What Say To An “International Tribunal Of Climate Justice”?

by William Teach | October 25, 2015 8:32 am

Just the very name alone should provide the clue that this whole ‘climate change’ push is about far left political policies, not science

(CFACT[1]) Negotiators at the UN climate talks in Bonn, Germany resurrected the “International Tribunal of Climate Justice” and inserted it into the text they are preparing for nations to agree to at the big UN summit in Paris in December.

The draft text will allow developing nations to sit in judgment over the U.S. and its allies, but not subject those nations to the tribunal’s jurisdiction themselves.

From the October 20th UN draft text (full text available at CFACT.org[2]):

“[An International Tribunal of Climate Justice as][A] [compliance mechanism] is hereby established to address cases of non-compliance of the commitments of developed country Parties on mitigation, adaptation, [provision of] finance, technology development and transfer [and][,] capacity-building[,] and transparency of action and support, including through the development of an indicative list of consequences, taking into account the cause, type, degree and frequency of non-compliance.”

Over 130 developing nations[3] led by South Africa and instigated by China and India are insisting that they will not sign a climate agreement in Paris unless it contains massive redistribution of wealth from developed to poor nations. Now they want the power to haul the U.S. and its allies before a UN Star Chamber to enforce compliance.

Obama and Kerry, who will be leaving office in a little over a year, would love nothing better than to embroil the United States in an international agreement on ‘climate change’ to burnish their so-called legacy, while leaving the middle and lower class citizens to pick up the tab for this far left Progressive agreement, transferring their wealth to other nations under the dubious auspice of ‘climate change’.

Of course, the big question will be how the deal is worked out, because if this is a treaty or a long term commitment, he’ll need two-thirds of the Senate to vote in approval. Obama can try it via the sole-executive agreement route, but, since this would involve the transfer of wealth to other nations and rules that limit greenhouse gases and such, it would have no force of law without Senate consent. But, then, when has the law and Constitution ever stopped Obama?

Crossed at Pirate’s Cove[4]. Follow me on Twitter @WilliamTeach[5].