Posts Tagged ‘kyoto II’

Christopher C. Horner

Copenhagen Shock: Greens Given US Government Badges to Gain Access

by Christopher C. Horner

P.J. O’Rourke attended the World Environment Summit in Rio de Janiero in 1992, the confab that gave us the first “global warming” treaty, a document which Kyoto amended and the ongoing Copenhagen meeting is also to amend to get Kyoto II. There, he wrote, in the scrum caused by typical UN ineptitude an earnest lass cried out something along the lines of “this is what life would be like in an overpopulated world!” To which O’Rourke replied, no, dear, this is what life would be like in a world run by the United Nations.

copenhagen-conference-475x316

Well, similarly, you may by now have heard that Copenhagen is proceeding in even worse than normal fashion, thanks to 45,00 attendees — either Party, Observer or Media — having been accredited. The hall being used holds 15,000. The spillover is not so much from the welfare-seeking countries and their delegates but delegates from non-governmental organizations (NGOs). These include mostly green pressure groups but also groups like the Competitive Enterprise Institute and the Chamber of Commerce.

(more…)

Christopher C. Horner

Cap-n-Trade: Now 10% Fraud-Free!

by Christopher C. Horner

Here’s something to consider for those who wondered why the usual suspects flew up in arms earlier this week over reports that ‘Circle of Commitment’, countries including the U.S., were seeking to wrest control of the Kyoto revenue mechanism to the World Bank (there’s no such move afoot, incidentally; that was merely an overwrought reaction to said suspects finding something that they hadn’t been allowed to write).

ken_lay

That of course would have implications for the “global carbon offset market” if Kyoto II ropes us in and finally begins chugging down the tracks, next stop “Oil for Food on Steroids”.

Today’s Open Europe press briefing includes the following item (in bold in original):

(more…)

Christopher C. Horner

2010: The Kyoto Election

by Christopher C. Horner

Mexico Al Gore

The New York Times reports this weekend that:

“SINGAPORE — President Obama and other world leaders have decided to put off the difficult task of reaching a climate change agreement at a global climate conference scheduled for next month, agreeing instead to make it the mission of the Copenhagen conference to reach a less specific “politically binding” agreement that would punt the most difficult issues into the future.”

Read down the article and note the several claims by participants offering the greatest exhibits imaginable at the running absurdity — now in its 18th year! — that is this movable feast of conferences in Rio, Barcelona, Bangkok, Bali, Buenos Aires, Bonn, and next month Copenhagen: We had to declare it a failure in advance in order to ensure its success. Mmm. Yes.

But here’s the far larger point, and Team Tea Party and simpatico coalescences should take note and begin organizing accordingly:

This also makes the Kyoto II, the proposed twenty five-year extension of a five-year plan that was the Kyoto treaty, an inescapable issue for the 2010 U.S. mid-term elections.

(more…)

Christopher C. Horner

Kyoto II: Whose “power to tax”?

by Christopher C. Horner

the-goracle

James Sensnbrenner (R-WI), Ranking Republican on the House’s Select Committee on Energy Independence and Global Warming (really), issued a warning last week about Kyoto II. The proposal is being tugged by that vast majority of the world, rejecting its constraints, but demanding, at present count, $140 billion per year from U.S. taxpayers in atonement for past, present and future damage from weather which our government now says is our fault.  It includes this gem from leading Kyoto free-rider (in perpetuity), major greenhouse gas emitter India:

India’s government says that the West owes billions of dollars to developing nations to compensate for climate change. In its submission to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change, the Indian government argued that this funding should be a legal obligation that ‘cannot be subject to decisions of developed country governments or legislatures.

Oh, dear. Re-read that demand. Such an entanglement would, of course, be problematic. Barring further surprises from the current Supreme Court, we have to assume it surely would be found unconstitutional. For example, from Jeremy Rabkin’s recent talk to Hillsdale College reprinted in the July/August Imprimis:

(more…)