Some sound advice for President Trump
A TALE OF TWO TREATIES
“IT WAS THE CLINTON TIMES, IT WAS THE OBAMA TIMES”…KYOTO VS. PARIS
” A treaty by any other name…”
Mr. President, send the Paris “agreement” to the Senate for a ratification vote, as prescribed by the US Constitution for any other treaty.
The so-called “Paris Agreement” is in fact a “treaty” as is any other major international pact between the U.S. and other nations.
To call it “non-binding” and an “agreement” does not change its legal status. The Kyoto Climate Treaty was alternatively called a “Protocol” and “non-binding”. Another president, one W J Clinton participated in Kyoto’s creation. But, that was “back in the day” when presidents (even Clinton) and U S congresses still believed in and abided by the US Constitution. Clinton therefore knew that for the US to be subject to the provisions of Kyoto, the treaty would have to be ratified by the US Senate. When a procedural vote on the pact rejected it unanimously, President Clinton did not even submit it for a ratification vote.
The Kyoto Protocol eventually turned out to be a spectacular failure. Only nations which would have gained from it at the expense of richer nations gave even only a little more than lip service to it.
Thus, that is why the “Paris Agreement” has been “sold” as it has. Essentially it is a power and wealth grab aimed at redistribution of the wealth of the United States primarily and for the enrichment of many large corporations and rich “globalists”.
Aside from those who will exploit it for their gain, the Paris “Accord” is supported by the ill-informed, the naive, and anti-capitalist collectivists and mis-guided ‘do-gooders’.
It is a piece of globalist legislature pleasing to Marxists every where, including, AND NOTABLY, the Vatican!
One need only read critically the comments from the NY Times below to get the appeal of “Paris” to the liberal left.
A full reading of Jack Kemp’s analysis of “Kyoto” will provide all one needs to know about the motivation and consequences of “Paris”. We repeat:
PRESIDENT TRUMP DOES NOT NEED TO “MAKE A DECISION ON WHETHER TO STAY OR FLEE FROM THE PARIS AGREEMENT! HE NEEDS ONLY TO FOLLOW THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE US CONSTITUTION:
SUBMIT THE PARIS AGREEMENT TO CONGRESS FOR A TREATY RATIFICATION VOTE!
(Then we will see where the GOP establishment stands.)
From May 8 NY Times article :
“The accord includes more safety valves than the Kyoto deal, so that countries like China and India, which are trying to balance emissions against economic growth, would not be scared off.”
“Under the Paris deal, every country submitted a voluntary pledge for how it planned to address climate change, with no penalties for failing to meet those goals.” . . .
“During both the Bush and Obama administrations, for instance, the United States pushed for all countries to adhere to a single set of transparency rules for reporting emissions, while China has long argued for a weaker set for developing countries. If the United States were to leave, it would lose its ability to shape these discussions.”
As with all UN and globalist “agreements, failure to read the fine print can have catastrophic consequences for democratic nations:
“We didn’t want a situation where if something came up and a country couldn’t meet its target, they’d have no choice but to leave.”
The Paris deal does still impose a few smaller legal requirements on countries for reporting their progress and submitting fresh plans over time. But, Mr. Stern said, the administration has ample reason to stay in the talks and shape future rules that govern those requirements.
During both the Bush and Obama administrations, for instance, the United States pushed for all countries to adhere to a single set of transparency rules for reporting emissions, while China has long argued for a weaker set for developing countries. If the United States were to leave, it would lose its ability to shape these discussions.
“If you’re interested in pushing China to do more,” Mr. Stern said, “then the best way to do that is to have us at the table.”
———
From a paper by the late Congressman Jack Kemp, appearing in the “Competitive Enterprise Institute, Oct. 13, !999
“Congress, rightly concerned about the preservation of its treaty power, has sought to block such ‘back door’ efforts to impose Kyoto’s mandate on the American public by adopting legislative language proposed by Rep. Joe Knollenberg (R-MI). This language, included in FY 1999 appropriations bills (and FY 2000 appropriations bills, subject to final negotiations over congress_ional efforts to strengthen Rep. Knollenberg’s original wording) bars expenditures that effectively implement or prepare to implement Kyoto .”
“Drawing lines between measures designed to implement Kyoto and those that are justified on the basis of pre-existing programs is an inherently tricky process. For that reason alone, we should be wary of depending too much on technical legal interpretations to advance the will of Congress, safeguard the treaty process, and protect the right of American citizens to shape their economic future. These are very weighty issues, and they warrant heightened public awareness of what is at stake. Those of us who care about these matters need to step up our efforts and initiate a vigorous public debate about back-door implementation of unratified treaties, the proliferation of international bureaucracies, and their gradual assumption of broad, unrestricted power over the economic lives and even the political rights of theAmerican people.”
