Levies, taxes and fines people can handle. Ground wars and drone strikes are annoying but tolerable. But public shaming? That’s something foreign countries will not be able to cope with. Obama and his warming alarmist buddies must be serious this time about getting other countries around the world to adopt global warming initiatives aimed at reducing their respective carbon emissions. The Washington Times reported:
TheObama administrationis looking to reach “a sweeping international climate change agreement” thatwould not be a formal treatythat would require a two-thirdsSenateapproval — which almost certainly would never happen, The New York Times reported.
Diplomats are trying to reach a deal in time for a 2015 meeting in Paris, and U.S. negotiators are pushing for an approach that would commit every signatory nation to certain goals on reducing carbon dioxide emissions and on sending money to poorer countries to help them handle the effects of global warming.
But while the nations would be “obligated” to meet those goals, according to the Times, the only legally-binding consequence of not doing so would be periodic progress reports and politically embarrassing meetings designed to identify which countries did and did not meet their goals.
“To sidestep that [treaty ratification] requirement, President Obama’s climate negotiators are devising what they call a ‘politically binding’ deal that would ‘name and shame’ countries into cutting their emissions,” the Times explained.
You’d think that if these politicians actually believed what they peddled, that humans are causing the Earth to heat up at an unprecedented rate with all their carbon emissions, such that we’ll all be dead within the century unless something is done about it, that they’d be fighting international wars right now to save mankind from certain catastrophe. But they don’t believe it. It’s not dire. It’s not even real.
Presidents can go to war and bomb a foreign country without the consent of the American people, on some dubious claim about terrorists and “national security.” The threats they cite are lies and excuses just so that we can destabilize and take over a particular region of interest, usually in the Middle East somewhere. The President can act unilaterally, without the consent of Congress, because it’s a matter of “national security.”
If it’s that easy to go to war and destroy another country without regard for what anyone else thinks, without regard for what the evidence says, allegedly just to protect this country, why can’t they do the same thing with something they claim is far greater in importance, such as a manmade global environmental apocalypse that will wipe out all of humanity? Because they know it’s all a lie.