Odd Citizen

Odd Citizen
An Odd Citizen’s Search For Vanishing Freedoms

U.S. Sovereignty at Stake in Copenhagen?

October 21st, 2009

Is Obama Poised to Cede US Sovereignty?

Although Lord Monckton skips over the fact that U.S. treaties have to be ratified by the full Senate, many treaties have been signed by the presidents and not ratified, but still cause great mischief.

From the Harvard Law Journal:

Under contemporary treaty practice, a nation’s signature of a treaty, especially a multilateral treaty, typically does not make the nation a party to the treaty. Rather, nations become parties to treaties by an act of ratification or accession, either by depositing an instrument of ratification or accession with a depositary (for multilateral treaties) or exchanging instruments of ratification (for bilateral treaties). The signing of treaties under this practice is at most an indication that the terms of the treaty are satisfactory to the executive institution in that nation charged with negotiating and signing treaties and does not constitute a promise that the nation will become a party to the treaty.

Despite the modern separation between signature and ratification, many international lawyers and academics contend that when a nation signs a treaty, it is bound to refrain from actions that would defeat the object and purpose of the treaty until such time as it makes clear its intention not to become a party to the treaty.

Read the whole treaty draft:
here

Having scanned but not read the whole treaty draft (which is 180 pages long) it is clear to me that this treaty:

  • Is based on the mythology and hysteria of human caused, catastrophic global warming according to the IPCC.
  • Is at its heart, not about climate. It is about redistribution of national wealth from developed to developing countries.
  • It gives power, if not sovereignty, to an international body that does not have our best interests at heart.
  • It is not in the interest of the U.S. to sign or ratify such a blatant attempt by the international community to mug us.

The Copenhegan committee presumes to “require a shift in the global investment patterns” so that “financing allocation shall clearly respond to the priorities identified by the international community”. They further assert that developed countries are at fault for alleged warming of the climate. See the treaty language below.

PP.13 Recognizing that current and potential climate change impacts require a shift in the global investment patterns and that criteria for financing allocation shall clearly respond to the priorities identified by the international community, with climate change stabilization being one of these priorities.
PP.14 Acknowledging that current atmospheric concentrations are principally the result of historical emissions of greenhouse gases, the most significant share of which has originated in developed countries.
PP.15 Further acknowledging that developed countries have a historical responsibility for their disproportionate contribution to the causes and consequences of climate change, reflecting their disproportionate historical use of a shared global carbon space since 1850 as well as their proposed continuing disproportionate use of the remaining global carbon space.
1. [[[As assessed by the IPCC in its Fourth Assessment Report] Warming of the climate system, as a consequence of human activity, is unequivocal. [Global atmospheric concentrations of greenhouse gases have increased significantly because of human activities since 1750.]
2. Current atmospheric concentrations are principally the result of historical emissions of greenhouse gases, [the largest share of which has originated in] [originating from] developed countries [Parties].

So, according to this treaty, there is a “debt” owed by developed countries such as the U.S.A to the developing countries (such as North Korea, Zimbabwe and Cuba?). In fact (see below) the Annex I countries (such as U.S.A) are expected to pay the “full cost” of the program for the poor folks, including “actions taken in the context of sustainable development”.

33. In the light of a shared vision based on historic responsibility/emissions, debt/per-capita emissions convergence/an equitable allocation of a shared atmospheric resource, [and in accordance with the provisions of the Convention,] Annex I Parties shall provide new and additional financial resources to meet the full costs incurred by developing country Parties [in complying with their obligations under Article 12, paragraph 1, and the full incremental costs of implementing measures that are covered by Article 4, paragraph 1] [, particularly the most vulnerable countries including LDCs and SIDs, of meeting their commitments, towards the full, effective and sustained implementation of the Convention]. They shall also provide new and additional funding to cover the full incremental costs incurred by developing countries in implementing nationally appropriate mitigation actions undertaken in the context of sustainable development. Annex I Parties commit the amount of [ ] billion [Euros/dollars] in order to enable mitigation and adaptation actions in developing countries for the period now up to 2012. The [Conference of the] Parties shall periodically review the adequacy of levels of financing required to support mitigation and adaptation actions in developing countries, including a comprehensive review not later than 2011.

(emphasis added)

This treaty apparently gives the COP (Copenhegan committee) authority to govern the financial transactions anticipated by the treaty.See alternative texts from the treaty below.

(c) Alternative 1:
The financial mechanism shall operate and function under the authority, governance and guidance of, and be fully accountable to, the COP, which shall decide on its policies, programme priorities and eligibility criteria, and allocation of resources for adaptation, mitigation, technology and capacity-building and any other function that may be determined by the COP;
Alternative 2:
The financial mechanism [shall][should] function under the guidance of [the COP] [the
Meeting of the Parties to the Copenhagen Agreement];
Alternative 3:
The financial mechanism shall function under the strategic guidance of the COP.

Apparently the members of this committee anticipate the power to dragoon not only public, but also private monies into their scheme. Here are alternative policies that the parties will select and agree upon.

4. [Generation][Provision] of financial resources
12. All Parties, in accordance with their respective capabilities, shall implement and periodically report on policies and instruments to mobilize public and private financial resources, improve enabling
environments for investment in support of measures to mitigate and adapt to climate change outlined in Article 4.1 of the Convention.
13.
Alternative 1:
The public sector shall be the major source of funds, while market mechanisms and other private-sector sources would play a complementary role in addressing climate change. Public finance may also be used to leverage private investment and to provide incentives for additional efforts.
Alternative 2:
Private funding will be the main source of investment, channelled via appropriate policy frameworks and regulations that create enabling environments and demand for climate change technologies. Financing
the incremental costs of technologies for adaptation and mitigation is dependent on public sources of finance and public policies. Where it is provided, public finance should be directed to areas that cannot
be adequately financed by the private sector to leverage private investment and to provide incentives for additional efforts.
Alternative 3:
Both public and private finance should play a major role in the implementation of this Agreement. Public finance should leverage private investment and provide incentives for additional efforts, and be directed towards areas that cannot be adequately financed by the private sector, in particular for adaptation. Private funding, channelled via appropriate policy frameworks, should be the main source of necessary investment for mitigation. Parties should encourage the establishment of a robust carbon price signal, including through a progressive integration into the global carbon market, as a key means to deliver cost-effective emissions reductions globally.

(emphasis added)

If President Obama signs this abomination he proves, once and for all, that he hates this country, the one he’s constantly apologizing about. So he’ll probably sign it. If the U.S. Senate then ratifies this treaty, then Lord Monckton will be proven correct. The basic purpose of this treaty is to stick it to the U.S.A.

We will be surrendering our sovereignty to a miserable bunch of socialist international bureaucrats.

How does that HOPEN-CHANGE grab you?

One Response to “U.S. Sovereignty at Stake in Copenhagen?”


  1. […] see my prior article U.S. Sovereignty At Stake in Copenhagen concerning Copenhagen’s real objectives. Hint, it’s not about ecology, it’s about […]

Leave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.