Coral Davenport of the
New York Times has just published an article reporting that
Obama [is] Pursuing Climate Accord in Lieu of Treaty, because he and other nations realize he can not obtain the 67 votes necessary for Senate ratification of a major new International Climate. In a move that we can predict will cause Republican heads to explode, Obama and international leaders are using a great deal of "flexibility" or what the GOP will probably describe as dirty tricks, and unconstitutional gimmickry.
In preparation for this agreement, to be signed at a United Nations summit meeting in 2015 in Paris, the negotiators are meeting with diplomats from other countries to broker a deal to commit some of the world’s largest economies to enact laws to reduce their carbon pollution. But under the Constitution, a president may enter into a legally binding treaty only if it is approved by a two-thirds majority of the Senate.
To sidestep that requirement, President Obama’s climate negotiators are devising what they call a “politically binding” deal that would “name and shame” countries into cutting their emissions. The deal is likely to face strong objections from Republicans on Capitol Hill and from poor countries around the world, but negotiators say it may be the only realistic path. ...
Countries would be legally required to enact domestic climate change policies — but would voluntarily pledge to specific levels of emissions cuts and to channel money to poor countries to help them adapt to climate change. ... “There’s some legal and political magic to this,” said Jake Schmidt, an expert in global climate negotiations with the Natural Resources Defense Council, an advocacy group. “They’re trying to move this as far as possible without having to reach the 67-vote threshold” in the Senate.
Davenport reports lawmakers say there is "no chance that the currently gridlocked Senate will ratify a climate change treaty in the near future." Negotiators from other countries realize this and are trying to avoid a repeat of the failure of the 2009 Copenhagen round of negotiations so are working with the Obama administration on an idea of a "hybrid agreement" that will "blend legally binding conditions from an existing 1992 treaty with new voluntary pledges. The mix would create a deal that would update the treaty, and thus, negotiators say, not require a new vote of ratification."
Those of you who enjoy anticipation of hot and heavy political battles will enjoy seeing glimpse of this likely future by reading this well written and informative analysis.