Obama trying to circumvent the law again

[Abdullah the Butcher]

http://mobile.nytimes.com/2014/08/27/us/politics/obama-pursuing-climate-accord-in-lieu-of-treaty.html?_r=0&referrer=

 

Lawmakers in both parties on Capitol Hill say there is no chance that the currently gridlocked Senate will ratify a climate change treaty in the near future, especially in a political environment where many Republican lawmakers remain skeptical of the established science of human-caused global warming.

 

Theres a strong understanding of the difficulties of the U.S. situation, and a willingness to work with the U.S. to get out of this impasse, said Laurence Tubiana, the French ambassador for climate change to the United Nations. There is an implicit understanding that this not require ratification by the Senate.

 

American negotiators are instead homing in on a hybrid agreement a proposal to blend legally binding conditions from an existing 1992 treaty with new voluntary pledges. The mix would create a deal that would update the treaty, and thus, negotiators say, not require a new vote of ratification.

[Landlord]

and in other news republicans continue to be absolute idiots

[Abdullah the Butcher]

and in other news republicans continue to be absolute idiots

 

Thanks Obama.

[Sargon]

What else is new?

[VectorVictor]

http://mobile.nytimes.com/2014/08/27/us/politics/obama-pursuing-climate-accord-in-lieu-of-treaty.html?_r=0&referrer=

 

Lawmakers in both parties on Capitol Hill say there is no chance that the currently gridlocked Senate will ratify a climate change treaty in the near future, especially in a political environment where many Republican lawmakers remain skeptical of the established science of human-caused global warming.

 

Theres a strong understanding of the difficulties of the U.S. situation, and a willingness to work with the U.S. to get out of this impasse, said Laurence Tubiana, the French ambassador for climate change to the United Nations. There is an implicit understanding that this not require ratification by the Senate.

 

American negotiators are instead homing in on a hybrid agreement a proposal to blend legally binding conditions from an existing 1992 treaty with new voluntary pledges. The mix would create a deal that would update the treaty, and thus, negotiators say, not require a new vote of ratification.

 

 

How again is Obama "circumventing" the law when all they're doing is using conditions from a 1992 treaty that was already approved with voluntary pledges?

 

Looks as though the bagger's grasp on English has been rather tenuous as late. Funny, considering their calls for everyone in 'Merica to speak it.

[Abdullah the Butcher]

 

http://mobile.nytimes.com/2014/08/27/us/politics/obama-pursuing-climate-accord-in-lieu-of-treaty.html?_r=0&referrer=

 

 

Lawmakers in both parties on Capitol Hill say there is no chance that the currently gridlocked Senate will ratify a climate change treaty in the near future, especially in a political environment where many Republican lawmakers remain skeptical of the established science of human-caused global warming.

Theres a strong understanding of the difficulties of the U.S. situation, and a willingness to work with the U.S. to get out of this impasse, said Laurence Tubiana, the French ambassador for climate change to the United Nations. There is an implicit understanding that this not require ratification by the Senate.

American negotiators are instead homing in on a hybrid agreement a proposal to blend legally binding conditions from an existing 1992 treaty with new voluntary pledges. The mix would create a deal that would update the treaty, and thus, negotiators say, not require a new vote of ratification.

 

How again is Obama "circumventing" the law when all they're doing is using conditions from a 1992 treaty that was already approved with voluntary pledges?

 

Looks as though the bagger's grasp on English has been rather tenuous as late. Funny, considering their calls for everyone in 'Merica to speak it.

 

The new plan for the accord is to "blend legally binding conditions from an existing 1992 treaty with new voluntary pledges," according to The Times. The end result would be updating the existing treaty — not establishing a new treaty — which negotiators argue would not require a new ratification vote.

 

Under the budding agreement, countries would voluntarily set certain levels of emissions cuts — but they would be legally required to enforce certain climate-change policies.

http://www.businessinsider.com/obama-un-climate-accord-agreement-congress-2014-8

[Abdullah the Butcher]

If you like spending a bunch more on your utility bills then by all means ignore it.

[Junior]

If you like spending a bunch more on your utility bills then by all means ignore it.

 

If you don't like having drinking water and food to eat, by all means ignore climate change.

[zoogs]

What the executive branch should be able to do vs legislative is probably a lengthy and nuanced issue. I'd just say that at present, if these legal options are available to the executive branch as a given, it's a good thing the administration is the one that's sensible and the legislative that's so pigheaded it's resulted in an internationally sympathized "situation", and not the other way around.

[carlfense]

 

The new plan for the accord is to "blend legally binding conditions from an existing 1992 treaty with new voluntary pledges," according to The Times. The end result would be updating the existing treaty — not establishing a new treaty — which negotiators argue would not require a new ratification vote.

 

Under the budding agreement, countries would voluntarily set certain levels of emissions cuts — but they would be legally required to enforce certain climate-change policies.

http://www.businessinsider.com/obama-un-climate-accord-agreement-congress-2014-8

 

^^^

[VectorVictor]

 

 

http://mobile.nytimes.com/2014/08/27/us/politics/obama-pursuing-climate-accord-in-lieu-of-treaty.html?_r=0&referrer=

 

Lawmakers in both parties on Capitol Hill say there is no chance that the currently gridlocked Senate will ratify a climate change treaty in the near future, especially in a political environment where many Republican lawmakers remain skeptical of the established science of human-caused global warming.

Theres a strong understanding of the difficulties of the U.S. situation, and a willingness to work with the U.S. to get out of this impasse, said Laurence Tubiana, the French ambassador for climate change to the United Nations. There is an implicit understanding that this not require ratification by the Senate.

American negotiators are instead homing in on a hybrid agreement a proposal to blend legally binding conditions from an existing 1992 treaty with new voluntary pledges. The mix would create a deal that would update the treaty, and thus, negotiators say, not require a new vote of ratification.

How again is Obama "circumventing" the law when all they're doing is using conditions from a 1992 treaty that was already approved with voluntary pledges?

 

Looks as though the bagger's grasp on English has been rather tenuous as late. Funny, considering their calls for everyone in 'Merica to speak it.

 

The new plan for the accord is to "blend legally binding conditions from an existing 1992 treaty with new voluntary pledges," according to The Times. The end result would be updating the existing treaty — not establishing a new treaty — which negotiators argue would not require a new ratification vote.

 

Under the budding agreement, countries would voluntarily set certain levels of emissions cuts — but they would be legally required to enforce certain climate-change policies.

http://www.businessinsider.com/obama-un-climate-accord-agreement-congress-2014-8

 

 

Of course they would--the parts that correspond to the 1992 treaty that Congress approved would be legally binding. They're *already* legally binding--that isn't anything new.

 

And voluntary pledges are nothing new--that's part of the whole process in creating treaties and agreements between governments. Any treaty, signed or otherwise, that the United States enters into is merely a voluntary pledge until Congress approves it.

[Abdullah the Butcher]

I'm sure Monsanto has already patented mutant seeds that grow in any condition.

[tschu]

I enjoy watching Bray throw spaghetti at the wall

[Junior]

I'll just leave this here....

 

http://mashable.com/2014/08/27/in-pictures-the-west-has-lost-63-trillion-gallons-of-water-during-drought/

[NUance]

A big part of the problem is that cities like LA and San Diego sit in what would be desert, if not for water siphoned off from other sources. As long as we have 30 million people living in the greater Los Angeles/San Diego metropolitan desert, we'll be forced to steal surface water from other areas. I'm not sure what the solution is.