Obama May Skirt Congress on Global Climate Deal
With Senate a dead end, he plans pact that needs no ratification: NYT
By Shelley Hazen, Newser User
Posted Aug 27, 2014 6:36 PM CDT
   (AP Photo/Frank Augstein, File)

(Newser) – President Obama is employing some "legal and political magic" as one expert puts it so he can create an international climate change agreement without Congress, the New York Times reports. This fancy footwork is in preparation for a 2015 UN climate change summit in Paris. Knowing that he has virtually no chance of getting any international treaty ratified by the Senate, Obama's negotiators are working on a "hybrid agreement" that combines the still legally-binding conditions of an existing treaty with new, voluntary pledges. Technically this is an update, not a new agreement—so no ratification required. Think "politically binding" but not "legally binding," explains the Times.

Not surprisingly, the move—reminiscent of Obama's use of executive authority in June to cut coal plant emissions—has peeved Republicans, who already think Obama is abusing his executive authority. Mitch McConnell says Obama's strategy is an example of the administration's "tendency to abide by laws that it likes and to disregard laws it doesn’t like." A State Department spokesperson said today that it's "entirely premature" to pass judgment on any potential climate deal because no such deal has been written yet, reports the Hill. But she seemed to leave some wiggle room in regard to the possible new strategy: “Anything that is eventually negotiated and that should go to the Senate will go to the Senate.”

More From Newser
My Take on This Story
To report an error on this story,
notify our editors.
Obama May Skirt Congress on Global Climate Deal is...
2%
1%
2%
38%
8%
49%
Show results without voting
You Might Like
Comments
Showing 3 of 89 comments
Eguth3
Aug 31, 2014 5:04 PM CDT
I will respectfully disagree with you. Well, it actually goes further back then George W. Bush. We would not have had to fight a war with bin Laden and al-Qaeda. In December 1998, the Director of Central Intelligence (just for you its referred to as the CIA) Counter-terrorist Center reported to President Bill Clinton that al-Qaeda was preparing for attacks in the United States of America, including the training of personnel to hijack aircraft. At the end of 2000, Richard Clarke revealed that Islamic militants headed by bin Laden had planned a triple attack on1/3/2000 which, would have included bombings in Jordan of the Radisson SAS Hotel in Amman and tourists at Mount Nebo and a site on the Jordan River, the sinking of the destroyer the USS The Sullivan in Yemen, as well as an attack on a target within the United States. The plan was foiled by the arrest of the Jordanian terrorist cell, the sinking of the explosive-filled skiff intended to target the destroyer, and an arrest was made for Ahmed Ressam. Do you remember who he was? He was the guy who wanted to bomb LAX late December 1999.. In April 1996, Osama bin Laden was an official guest of the radical Islamic government in the Sudan. The government that had been implicated in the attacks on the World Trade Center in 1993. The Clinton Library recently released more document that were once restricted. If you haven’t read them then I would recommended that you do. In a handwritten note to his National Security Advisor, Sandy Berger, prompted by a New York Times article on Osama Bin Laden, Clinton wrote “If this article is right, the CIA sure overstated its case to me —what are the facts?” The note appears to be prompted by an April, 1999 article in the New York Times by Tim Weiner with the headline “U.S. Hard Put to Find Proof Bin Laden Directed Attacks.” The piece suggested that Bin Laden’s influence and power had been overstated in the aftermath of Al-Qaeda’s 1998 bombings of U.S. embassies in East Africa. Go read the article from the liberal newspaper the NY Times. Then, there is the speech he gave to businessman in Melbourne Australia on 9/10/2001. Here is the exact quote… “And I’m just saying, you know, if I were Osama bin Laden — he’s very smart guy, I’ve spent a lot of time thinking about him — and I nearly got him once,” Clinton is heard saying. “I nearly got him. And I could have killed him, but I would have to destroy a little town called Kandahar in Afghanistan and kill 300 innocent women and children, and then I would have been no better than him. And so I didn’t do it.” Unfortunately for the almost 3,000 people died on September 11, 2001, I believed that they were innocent and I’m sorry but his inaction lead to 9/11. I know the liberal love to say it’s all Bushes fault but it does go back a little further… and I could go back even further to George H. W. Bush. I’m willing to go back even further to Jimmy Carter, who allowed Mohammad Reza Shah Pahlav, the Shah of Iran to receive treatment for cancer in the US. The US and the middle east have been at each others throat for decades. I read a lot of US History books, including our President and our founding fathers. So, if you are unwilling to look at the big picture and just say it’s not a republican issue or Democrat issue but it is ALL of our elected official. We spend much, too much on the (R) (D). How about voting for the person who is best qualified for the job. I didn't vote for Bush or Obama because I felt none of them were qualified for the job of President.
Lou Bernardo
Aug 31, 2014 2:42 PM CDT
It will be Obama grand fanile to destroying what he hasn't already destroyed of the U. S. economy. As promised, the Marxist rat promised to "Change America."
Eguth3
Aug 31, 2014 2:09 PM CDT
And, like Obama erase whatever George W. Bush did by writing an Executive Order to reverse the content of the order, the next President will do the same to his EO.