Copenhagen Accord on Climate Change Collapsing?

|

Copenhagen Accord image

The nonbinding Copenhagen Accord was hastily cobbled together at President Barack Obama's insistence as the United Nations' Copenhagen climate change conference whimpered to its end in December. Under the Accord, countries are supposed to make their commitments to cut greenhouse gases official by January 31. It now appears that most countries will miss that deadline. As the New York Times reports:

Facing a Jan. 31 deadline, major countries have yet to submit their plans for reducing emissions of climate-altering gases, one of the major provisions of the agreement, according to Yvo de Boer, the Dutch official who is executive secretary of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change, which organized the climate meeting.

Fewer than two dozen countries have even submitted letters saying they agree to the terms of the three-page accord. And there has been virtually no progress on spelling out the terms of nearly $30 billion in short-term financial assistance promised to those countries expected to be hardest hit by climate change. Still unresolved are such basic questions as who will donate how much, where the money will go and who will oversee the spending.

De Boer also declared that the United Nations would hold the U.S. to Obama's pledge to reduce the country's greenhouse gas emissions by 17 percent below its 2005 level. Another New York Times story reports:

The United Nations will hold President Obama to his promise that the United States will reduce carbon emissions even if the Senate cannot pass climate legislation, U.N. climate chief Yvo de Boer said this morning.

In his first public comments since the Copenhagen climate summit last month that produced a nonbinding promise from major-emitting countries to cut greenhouse gases, de Boer noted that Obama vowed the United States will slash carbon about 17 percent below 2005 levels in the coming decade.

Yesterday's special election in Massachusetts, in which a Republican won the Senate seat formerly held by the late Democratic Sen. Ted Kennedy since 1962, calls into question Congress' ability to pass a cap-and-trade bill, but it does not alter the U.S. commitment, de Boer said. He also noted that the administration has options other than legislation, like taking regulatory action through U.S. EPA.

"Whatever route is taken, the president of the United States committed to a 17 percent emissions reduction in Copenhagen," de Boer said. "The president of the United States committed to more ambitious emissions reductions for 2030 and 2050. And it is those statements to which the international community will hold the government of the United States accountable." …

"I don't think that any political development in the United States means turning back nine years of political development on the climate change agenda," de Boer said. "The change of one state from one party to another is not going to cause a landslide in the politics of the United States on the question of climate change."

According to the Times, the U.S. chief climate negotiator Todd Stern asserts that the Obama administration "fully intend[s] to enshrine in the accord" its pledge to cut U.S. greenhouse gas emissions by 17 percent. Enshrine away! Back in 1998, the Clinton administration signed the Kyoto Protocol under which the U.S. would have been obligated to cut its greenhouse gas emissions by 2012 to 7 percent below its 1990 level. But even as the U.S. signed the Kyoto Protocol, then-Vice-President Al Gore noted:

Signing the Protocol, while an important step forward, imposes no obligations on the United States.

Although the Obama administration may wish it otherwise, the same thing essentially holds true for any pledges it makes under the Copenhagen Accord.

NEXT: Citizens United Reaction: Amend that First Amendment!

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. “The United Nations will hold President Obama to his promise that the United States will reduce carbon emissions even if the Senate cannot pass climate legislation, U.N. climate chief Yvo de Boer said this morning.”

    Good luck with that cowboy. Here’s a consanant for your touble.
    [I]

    1. [vowel]
      –fuck me

      1. Did you mean: consonant?

        1. Cosmonaut?

            1. Copy machine?

              1. Copy machine? wo
                The United Nations will hold President Obama to his promise…
                Good luck with that. We that live here and whom he works for can’t get him to keep any of the promises he made.
                He promised alotta things. The only thing he said he’d do and did was “date night” for the wife. How much did that cost the taxpayers? How much did it cost to have all those cops on hand? The Secret Service had to do serious recon beforehand. The arrogance.
                Said he’d rescue a mutt, “like me”. Instead a purebred from a Kennedy. Not even the smallest of promises are kept.

  2. The United Nations will hold President Obama to his promise that the United States will reduce carbon emissions even if the Senate cannot pass climate legislation, U.N. climate chief Yvo de Boer said this morning.

    This Bozo is making George Bush look like Thomas Jefferson.

    1. Thomas Jefferson with superpowers.

      1. Thanks, i just snorted coffee all over my shirt! 🙂

    2. George Bush makes Obama look like George Jefferson.

      1. another coffee snort!

  3. The United Nations will hold President Obama to his promise that the United

    States will reduce carbon emissions even if the Senate cannot pass climate legislation, U.N. climate chief Yvo de Boer said this morning.

    When the Senate doesn’t and Obama’s foolhardy commitment* is not reached, what the fuck is the UN gonna do?

    Kick us out? Nope, too much money involved.

    Invade? I don’t think the UN could successfully take on the Mississippi National Guard.

    Whine about it? Good answer, good answer!

    * Presidents do not have the authority to approve treaties. Constitutional scholar my ass!

    1. Yeah I screwed up the blockquote. Ya wanna make somethin’ of it?

      1. What’s wrong with the Mississippi National Guard? Words hurt J sub D.

        1. I’ll bet the Mississippi National Guard could the take the National Guards of any two New England states.

          1. I agree, I served with the Mississippi Rifles in Iraq!

    2. “When the Senate doesn’t and Obama’s foolhardy commitment* is not reached, what the fuck is the UN gonna do?”
      Watch out! Strongly worded letters will follow!
      (and I have no idea what a block quote is)

    3. Jesus, he doesn’t even understand stuff he’s supposed to have understood in his previous profession! Seriously, he’s making Bush look educated.

      1. “Seriously, he’s making Bush look educated.”

        http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c4aQCiRjvZY

        3:30

        1. Bush was educated. Higher GPA than Gore which may not be saying much. I also wonder why Obama has never released his school transcripts. Perhaps not to stellar? The media was relentless in their attacks on Bush. Good thing he never said there were 57 states.

    4. He must not know about our super earthquake weapon

    5. He’ll give it to the Central Scrutinizer, whose job is to enforce all the laws that haven’t been passed yet.

    6. No, but the EPA has the authority to impose regulations that will just happen to meet those goals. And those regulations will have to treat every human being in the country as a polluter, since the regs have to apply to all sources emitting over 250 tons of CO2 per year — humans emit 800 on the average.

      1. Individual humans put out less than a ton of metabolic CO2 per year- from life support numbers for space habitats, I recall that a human needs about 1 kg of oxygen per day, and so puts out around 1.5 kg/day of CO2, less than 500 kg/year… far less than the EPA threshold.

        Of course, the EPA as an organization would have to be viewed as a gross polluter, and therefore baned.

        1. Banned, even, although the EPA is also the bane of our existence.

      2. Senator Murkowski from Alaska is fighting this crap as we speak, and Boxer is defending it..”for the children”. Bitch…

    7. The UN couldn’t successfully take on my grandson’s Cub Scout Troop.

  4. “Whatever route is taken, the president of the United States committed to a 17 percent emissions reduction in Copenhagen,” de Boer said. “The president of the United States committed to more ambitious emissions reductions for 2030 and 2050. And it is those statements to which the international community will hold the government of the United States accountable.” …

    Oh silly beauracrats. What are you gonna do? Sanction us? Invade us? Ha!

    1. Tough titties, the Senate says no.

    2. You know what? I hope the UN does impose sanctions on the US. The liberals wouldn’t know how to react and it would be hilarious to see them trying to figure out whether or not they should support the sanctions.

      1. Ohhhhh . . . I like, I like!

      2. I hope they impose sanctions as well, because it would mean the end of the UN. The outcry from the American public would be so overwhelming, I can’t imagine we would keep funding them, and without our money and our military, their “peacekeeping” missions would be complete failures. So now I am crossing my fingers hoping they will impose sanctions, although, given the fact we have a veto as permanent members of the Security Council, I don’t see how that happens.

        1. I wouldn’t be surprised if an Obama appointee as ambassador to the UN would vote to sanction the US.

    3. “Whatever route is taken, the president of the United States committed to a 17 percent emissions reduction in Copenhagen,” de Boer said. “The president of the United States committed to more ambitious emissions reductions for 2030 and 2050. And it is those statements to which the international community will hold the government of the United States accountable.” …

      Did anyone notice the postscript de Boer added to this announcement? It says:

      “P.S. “I am not a crank”.

  5. Under the Accord, countries are supposed to make their commitments to cut greenhouse gases official by January 31. It now appears that most countries will miss that deadline.

    That’s because it looks more and more obvious that criminally hobbling your economy is not really that good of an idea.

  6. “I don’t think that any political development in the United States means turning back nine years of political development on the climate change agenda,” de Boer said. “The change of one state from one party to another is not going to cause a landslide in the politics of the United States on the question of climate change.”

    Wanna bet, asshole?

    1. Actually, he’s right, but not the way he thinks.

      The US has never been in favor of drastic social engineering to fend of global warming. For nearly a year, a minority that thought this was a fine idea held power, but that minority’s power has now been curbed. An anomaly has corrected, and the underlying political orientation of the country hasn’t changed one bit.

  7. The United Nations will hold President Obama to his promise that the United States will reduce carbon emissions even if the Senate cannot pass climate legislation, U.N. climate chief Yvo de Boer said this morning.

    “Yes, because if they do not hold their end of the bargain, we will stomp our feet on the ground and hold our breath until our faces turn blue!”

    1. Or they will convene the Human Rights COuncil and start blaming the Jews.

  8. The problem is that people outside this country (and a depressing number of citizens IN this country) do not understand that neither is the US President is not a king nor are the people “owned” by the government — under the constitution, at least. Because these mistaken beliefs are so widespread, calls arise daily for the US to “do something,” under authority it doesn’t have, using resources it doesn’t legally command. And the few people who are rude enough to point out the problem are routinely shouted down by those who benefit from the accumulation of power and resources that the Constitution was specifically designed to prevent.

    We are not the subjects of a King. We citizens are the source of political authority, but as long as we agree to be governed by the Constitution, even our own power to intervene with each other is (self-)limited (again, in theory — this principle seems more honored in its breach, these days).

    I get so tired of seeing that other countries expect us to be like them, or worse, that some of our own people demand that we be like other countries, which were founded on the basis that the government is its own creature, superior to the citizenry. Why do people think that being like those other countries is a good idea? And why, if they like those other countries so much, do they not simply go live there? We allegedly established a different system here in America, and kicked out Royals in order to do so. That system has served us pretty well over the centuries. Agitators to change the status quo to something more foreign would toss away much of what made us great, perhaps the most important part. What sense does that make and why should we listen to anyone who champions such ideas?

    1. I had the same exact reaction. You can tell how deeply ingrained that mindset is in most of the world. DeBoer completely lacks a mental paradigm where governmental power isn’t absolute.

    2. “…that some of our own people demand that we be like other countries, which were founded on the basis that the government is its own creature, superior to the citizenry.”

      Strangely enough, that attitude seems to be prevalent primarily in European countries.

      In other news:
      Most European countries were monarchies up until relatively recently and some still, ridiculously, maintain a monarchy.

  9. “Whatever route is taken, the president of the United States committed to a 17 percent emissions reduction in Copenhagen,” de Boer said. “The president of the United States committed to more ambitious emissions reductions for 2030 and 2050. And it is those statements to which the international community will hold the government of the United States accountable.” …

    You’re funny little man.

    And yeah, I know everyone else is quoting this part but hey, it’s fucking absurd.

    1. Hey, The President of the United States commited to a 17 precent emissions reduction. So, figure how how much he emits, and get him to lower his carbon footprint by 17 percent.

      I’m all for having our government holding him accountable for cutting his emissions. Just think, 17% less long-winded speeches this year!

      1. Actually once his term is over and he stops flying the CO2 monster Air Force 1, it’s pretty much a given that his emissions will drop significantly.

  10. oops. “… that neither is the US President a King…” is of course what I meant to say. I’m on a laptop with a touchy touchpad, where cutting and pasting is always an adventure… 🙂

  11. I’m all for holding Obama to his commitments. When those commitments don’t come to pass, we can hand ex-President (he will leave office at some point before 2030) to the UN for proper punishment.

    1. How’s he doing on his other commitments (transparent government, lobbyists, earmarks, closing Gitmo, demobilizing from Asian wars, keeping unemployment under 8 percent, enacting a “net spending cut”, postpartisanship, health care reform, ending “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell”, et al)?

      To quote Bender Rodriguez: I can promise you anything you want.

    2. Actually, I would prefer not to press him too much on his commitments, because then he might actually start trying to keep his promises on stuff like health care, tax increases, entitlement expansion, etc. to the great detriment of this country.

      We should wait until, oh, the beginning of 2012 or so to point out he hasn’t kept any of them.

  12. This Bozo is making George Bush look like Thomas Jefferson.

    Bush pinched a massive loaf of environmentally justified tax and regulatory shit on us, too, but it was never news. The “Bush regime’s abysmal environmental record” / “Republican war on science” meta-story was inviolate Word to journalists.

    There are no significant policy differences between Bush and Obama?on anything. They just have different fans.

    1. That’s mostly right. Bush was a regulatory statist, too.

    2. The Bush administration signed on to all these bullshit regulations on lightbulbs, toilets, etc., though they didn’t believe a word of it; they were just trying to be nice guys and appease the nutroots, who would never be appeased unless and until Bush and Cheney committed suicide. If then.

      The “environment” has replaced God, motherhood, and apple pie as sacred values, never to be questioned. Bush and company were just paying obeisance to all this environmental nonsense. They knew better.

      1. The left and the right are equally guilty of promoting things they are seen as weak on. Thus you see the Clinton administration being all pro-law enforcement and drug war, the Bush administration pushing welfare and education spending, etc.

      2. One of Bush’s worst faults was his failure to realize that the Left would hate him no matter what. It’s the Animal House Rule: “I’ve got news for you, pal. They’re going to nail us no matter what we do- so we might as well have a good time.”

    3. Yeah, well at least he passed tax cuts and didn’t try to takeover the health care system. That is something.

  13. Whatever route is taken, the president of the United States committed to a 17 percent emissions reduction in Copenhagen,” de Boer said. “The president of the United States committed to more ambitious emissions reductions for 2030 and 2050. And it is those statements to which the international community will hold the government of the United States accountable.” …

    Yeah, well this kind of statement explains why you are dumb enough to believe in AGW too.

    This guy has no idea how stupid this makes him look.

  14. The people that go to these conferences must understand that they are all just for show right?

    1. I do. ;-0

      1. You just went for the free hookers.

  15. Climate Huckster: “The United Nations will hold President Obama to his promise that the United States will reduce carbon emissions even if the Senate cannot pass climate legislation”

    Obama has as much authority to make that promise as I do.

  16. “The United Nations will hold President Obama to his promise …”

    Welcome to the broken Promise Land. Take your number and wait for your turn please.

  17. The UN Idiot knows about the CRU fraud right? He’s just pretending nothing’s changed.

    1. That’s so funny.I was thinking the same thing.

  18. “Hail, Hail, Freedonia.”

    Who does Obama think he is, Rufus T. Firefly?

    The past twelve months have been like a continuous loop of “Duck Soup” with Groucho making speeches and Harpo “guarding” the Treasury.

  19. Time to dump the U.N.

  20. Looks like the UN’s Yvo de Boer needs a steamin’ hot cup of ‘Kiss My Ass’ this morning.

    Will that be one lump or two, Yvo?

  21. “I shall taunt you a second time!”

  22. The UN will probably give us the old Hans Blix treatment.
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b49Iwfp8U-U

    1. Fetch…… the stuffed cushion!!!!

  23. Haven’t you guys heard the news? The EPA has declared carbon dioxide a pollutant. The president doesn’t need Congress to do anything. He can just have the EPA regulate it. Problem solved. UN happy. Coal regulated out of the economy. Everybody happy.

    1. Yeah, the states and people in the million jobs lost in the coal and electric power industry won’t push back at all.

      Nah….

  24. “The EPA has declared carbon dioxide a pollutant. The president doesn’t need Congress to do anything. He can just have the EPA regulate it. Problem solved. UN happy. Coal regulated out of the economy. Everybody happy.”

    The problem with that Stalinistic trick is that Congress controls the pursestrings. Twill be hard to implement when funding is cut off…

  25. I am pretty happy when I hear statements like this come out of the U.N. It’s just another nail-in-the-coffin for the current climate-change cottage industry’s credibility.

    Count up the hits on the Warmers politically and scientifically this past year: Contention over whether we’ve warmed at all over the past decade, the East Anglia disaster, the Himalayan glacier antics, Obama’s (second) humiliation in Copenhagen and now a (mid-level) U.N. bureaucrat dictating accountability to a U.S. President over ever-sketchier climate pseudoscience…

    Wow! The wheels really came off the Warmer’s bus in the past year like no one (least of all their models) could have predicted.

    I have no complaints.

  26. I’m just an unimportant Canuck who who was very dismayed to see Great Green Hope (and mighty stopper of climate change) jump from the Church of Jeremiah Wright into the arms of the Church of Settled Science.

    I’d love to see my neighbours to the South remind their Great Leader of his Presidential Ascendant Promise:

    “Promoting science isn’t just about providing resources but protecting free and open enquiry, [ensuring] facts are never overturned by politics and ideology, and listening to what our scientists have to say especially when it’s inconvenient.”

    http://hro001.wordpress.com/20…..coldspell/

    1. Great Post.Thank you.

      1. My pleasure, and you’re most welcome 🙂

  27. What does international law say about agreements, contracts and treaties entered into during perpetration of a fraud?
    By the time they take us to court in the Hague, the whole thing will have been proven a willful hoax to extort money for both the science and world development sectors.
    The UN ought to be kissing our feet for not demanding our money back from the Oil for Food scandal.

  28. Soooo, the UN Climate control guy is trying to control US policy?
    1) What if Obama has no idea what he’s talking about and further, 2) has no more than an amateurish understanding of “Climate Change”.
    Further, wouldn’t this all be moot if climate change was a myth?
    My kneejerk reaction is to tell that righteous UN Climate Control guy to go stuff himself, thank you…

  29. Perhaps the UN will charge Obama with a crime and sentence him to death. Provided it was done all-legal, I’m okay with it.

  30. Oh mighty UN bureaucrat, please don’t sanction us for the sin of globalclimatechangeyco2spewing & wanton polar bear murder…

    Forgive us evil capitalistic Amerikkan trespassers against Gaia; before you force us to cut all UN funding, and turn your building into a highly profitable parking lot….

  31. William Walsh, that was unnecessary and sounded much like the wackos who wanted Bush dead and charged with crimes against humanity, but not necessarily in that order.

    1. I think it was probably meant ironically (making the point that the UN is all about “process” and nothing at all about results), but I agree, we should avoid this kind of rhetoric lest we be lumped with the children who couldn’t get enough of declaring Pres. Bush the “World’s Greatest Terrorist.” (I always wondered if they made him a coffee cup thusly emblazoned and sent it to the White House. At least if they’d done so, it would’ve indicated a sense of humor.)

  32. Whatever route is taken, the president of the United States committed to a 17 percent emissions reduction in Copenhagen,” de Boer said. “The president of the United States committed to more ambitious emissions reductions for 2030 and 2050. And it is those statements to which the international community will hold the government of the United States accountable”

    Get in line. Obama promised that you would love us for electing him. Well, we’re married to Obama; you’re just the ‘other woman’. You’ll have to find yourself another sugar daddy; this one has already spent all the dough.

  33. “Unless the United States begins to immediately comply with the U.N. climate myth policies, it shall be barred from any further participation in U.N. humanitarian efforts.”

    That works for me.

    1. Me, too. Blue UN hard hats are getting expensive.

    2. Amen.

  34. I’ve got news for DeBoer, he better read the US Constitution. Obama can say any damned thing he likes. It’s the US Senate that approves binding treaties with other nations. As for Obama’s “promises”, get in line with all the other disappointed people deBoer. That way you won’t be so lonely.

  35. I can think of no greater farce than this so-called climate accord. Let’s all pretend we did everything we could, watch it collapse under its own weight, do some finger pointing, and move on to something real.

  36. Dear Mr. de Boer,
    It probably has not occured to you, but the US is NOT Europe, President Hopeychangy notwithstanding.

    In 2017, the US will still BE the US, but I very much doubt that Europe will be Europe.

  37. Well, it’s not like it was expensive or anything… nor did it leave a phenomenal carbon footprint. That would have been reeeeeally stupid.

  38. “When the Senate doesn’t and Obama’s foolhardy commitment* is not reached, what the fuck is the UN gonna do?”

    Not invite us to their cocktail parties, obviously.

  39. The question is…did he pinky swear?

  40. If Obama just stops talking about health care it’ll be good for the first 5% at least

  41. It’s the Protocols of the Elders of Scion….follow the link.

  42. There was far more legitimacy and moral capital when the transfer of moneys from those that have, to those that don’t, was based upon need and charity. This Marxist substitute, birthed in the widest deceit ever, should go down the toilet fast, that mankind can return to dignity.

  43. Sorry Pal…the dollars our bozo commited to the climate change scam are going to Haiti right now.

  44. We can reduce it the so called carbon footprint by kicking the parasitic UN out of the USA.

  45. Dear UN. You have no power over us. Take a hike.

  46. Haha! This guy trusted an Obama promise? Where’s he been the past couple of years?

    As for our obligations, he might want to check our Constitution, which gives treaty power only to the Congress. The same Congress, BTW, which now is moving to strip the EPA of its carbon bullying intentions.

    Seems like the Left is in mega-overreach mode lately. Not shortage of fatal-level hubris among the tolerant set. Free tip: do a Bible search on pride and see what you get.

  47. Please let the UN try to enforce this lunacy. Maybe then we can get enough support to send the UN packing.

  48. Wow, I wonder how long it will take until DeBoer realizes that he’s been lied to! I think “Hope and Change” has a remedial program that can help him with that trauma.

  49. ***
    Comrade Obama (PBUH) only uses the now discredited GLOBULL WARMING as a “wedge issue” to take over more of our economy. How are these “green jobs” working out for our 10 to 17 percent unemployed now?
    ***
    Rocketman
    ***

  50. In fact, the US only pledged a 3% reduction by 2020, far less than what the Kyoto Protocol demanded (http://wp.me/pv9fo-9h)

  51. if the Senate cannot pass climate legislation, U.N. climate chief Yvo de Boer said this morning.

  52. How to Choose the Best Used Copy Machines?

    When trying to find any pieces of office equipment there are many things to consider and finding the best used copy machines can be a challenge. Although you will find it is cheaper to buy used equipment you will need to be careful. best used copy machines

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.