The Great US - China Climate Deal

[Ben]

So someone please reassure me that I'm not crazy or that I haven't been transported to Bizzaro World.

The entire MSM is abuzz with talk about what a great coup this climate deal Obama & Kerry made with China is. If it goes into effect, we have to cut emissions by over 25% in the next 11 years, a much greater rate than we currently have to do, and China's part of the deal is that they will continue to INCREASE their emissions through 2030, at which point they'll just stop increasing, no talk of reducing.

So the US has to immediately drastically cut emissions, of course leading to more regulations, more fines, more taxes, greater costs for goods, and likely an increase in EPA power (it looks like Obama will be using the pen and phone). China keeps growing, and when 2030 finally rolls around, will likely just say "get bent" when asked to reduce emissions, and who's going to stop them?

Tell me how this is a great political and economic success? It sounds like we're just gonna be China's CO2 bitch.

[MechAg94]

That pretty much sounds like what I would expect from this administration and its foreign policy. 

If it is not a treaty, is the agreement really worth the paper it is printed on?

[TommyGunn]

That pretty much sounds like what I would expect from this administration and its foreign policy. 

If it is not a treaty, is the agreement really worth the paper it is printed on?

If it IS a treaty is it any better?

[Scout26]

If it is a treaty, then it can be killed in senate.


I hope.

But typical Obama.  Throw America under the bus for any or no reason.

[Ben]

If it is a treaty, then it can be killed in senate.


I hope.

But typical Obama.  Throw America under the bus for any or no reason.

Listening to the business news this morning, the talking heads remarked that nothing on this would have a chance of getting through Congress. They made some valid points on his ability to get some EOs through that would start the US side of the process via the EPA.

[Scout26]

EPA could become a target soon.  The proposed new coal regulations have plenty of PO'd congresscritters on both sides of the aisle.

[MechAg94]

Refresh my memory, doesn't a Treaty require more than a majority in the Senate?

[TechMan]

Refresh my memory, doesn't a Treaty require more than a majority in the Senate?

Correct.... 2/3 of the Senators Present

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treaty_Clause

[Waitone]

We don't do treaties any more.  We do agreements.  Vote moves from super majority to simple majority.

[230RN]

What's it take to invalidate an executive order?

[Regolith]

What's it take to invalidate an executive order?

Either a ruling from the Supreme Court that it's unconstitutional, or a counter-order from the next president.

An act of congress can also override, but I'm pretty sure they'd need a veto-proof majority.

[HankB]

Without enabling legislation, EOs only apply to employees of the Executive Branch.

It gets sticky when he issues an EO that directs employees of some regulatory agency to, well, issue regulations or change enforcement practices. I've seen legal talking heads argue on TV about where the limits are in such a case; it seems to depend a lot on the laws that govern that particular agency's actions . . . laws the language of which is often vague, contradictory, and unclear.

[Tallpine]

Without enabling legislation, EOs only apply to employees of the Executive Branch.

Oh, you mean like US Marshals, FBI, ATF, IRS, DEA, Coast Guard, and the rest of the military 

 

[French G.]

Best bet is that the House gets obstructionist and blocks all funding for the agencies implementing the deal. Oh, wait, they re-picked the spray tan guy to run things and he wants to be all bipartisan or something.