to a brighter future. 6 more years, then I can sell out and move south, where I can find an old shack and a wood stove and be fairly comfortable in the winter, and run a fan off a car battery in the summer. (sigh)

        00

  • #
    Dean from Ohio

    The right response for the next U.S. President, should a tribunal attempt to levy a fine, is to declare war on the U.N., the tribunal and the entire organization to which the tribunal belongs, if it extends outside the U.N. American B-2s can reach anywhere in the world in a matter of hours.
    A deployment of an A-10 squadron would get the job done too, but it would take more than a day. Two A-10s flew near my house today, and I would love to share that sight with these climate Nazis.

    43

    • #
      Rereke Whakaaro

      Dean,

      With all respect, a UN tribunal is no more than an abstract concept. Likewise the UN itself, is only an abstract concept. If you wanted to go after something material, in relation to the UN, then you would need to attack their Headquarters buildings.

      United Nations Headquarters shouldn’t be too hard to find. It is situated right in the heart of New York. So even A-10′s should be able to get there, get the job done, and be back at base before lunch.

      /sarc.

      52

  • #
    Eugene WR Gallun

    Love to read JoNova. — Eugene WR Gallun

    42

  • #
    PeterPetrum

    Great post, Jo. But am I the only one that feels helpless?

    I endorse Peter C’s comment 3.1.1 above – join Cory Bernardi’s Australian Conservatives. It’s not a party, but an association of like minded individuals (partly to counter the left wing GetUp) but he is showing with his aggressive approach on 18C that he is prepared to fight for what he thinks is right. If he has our support, and he is a sceptic, he will put pressure on Turnbull and Hunt on this.

    82

  • #
    sillyfilly

    Thankfully real and rational science is now ratified by the world’s two largest GHG emitters. The lingering howls and wails of the the so-called “sceptics” disappearing into scientific oblivion.

    220

    • #
      Heywood

      I am curious stupidhorse, apart from infesting several blogs with your whinging, what exactly are you doing personally to stave off the “disaster” you and your fellow travelers are only too keen to screech from the rooftops (and take our money to “mitigate”)??

      112

      • #
        OriginalSteve

        If the CAGW “crisis” truly was a crisis, the main CAGW proponents/bed wetters would :

        - cut off their electricity
        - cut off their gas
        - have composting toilets
        - sell their car
        - cut off thier phone
        - wear grass sandals
        - have no online presence at all because computers generate CO2

        And yet….

        50

        • #
          Mari C

          They – the great greenie alternative-everything masses, won’t, and haven’t, and will continue their lifestyle as if nothing has occurred. This doesn’t apply to the all-knowing green machine cogs, now does it? They get to keep their cars, their A/C, their computers. Doing something that might alleviate the crisis is too mundane – people (other people) must SUFFER! for it. Oh, a few have cut back, some more so than others. I know people who cycle everywhere (or damn near) and have passive heating and wear coats inside all winter, sweat buckets all summer, and use candles to light the house at night. But they have a fridge, use Laundromats and their power, flush toilets and run water. So not “off the grid” like they think.

          This need to make us suffer for our “sins” is highly evident in their hatred of nuclear power – a clean, reliable method of producing the electricity we have come to rely on. Kill birds, bats, fish, whales, fine. Cause numerous physical ailments in those who live near windmills, fine. Fry birds and blind pilots with huge solar arrays, fine. Put electricity out of the monetary reach of the poor and lower-middle class, fine. Cause the ruin of pristine (once, at least) environments and poison workers and nearby residents with mining for precious rare-earths, fine. Chop down trees to make pellets to burn (Really, Grt Brtn? Like that makes more sense than coal?) As long as it isn’t nuclear, gas, oil or coal.

          00

    • #
      Peter Miller

      Sillyfilly

      White powder, LSD or one of the newer halucigenic chemicals?

      Anyhow, whatever cranks your case.

      42

    • #
      el gordo

      “sceptics” disappearing into scientific oblivion.’

      Admittedly it looks bad, but we remain united and undaunted by the latest political thought bubble.

      It ultimately comes down to the weather and not the irrational science of the Klimatariat or ignorance of politicians. Global cooling has begun and there is nothing we can do to stop it getting colder.

      31

    • #
      Rereke Whakaaro

      Hang on a minute.

      They have agreed to an agreement that promises to keep it’s promises about doing something about whatever it is, at some time in the future. What a neat idea?

      It is a Clayton’s agreement. It is nonalcoholic alcohol, and about as effective. They have both obviously been to a revival meeting and signed the pledge to never let liquor pass their lips again.

      Meanwhile, Silly Filly is back (proving that psychiatric medicine can be beneficial), saying that a particularly rational point of view, known as skepticism, will disappear from the earth, at about the time as kingdom comes.

      Silly Filly has obviously missed the point that Obama cannot sign any treaty without the backing of the Senate; backing which he is unlikely to get. It may pay Silly Filly to read Jo’s posts before launching into putting up comments that people like me can make fun of.

      71

    • #
      el gordo

      Stoopid Nag

      ‘Xi said in his speech that while the world needs to better coordinate monetary and fiscal policies and carry out structural reforms, priority should be given to achieving balanced growth. He said the G20 will help less-developed countries, including those in Africa, with industrialization as well as green energy and finance to bridge the gaps in global development.’

      China Daily

      This is the Third Way, China will practically give away renewables to those in darkest Africa and buy unprecedented political mileage. Its a neat way to take over the world.

      The other thing is that the dictatorship has just woken up to the benefits of being green, in terms of keeping their own people under control. They are very impressed by the West’s propaganda on global warming and intend using it as a repressive tool.

      31

      • #
        AndyG55

        China currently have a GLUT of solar panels..

        Obama comes along just at the right time to be dumped on once again.

        10

        • #
          el gordo

          It was fabulous timing and they fully intend moving all their factories to Africa, so they can enjoy their own industrial revolution.

          The Europeans exploited that continent for hundreds of years, enslaving the people and stealing their natural resources, but its all over now.

          00

    • #
  • #
    Angry

    ANDREW BOLT RUNS QUIET ON THE SECRET AND UNDERHAND INTRODUCTION OF A LIBERAL CARBON TAX !

    THE ETS/CARBON TAX STARTED ON 1ST JULY 2016 !!!!

    http://pokiepleasures.com.au/andrew-bolt-runs-quiet-on-the-secret-and-underhand-introduction-of-a-liberal-carbon-tax/

    Well well well.
    Mr No fear, no favour seems to have done an underhand deal!
    Capn Climate Change has gone quiet on the fact that Malcolm’s liberals have underhandedly introduced a Carbon Tax.
    Malcolm’s liberals did so in an agreement reached with the ALP.
    That is why there has been NO discussion on Climate change in this election.
    Malcolm has reversed Abbott’s legacy with the imposition of a tax on Australia’s largest 150 companies.
    Yet Andrew Bolt is nowhere on this. Why? What is it he is hiding?
    Has the appearance of Kimberly Kitchings on the Bolt Report marked a change in direction for Bolt back to what he was – a labor lovey?

    Read about what Malcolm and Bullshitten agreed :-

    http://joannenova.com.au/2016/05/australias-ets-scheme-hunts-denial-of-the-obvious/

    http://www.australianconservativecoalition.com/#!the-secret-ets/xx8a8

    http://joannenova.com.au/2016/05/secret-deal-australia-already-has-an-ets-carbon-tax-starts-in-5-weeks/

    21

    • #

      Angry, Andrew Bolt is no friend of Turnbulls.

      I suspect there are just so many topics at play that are higher priorities right now, he does not have the time to do them all.

      Climate change was not an election issue because Turnbull didn’t want it to be. He copied the labor policies so there was nothing to vote for or against. There was nothing much to discuss.

      91

      • #

        Climate change was not an election issue because Turnbull didn’t want it to be. He copied the labor policies so there was nothing to vote for or against. There was nothing much to discuss.

        Indeed. It’s like he’d been sitting in Labor caucus. Reaching consensus. :-(

        62

    • #
      delcon2

      Didn’t anyone notice that “Electricity”prices went up at the start of July?Or was it just my bill?

      31

  • #
    cedarhill

    The Democrats are simply gaming the system they’ve set up. They’ve effectively seized the Federal Courts by having placed a majority of left judges throughout the system and only await one more appointment to SCOTUS for full control. That, coupled with the Executive Order, the dramatic delegation of power to the agencies (i.e., EPA) and the need to have only 41% of the Senate to block legislation, the game is about over. The only way to block this is for the US to elect Donald Trump and then hope he’ll reverse Obama’s totalitarian seizure(s).
    For those outside the US, that means regardless (1) of how the elections turn out, the Democrats will retain the power to block any legislation they choose. Even then, depending on the next SCOTUS appointee and (2) any nominee a President Trump places on SCOTUS can easily flip as has so many Republican SCOTUS appointees.
    Thus, hard as it may be for anyone to fathom, Trump is really the last hope.

    72

    • #
      Mari C

      It is seriously hard for me to accept Trump, and yet he is the only voice that rallies against all this Paris Treaty and global greenie crap. His views on minorities are poor, he really detests most of his supporters, his arrogance is amazing. And yet, he’s the only one with a lick of sense when it comes to ending the madness – spending on greenie crud, the biggie – and still I worry about what he’ll decide to spend all that extra cash on, once he does.

      And there is this niggling worry. He is a pragmatist – and if, once in office, he decides that the greenie way is good for him, he may just turn around and flip us all off.

      00

  • #
    richard ilfeld

    If you really, really want to stop this climate change madness dead in its tracks, treat it like a sidewalk. This can happen in the US. Allow a brief explanation…..

    One lives in a suburb, with no sidewalks. The authorities decide they are needed “for the children” being the usual refuge of progressive autocrats. The authorities build the walks, with union labor and the usual government waste, then send an individual assessment to each property owner. The pain is real, immediate, specific, and clear as to cause. Administrations have changes over such.

    The cost of most new climate rules is nominally borne by utilities.a variety of mechanisms are used. But, as regulated utilities, they can apply to collect all the costs associated with a specific regulation, and make an assessment, rather than fold and hide the costs into future rate increases. This is often done by small systems for one-time upgrades, such as replacing wooden with concrete poles in a hurricane zone.

    Identifying, concentrating, and billing the actual cost for climate foolishness to individuals might have a happy effect on the argument. The generic argument “this crap will cost each taxpayer $XXX’ pales in the face of actually receiving a bill.

    42

  • #
    Roy Hogue

    … it can be all things to all people.

    And therefore means nothing to anyone, nothing that is, except trouble. I think it’s time for the people who still can wake up to do it and stand up against this power grab. And that’s probably useless to say, isn’t it?

    richard ilfeld at #15 right above is correct. Put the bill for it on the individual citizen so he has to write a check for it every month and watch things change. I could make the same argument for tax collecting generally — don’t take it out of everyone’s paycheck before they see it, make them all write a monthly check to each taxing entity. How fast do you think everyone would start paying attention to what their government is doing?

    Had we been doing this all along I wonder if we’d have this Paris nonsense to deal with in the first place.

    41

  • #
  • #
    Macspee

    Is it not time to hammer, hammer, and hammer home that per capita emissions have no relevance for anything. Many years ago at a meeting of the Tasmsn Institute I asked Patrick Michaels (I think it was) if the world would notice if Australia was turned off for a few years and stopped producing any CO2. His response was, no any possible signal would be overwhelmed by the rest of the world (mainly China). Per capita criteria is the way to destroy wealth and with it, jobs, standard of living, and individual freedoms. Wait until the PC crowd are out in the streets begging and crying that they didn’t mean it to end like this and why can’t they buy any candles to see at night.

    71

  • #
    OriginalSteve

    Oh look.. a new brand of wild-eyed kool-aid hugging environmentalism…..

    http://www.abc.net.au/news/2016-09-05/climate-change-authority-splits/7813422

    “Last week, the Climate Change Authority published a report calling for the Government to introduce an emissions trading scheme.

    But two of the authority’s board members, climate scientist David Karoly and economist Clive Hamilton, have since issued a dissenting minority report calling for stronger measures to reduce emissions.”

    Er…change your diet perhaps?

    he he

    00

  • #
    Analitik

    Weekend Unthreaded has been “disappeared”!

    00

  • #