[Sub-Driver]

Another jobs killer.......

[Gabrial]

"Todd Stern, the top U.S. climate negotiator for the Obama administration..."

OK

I've heard of hostage negotiators.

I've heard of contract neogtiators.

I've heard of peace negotiators.

But my tax dollars are going to line the pockets of frick'n CLIMATE NEGOTIATORS?????

[Steamburg]

After SOTU, just because TOTUS goes that direction doesn’t necessarily mean that the sheep will follow. We have yet to see what his flailing will really mean.

[kaehurowing]

Americans screwed over by their own government, again.

[GraceG]

Beck was right, their foot is going to hit the pedal and mash the thing into the dirt.

[henkster]

Ummm.....when did the Senate ratify this treaty? I missed it.

[AuH2ORepublican]

The Obama Administration must be acting pursuant to the Embrace Clause of Article II.

[Carry_Okie]

The United States on Thursday formally notified the United Nations that it has embraced the Copenhagen Accord setting nonbinding goals for reducing greenhouse gas emissions that was negotiated last month.

"Nonbinding" my a$$. Federal agencies will enforce commitments measures against American citizens; so how is that different from "binding," seeing as virtually every nation committed to Kyoto has failed to meet its commitment?

[Chattering Class of 58]

China To Spend Over $1 Trillion On New Power Generation In This Decade

China will be the world leader in power plant purchases during the 2010-20 period.It will spend more than $1 trillion to expand its generating capacity.This is the latest McIlvaine forecast based on data appearing in four McIlvaine online reports.The largest expenditure will be for new coal-fired power plants.

Over 300 coal projects are in the planning stage.It is estimated that 75 percent of them will be constructed prior to 2020.This results in 300,000 MW of new capacity.A large number of nuclear plants are in the planning stages but only 43 percent are likely to be operating by 2020. This will create an additional 60,000 MW of base load capacity.

Any nuclear project not already in the planning stage will not be operating in 2020.However, there will be a number of new coal plants which are not yet planned but can be built prior to 2020.There will be many wind and solar projects which are not yet planned which will be operating before the end of the decade.

Oil and gas will represent a small portion of new generating capacity.There is a very ambitious wind program with estimates of new capacity as high as 190,000 MW.If 53 percent of this ambitious goal is reached by 2020, it will add 100,000 MW.However, the utilization rate is less than half that of a coal plant.So the contribution to total electricity generation in kWh is going to be only one-sixth of that supplied by the new coal plants.

There are some very large solar projects in the planning stage.However, the total amount of projected new capacity is small compared to the total new demand.

China’s ability to manufacture power plant equipment has expanded significantly.China is becoming a technical leader in wind power.It is building ultra-super critical coal-fired boilers with mostly Chinese built components.Many Chinese component suppliers are now meeting the requirements of the nuclear industry.Much of the cost of new capacity is the construction which is all local.The end result is that revenues for offshore suppliers will be about 15 percent of the total expenditures.

This forecast is based on the following McIlvaine reports:

Chinese Utility Plans,

http://www.mcilvainecompany.com/brochures/energy.html

Fossil and Nuclear World Markets, (Formerly:World Coal-Fired),http://www.mcilvainecompany.com/brochures/energy.html#n043

World Power Generation Projects,http://www.mcilvainecompany.com/brochures/energy.html#40a

Renewable Energy Updates and Projects,

http://www.mcilvainecompany.com/brochures/energy.html#31i

[ScottinVA]

Something gives me the idea the 0bamaturd doesn’t even seem interested in running for a second term. He mission... that goal for which he lives, eat, sleeps and breathes, is simply to place the United States onto a course to national suicide. Not a day goes by in which this marxist POS signs a document, makes a commitment, hires a czar or promulgates a presidential decree of which the result will be causing lasting damage to this nation. November 2012 can’t come soon enough. That bastard has go to go. I frankly don’t care how, either.

[St. Louis Conservative]

This is totally meaningless. Unless congress acts to enforce this treaty in some way, Obama has no ability to make these reductions in greenhouse gases. This is just another symbolic gesture to show political elites that he has “done something”.

[Tzimisce]

Of course we do.

There is no evidence for Global Warming - so obviously it’s happening.

There is tons of evidence that “researchers” lied to the public - but that’s not worth investigating.

[Chode]

[combat_boots]

[NormsRevenge]

Uhh, What deal? That was a fiasco in Dopenhagen.

[a fool in paradise]

So when did the legislature vote? Or did the little dicktator decree it?

[bossmechanic]

STUPID B’TARDS!!!
In the face of all logic, lets right into this haunted house. Da— fools don’t even have a flashlite. Not a bright bulb in the bunch.

[fortheDeclaration]

There is nothing to agree to!

[papasmurf]

That’s not saying a thing. Saying something would be saying HOW we are going to do that.

We could cut 10% immediately with a gag order on Democraps from the SCOTUS. Now, THAT would be saying something.

Seriously, though, I’m all for a cleaner Earth, and it’s environ. To that end I offer two thoughts...

1. Natural Gas.
2. Tax incentives and EPA curtailment on manufacturers methods for reduction, especially whereas recycling plants are concerned.

[Tolerance Sucks Rocks]

The 0b0z0 administration continues along its course of damaging the country.

D0000MAGE!

Global Warming PING!

You have been pinged because of your interest in environmentalism, alarmist wackos, mainstream media doomsday hype, and other issues pertaining to global warming.

Freep-mail me to get on or off: Add me / Remove me

Please ping me to all note-worthy threads on global warming.

Latest from CO₂ Science

Global Warming on Free Republic

Latest from Global Warming News Site

Latest from Greenie Watch

Latest from Junk Science

Latest from Terra Daily

[RogerFGay]

Well, here's another example of non-news politically controlled propaganda from the politically controlled media conspiracy. What a spin, even in the face of telling it like it is. This doesn't matter. It doesn't change things. It's a restatement of Obama's thing. He can't do it unless Congress legislates it (and ultimately the Supreme Court approves it). But the article title makes it look like a big move was taken. "U.S. formally embraces" - no it hasn't.

Now, the Supreme Court has a bit of a dicey history regarding Constitutionality and treaties, so this is one to watch if it every gets passed as legislation in the first place. In the past, the Supreme Court has given treaties priority over other aspects of the Constitution. The effect is that agreements with foreign governments can void the Constitution in all other respects. This of course isn't right.

The Constitution does state that "This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land." (Article VI) The president "shall have Power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, to make Treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur," (Article 2, Section 2)

Article 3, Section 2 states that "The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution, the Laws of the United States, and Treaties made, or which shall be made, under their Authority."

Treaties become the law of the land, apparently in equal standing to the Constitution. The Supreme Court seems to have the authority to decide between them. And courts in the past have done so, often to the demise of Constitutional rule. This was the subject of comments by Lord Monckton before the Copenhagen meeting (available on YouTube). He said that if the US agrees to a global warming treaty, our Constitution will become null and void, and there's nothing we can do about it.

But think about it. Is this what the framers of the Constitution meant? Obviously, really and truly obviously NOT, in my view. They designed a system specifically intending to limit the power of government - freedom and individual rights was their primary concern - "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness."

Changing the Constitution is not easy. They intended it to be difficult. Interpreting the Constitution to mean that all the president and the Senate need do is agree to a treaty to render the whole thing null and void, is absolutely ridiculous. Putting treaties in force, particularly one based on fraud, that has the effect of voiding the Constitution is nothing less than treason.

"Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort." (Article 3, Section 3)

War is not limited to direct military strikes. Kennedy recognized it and spoke of it when he was president. It's often carried out by conspiracy and infiltration. The act of turning control of the US over to foreign or international entities while nullifying the Constitution is an act of war, by traitors who have infiltrated the government.

Not satisfied? Well, surely you at least must agree that such acts qualify as "High Crimes" against the US. So, whether or not you agree that the penalty for such acts is death, you at least must agree that that politicians involved qualify for both removal from office and life imprisonment.