The New York Times reports
this weekend that:
"SINGAPORE — President Obama and other world leaders have decided to put off the difficult task of reaching a climate change agreement at a global climate conference scheduled for next month, agreeing instead to make it the mission of the Copenhagen conference to reach a less specific “politically binding” agreement that would punt the most difficult issues into the future."
Read down the article and note the several claims by participants offering the greatest exhibits imaginable at the running absurdity -- now in its 18th year! -- that is this movable feast of conferences in Rio, Barcelona, Bangkok, Bali, Buenos Aires, Bonn, and next month Copenhagen: We had to declare it a failure in advance in order to ensure its success.
But here's the far larger point, and Team Tea Party and simpatico coalescences should take note and begin organizing accordingly:
This also makes the Kyoto II, the proposed twenty five-year extension of a five-year plan that was the Kyoto treaty, an inescapable issue for the 2010 U.S. mid-term elections.
The outcome of these elections will surely dictate the outcome of this scheme long-targeted, even by European diplomats' admission, at the U.S. and exempting the overwhelming majority of the world's nations including those bit players like China, India, Mexico, Brazil, South Korea, Indonesia, where greenhouse gas emissions actually are growing--rapidly (just in case emissions really were the point, which they are clearly not).
If these November 2, 2010 elections go better than Team Soros/Obama fear, that will embolden them in the November 8-19 talks. A wipeout ensures the right result. Too busy saving my presidency to spend whatever capital remains to push the whole global governance routine just now.
This means every candidate for every federal office must be pressed to state whether this underlying issue of prophesied yet oddly non-existent catastrophic man-made global warming, on which they bob and weave if they're not shrieking to the heavens about the horrors, is sufficient grounds for the sort of binding international framework we are to agree to mere weeks later. Those who still won't answer the question need to go to the back of the line. The American public are with the UK and Norwegian voters, to name two about whom polls were just published revealing majority skepticism, and we don't believe that, at all. And we're the ones the deal is supposed to gore (so to speak).
Of course, Bill Owens in NY-23 showed you can vow opposition to, say, the "public option" to gain election and vote the other way within mere hours. But still, this, we've gotta ask and this means every candidate, on both sides, what with that Kyotophile McCain thing not having worked out so well and, if it had, we'd already have adopted cap-and-trade and would be facing a "successful" Copenhagen collapse.
Here's a kicker: that treaty negotiation where it's to all come together less than one week later happens to be in Mexico City, located in one of said free-rider countries, one which happens to be just to our south and an emotionally charged issue here in the country expected to cede by far the most there. It will serve as an excellent poster child for the dichotomy of obligations that is and, no matter which among the telegraphed stunts they pull to make this less obvious, will be the Kyoto scheme. Optically that should make things very uncomfortable for the Kyotophiles (note of caution to those mobilized principally around the issue of illegal immigration: resist the siren song of supporting the deal in order to keep the workers from our south home, where employment prospects will be much more favorable than here...).
So, 2010 is now on track to be the Kyoto Election. And, so long as we start early reinforcing that point, will be.