Any hope for Congress to reconvene with a sense of bipartisanship was quickly erased Wednesday morning as Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) and House Speaker John A. Boehner (R-Ohio) sharply criticized the announcement of a new climate deal between the United States and China. --Ed O'Keefe, David Nakamura and Steven Mufson,
The Washington Post, 13 November 2014
“I was particularly distressed by the deal he’s reached with the Chinese on his current trip, which, as I read the agreement, it requires the Chinese to do nothing at all for 16 years, while these carbon emission regulations are creating havoc in my state and other states across the country,” said Mitch McConnell, who is in line to become the new Senate majority leader in January. --Ed O'Keefe, David Nakamura and Steven Mufson,
The Washington Post, 13 November 2014
Chinese newspapers welcomed the US and China's pledges on tackling greenhouse gases, but warn against expecting dramatic cuts from Beijing. China did not set a specific target, but said emissions would peak by 2030. Noting that this is the first time both countries have reached an agreement on a world issue, the Chinese edition of the Global Times praises the "existence of a China-US joint leadership". However, the papers subtly hints that China will not make any dramatic cuts despite pressures from the US and Europe. --
BBC News, 13 November 2014
The Chinese no doubt saw how much the President wanted an agreement and that he would accept nearly anything that could pass as one. Mr. Xi must have been delighted to see a U.S. President agree to make America less economically competitive in return for rhetorical bows to doing something someday about climate change. --Editorial,
The Wall Street Journal, 13 November 2014
With the US and China announcing specific pledges to reduce their greenhouse gas emissions, the focus is likely to turn to India, the world’s fourth biggest emitter, to follow suit and take actions to rein in its growing emissions. A member of the reconstituted [Indian] Prime Minister’s Council on Climate Change said this expectation, if it does arise, would be totally unfounded. “All that China has done is to acknowledge that it has reached a level of development from where it can take emission cuts. The Chinese per capita income is already comparable with the rich world. And it still has 16 years to let its emissions grow. By that time, it would be meaningless for China to let its emissions grow. Economically and technologically, it would make much more sense to start cutting emissions. Nothing of that is true for India. To expect India to do something similar to China is not sensible,” he said. --Amitabh Sinha,
The Indian Express, 13 November 2014
Republicans take control of the Senate in January. Majorities in both the House and Senate will be opposed to the Obama Administration’s climate agenda. It seems certain that they will be even more opposed to the new 26% cut by 2025 goal than they are to the 17% by 2020 goal. My guess is that there will be votes on a resolution disavowing President Obama’s new commitments in both the House and Senate early in the 114th Congress. That would complicate the State Department’s plans to announce its commitments that will be part of the Paris accord by the end of March. --Myron Ebell,
GlobalWarming.org, 12 November 2014
Obama’s promise — to China, recall — is not binding, is not intended to be binding, and will not be part of a binding promise to the rest of the world for the December 2015 Paris climate treaty talks. This is the latest example of a new species of promise described as “politically binding”, a turn of phrase introduced in this context during the Bush years, in recognition of the fact that two-thirds of the US Senate will never agree to Kyoto-style constraints. Shifting to “politically binding” promises also is an effort to circumvent that same reality by effectively introducing treaty commitments to the country without declaring them at customs. --Chris Horner,
GlobalWarming.org, 12 November 2014
This “historic agreement” has the legal binding effect of a campaign leaflet. However, as a “politically binding” promise, it begs (and hints at the answer to) the most important consideration: will it mean something? That is, what are they trying to do with it? The Obama administration and its cheerleaders are trying to toss another log or two on the fire of what is called customary international law, which is made up of promises so often made and so well understood that countries are obligated to not violate their object and purposes, regardless if it is not written somewhere. --Chris Horner,
GlobalWarming.org, 12 November 2014
