# Copenhagen to set up transnational climate government **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [November 2, 2009, 10:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/copenhagen-to-set-up-transnational-climate-government/516101 "2009-11-02T22:07:21Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 1
**Author:** ![Rune](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/e68b1a/32.png) [@Rune](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Rune)\ **Post date:** [November 2, 2009, 10:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/copenhagen-to-set-up-transnational-climate-government/516101/1 "2009-11-02T22:07:21Z")
> [@](#): > > \*\*Has Anyone Read the Copenhagen Agreement? \*\* > … > The “scheme for the new institutional arrangement under the Convention” that starts on page 18 contains the provision for a “government.” The aim is to give a new as yet unnamed U.N. body the power to directly intervene in the financial, economic, tax and environmental affairs of all the nations that sign the Copenhagen treaty. > > The reason for the power grab is clear enough: Clause after complicated clause of the draft treaty requires developed countries to pay an “adaptation debt” to developing countries to supposedly support climate change mitigation. Clause 33 on page 39 says that “by 2020 the scale of financial flows to support adaptation in developing countries must be [at least $67 billion] or [in the range of $70 billion to $140 billion per year].” > > And how will developed countries be slugged to provide for this financial flow to the developing world? The draft text sets out various alternatives, including option seven on page 135, which provides for “a [global] levy of 2 per cent on international financial market [monetary] transactions to Annex I Parties.” Annex 1 countries are industrialized countries, which include among others the U.S., Australia, Britain and Canada. > > … [Has Anyone Read the Copenhagen Agreement?](http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703574604574500580285679074.html?mod=googlenews_wsj#printMode) Sounds like a crack-pot. Is he a crack-pot? Someone please tell me he is a crack-pot and there are no plans for anything resembling a transnational entity with “the power to directly intervene in the financial, economic, tax and environmental affairs” of sovereign nations and democratic elected governments or to settle us with annual Dane-law payments of $70 billion to $140 billion. And that the document doesn’t exist and never will. ---
**Author:** ![ivan\_astikov](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/58f4c7/32.png) [@ivan\_astikov](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ivan_astikov)\ **Post date:** [November 2, 2009, 10:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/copenhagen-to-set-up-transnational-climate-government/516101/2 "2009-11-02T22:13:12Z")
I haven’t read it, but why shouldn’t those countries that have benefitted most from industrialisation divvy up to some sort of fund to compensate for the damage they have caused, and why can’t we have some sort of combined national effort to enforce it? ---
**Author:** ![Der\_Trihs](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/der_trihs/32/233_2.png) [@Der\_Trihs](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Der_Trihs)\ **Post date:** [November 2, 2009, 10:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/copenhagen-to-set-up-transnational-climate-government/516101/3 "2009-11-02T22:22:53Z")
> [@Rune](#): > > Someone please tell me he is a crack-pot and there are no plans for anything resembling a transnational entity with “the power to directly intervene in the financial, economic, tax and environmental affairs” of sovereign nations and democratic elected governments or to settle us with annual Dane-law payments of $70 billion to $140 billion. And that the document doesn’t exist and never will. Would it matter if it did? Would, say, America or China or India or Britain pay the slightest attention to such demands? ---
**Author:** ![Captain\_Amazing](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/6de8d8/32.png) [@Captain\_Amazing](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Captain_Amazing)\ **Post date:** [November 2, 2009, 10:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/copenhagen-to-set-up-transnational-climate-government/516101/4 "2009-11-02T22:44:35Z")
Here’s the September 15th draft, in pdf: [http://unfccc.int/resource/docs/2009/awglca7/eng/inf02.pdf](http://unfccc.int/resource/docs/2009/awglca7/eng/inf02.pdf) The document does exist and the things that he’s pointed out are in it. It is, however, still a draft, and there are 34 days until the Copenhagen meeting. ---
**Author:** ![Captain\_Amazing](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/6de8d8/32.png) [@Captain\_Amazing](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Captain_Amazing)\ **Post date:** [November 2, 2009, 10:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/copenhagen-to-set-up-transnational-climate-government/516101/5 "2009-11-02T22:49:11Z")
> [@Der\_Trihs](#): > > Would it matter if it did? Would, say, America or China or India or Britain pay the slightest attention to such demands? All four countries are signatories to the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change. ---
**Author:** ![Der\_Trihs](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/der_trihs/32/233_2.png) [@Der\_Trihs](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Der_Trihs)\ **Post date:** [November 2, 2009, 11:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/copenhagen-to-set-up-transnational-climate-government/516101/6 "2009-11-02T23:06:38Z")
> [@Captain\_Amazing](#): > > All four countries are signatories to the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change. Meaningless. If a treaty is inconvenient we’ll ignore it. ---
**Author:** ![wmfellows](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/c2a13f/32.png) [@wmfellows](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/wmfellows)\ **Post date:** [November 2, 2009, 11:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/copenhagen-to-set-up-transnational-climate-government/516101/7 "2009-11-02T23:44:52Z")
> [@Rune](#): > > [Has Anyone Read the Copenhagen Agreement?](http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703574604574500580285679074.html?mod=googlenews_wsj#printMode) > > Sounds like a crack-pot. Is he a crack-pot? Someone please tell me he is a crack-pot and there are no plans for anything resembling a transnational entity with “the power to directly intervene in the financial, economic, tax and environmental affairs” of sovereign nations and democratic elected governments or to settle us with annual Dane-law payments of $70 billion to $140 billion. And that the document doesn’t exist and never will. It is the Wall Street Journal editorial page, you need not even ask if it is crack pottery, that should be your baseline assumption. If you wish to read rational, non-Leftist critical commentary on Copenhagen, read the Financial Times. ---
**Author:** ![Captain\_Amazing](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/6de8d8/32.png) [@Captain\_Amazing](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Captain_Amazing)\ **Post date:** [November 3, 2009, 12:00am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/copenhagen-to-set-up-transnational-climate-government/516101/8 "2009-11-03T00:00:56Z")
> [@Der\_Trihs](#): > > Meaningless. If a treaty is inconvenient we’ll ignore it. That would be illegal. If it’s a ratified treaty, the government can’t ignore it. ---
**Author:** ![BrainGlutton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/82dd89/32.png) [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)\ **Post date:** [November 3, 2009, 12:05am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/copenhagen-to-set-up-transnational-climate-government/516101/9 "2009-11-03T00:05:01Z")
> [@Captain\_Amazing](#): > > That would be illegal. If it’s a ratified treaty, the government can’t ignore it. Or else what? ---
**Author:** ![bump](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/7c8e57/32.png) [@bump](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/bump)\ **Post date:** [November 3, 2009, 1:58am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/copenhagen-to-set-up-transnational-climate-government/516101/10 "2009-11-03T01:58:33Z")
That aside, even if Obama signs the thing, how likely is it that the Senate would ratify something that sends that much money to developing countries? ---
**Author:** ![Richard\_Parker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/35a633/32.png) [@Richard\_Parker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Richard_Parker)\ **Post date:** [November 3, 2009, 2:16am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/copenhagen-to-set-up-transnational-climate-government/516101/11 "2009-11-03T02:16:20Z")
> [@Captain\_Amazing](#): > > If it’s a ratified treaty, the government can’t ignore it. Putting aside whether this is true in practice, it isn’t even true in theory. As a matter of law, there are two kinds of treaties: self-executing and non-self-executing. Most treaties are the latter. They require implementing legislation to have any legal force. So unless the government runs afoul of the implementing legislation, the government can ignore it with impunity. Even when there’s a self-executing treaty, or one fully implemented by federal law, it has the force of a statute and is overriden by any later-in-time statute. So the government can “ignore it” just by passing contradictory legislation. ---
**Author:** ![furt](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/439d5e/32.png) [@furt](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/furt)\ **Post date:** [November 3, 2009, 2:19am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/copenhagen-to-set-up-transnational-climate-government/516101/12 "2009-11-03T02:19:57Z")
> [@Captain\_Amazing](#): > > That would be illegal. If it’s a ratified treaty, the government can’t ignore it. Uh-huh. And all the Kyoto signatories are meeting their commitments … ---
**Author:** ![intention](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/e95f7d/32.png) [@intention](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/intention)\ **Post date:** [November 3, 2009, 7:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/copenhagen-to-set-up-transnational-climate-government/516101/13 "2009-11-03T19:58:02Z")
> [@ivan\_astikov](#): > > I haven’t read it, but why shouldn’t those countries that have benefitted most from industrialisation divvy up to some sort of fund to compensate for the damage they have caused, and why can’t we have some sort of combined national effort to enforce it? Well, if anyone could possibly show that there has been damage caused by CO2, I suppose you might have a point. But despite two decades of trying, nobody has been able to show that. In fact, the recent decade of no warming argues the opposite, that the natural variations are large enough to totally over-ride any possible effect from CO2 … which makes it virtually impossible to show that CO2 is doing anything at all. But heck, I’ll play your game, give us a number. How much damage has been caused in say Benin from CO2, and how much did it cost the folks there? And what exactly was the damage? Should Benin get more money than Togo, or less? Or let’s go the other way. How much money has warming saved in Chile? What beneficial effects has the warming had on this cold country, how much has it made from the increased growing seasons? Should Chile pay Benin because it has supposedly benefitted and Benin has supposedly lost from the warming? Finally, how much of the warming has come from CO2? 10%? 50%? 90%? I’m sure you see the problem … ---
**Author:** ![Rhythmdvl](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/85f322/32.png) [@Rhythmdvl](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Rhythmdvl)\ **Post date:** [November 3, 2009, 9:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/copenhagen-to-set-up-transnational-climate-government/516101/14 "2009-11-03T21:11:36Z")
Sorry for the drive-by, off-the-cuff post – no time at the moment. I have a few papers going to Copenhagen, and I’m under the impression that the 2 percent levy was on emissions transactions, not general monetary transactions. Clean Development Mechanism, Joint Implementation, that sort of thing. All located within the UNFCCC. Don’t like it? Reduce your own emissions and don’t buy a credit. Credit still cheaper (even with the tax) than reducing on your own? Then what are you complaining about, it’s still cheaper than reducing on your own. Basic economics. Again, I’m sorry to be so flippant and will be crossing my fingers that I didn’t misread the OP. Rhythm ---
**Author:** ![Rune](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/e68b1a/32.png) [@Rune](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Rune)\ **Post date:** [November 3, 2009, 9:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/copenhagen-to-set-up-transnational-climate-government/516101/15 "2009-11-03T21:33:01Z")
> [@ivan\_astikov](#): > > I haven’t read it, but why shouldn’t those countries that have benefitted most from industrialisation divvy up to some sort of fund to compensate for the damage they have caused, and why can’t we have some sort of combined national effort to enforce it? At the very least I should assume we can all agree that such a rather drastic move with a transnational body with power to enforce legislation on individual countries should be thoroughly discussed beforehand and then left for the citizens to vote on and not stowed away in some obscure UN document and hurriedly passed through. ---
**Author:** ![intention](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/e95f7d/32.png) [@intention](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/intention)\ **Post date:** [November 4, 2009, 12:25am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/copenhagen-to-set-up-transnational-climate-government/516101/16 "2009-11-04T00:25:51Z")
> [@Rhythmdvl](#): > > Sorry for the drive-by, off-the-cuff post – no time at the moment. > > I have a few papers going to Copenhagen, and I’m under the impression that the 2 percent levy was on emissions transactions, not general monetary transactions. Clean Development Mechanism, Joint Implementation, that sort of thing. All located within the UNFCCC. Don’t like it? Reduce your own emissions and don’t buy a credit. Credit still cheaper (even with the tax) than reducing on your own? Then what are you complaining about, it’s still cheaper than reducing on your own. Basic economics. > > Again, I’m sorry to be so flippant and will be crossing my fingers that I didn’t misread the OP. > Rhythm Nope. The source document says inter alia: > [@](#): > > A [global] levy of 2 per cent on international financial market [monetary] transactions to Annex I Parties. [SOURCE](http://unfccc.int/resource/docs/2009/awglca7/eng/inf02.pdf) However, this is Option seven of nine wealth transfer options, each of which has up to three Alternatives, so it is likely that you are thinking of one of the other options or alternatives. Perhaps it is Alternative 1 of Option 3, viz: > [@](#): > > A uniform global levy of USD 2 per tonne of CO2 for all countries with per capita emissions higher than [1.5][2.0] tonnes of CO2; the LDCs shall be exempt. Or Alternative 2 of Option 6 > [@](#): > > A share of the proceeds of [2][3–5] per cent on CDM and [2][4][8][10] [12] per cent on [joint implementation and emissions trading][market-based mechanisms under the Kyoto Protocol]. Don’t like it? Choose another Option or Alternative … or wait, there is another Option — hand the paperwork back to the UN and say _“No thanks, call me crazy but I’d rather spend it on climate disaster mitigation than hand wads of cash to an assortment of totalitatian dictators, corrupt governments, and incompetent bureaucrats.”_ That would be my option, but YMMV … ---
**Author:** ![CoolHandCox](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/coolhandcox/32/16233_2.png) [@CoolHandCox](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/CoolHandCox)\ **Post date:** [November 4, 2009, 12:36am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/copenhagen-to-set-up-transnational-climate-government/516101/17 "2009-11-04T00:36:03Z")
> [@Richard\_Parker](#): > > Putting aside whether this is true in practice, it isn’t even true in theory. > > As a matter of law, there are two kinds of treaties: self-executing and non-self-executing. Most treaties are the latter. They require implementing legislation to have any legal force. So unless the government runs afoul of the implementing legislation, the government can ignore it with impunity. > > Even when there’s a self-executing treaty, or one fully implemented by federal law, it has the force of a statute and is overriden by any later-in-time statute. So the government can “ignore it” just by passing contradictory legislation. I’m still somewhat unclear on treaties. President ratifies a non-self executing treaty. We violate it. So it wouldn’t be a violation of our domestic law and the AG couldn’t prosecute anyone, but it would still nonetheless be a breach of the treaty. Wouldn’t this entitle other signatory countries to prosecute us for our violation? ---
**Author:** ![intention](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/e95f7d/32.png) [@intention](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/intention)\ **Post date:** [November 4, 2009, 7:10am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/copenhagen-to-set-up-transnational-climate-government/516101/18 "2009-11-04T07:10:01Z")
> [@CoolHandCox](#): > > I’m still somewhat unclear on treaties. President ratifies a non-self executing treaty. We violate it. So it wouldn’t be a violation of our domestic law and the AG couldn’t prosecute anyone, but it would still nonetheless be a breach of the treaty. Wouldn’t this entitle other signatory countries to prosecute us for our violation? A non-self-executing treaty requires each of the signatories to pass domestic laws in each country to bring the treaty into force. If it is violated, what is violated is a domestic law, not international law. As such, any prosecution would take place in the country in question, under domestic law. An example of this is the Treaty on Torture, which had no force until the US passed a law that gave it (some) teeth. Also, a treaty must be ratified by Congress, not the President. Last time such a law came up in Congress (Kyoto) it was shot down 99-0, IIRC. ---
**Author:** ![CoolHandCox](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/coolhandcox/32/16233_2.png) [@CoolHandCox](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/CoolHandCox)\ **Post date:** [November 4, 2009, 3:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/copenhagen-to-set-up-transnational-climate-government/516101/19 "2009-11-04T15:26:52Z")
> [@intention](#): > > A non-self-executing treaty requires each of the signatories to pass domestic laws in each country to bring the treaty into force. If it is violated, what is violated is a domestic law, not international law. As such, any prosecution would take place in the country in question, under domestic law. An example of this is the Treaty on Torture, which had no force until the US passed a law that gave it (some) teeth. > > Also, a treaty must be ratified by Congress, not the President. Last time such a law came up in Congress (Kyoto) it was shot down 99-0, IIRC. Thanks for the reply. I’m still somewhat unclear. So other countries can’t prosecute signatories for violating, say, the Geneva Conventions? I understand that if the US doesn’t implement a domestic statute, we can’t prosecute ourselves, but I would think other countries still could. What if we are a signatory, implement domestic law, but never prosecute anyone for violating the treaty? Are we untouchable? I realize this isn’t really replying to the OP, but I’ve got treaties down pretty well, I’m just confused on who exactly can prosecute for a signatory breaching them. And I think the Senate provides Advice and Consent, and if they do, the President may ratify the treaty. ---
**Author:** ![intention](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/e95f7d/32.png) [@intention](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/intention)\ **Post date:** [November 4, 2009, 8:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/copenhagen-to-set-up-transnational-climate-government/516101/20 "2009-11-04T20:30:31Z")
> [@CoolHandCox](#): > > Thanks for the reply. I’m still somewhat unclear. So other countries can’t prosecute signatories for violating, say, the Geneva Conventions? I understand that if the US doesn’t implement a domestic statute, we can’t prosecute ourselves, but I would think other countries still could. What if we are a signatory, implement domestic law, but never prosecute anyone for violating the treaty? Are we untouchable? > > I realize this isn’t really replying to the OP, but I’ve got treaties down pretty well, I’m just confused on who exactly can prosecute for a signatory breaching them. > > And I think the Senate provides Advice and Consent, and if they do, the President may ratify the treaty. The Geneva Convention is the other kind of treaty, the self-executing kind. As such, it is law in itself and does not require domestic law to implement it. All it needs is ratification by the Senate. While it is theoretically possible that if a country does not implement a domestic law for a non-self-executing treaty they could be prosecuted in some kind of international forum, I don’t know if this has ever happened. The same is true if the domestic law is implemented but never enforced. People think there is some book somewhere with all the international laws written down and some kind of international body to enforce them. Nothing could be further from the truth. For example, the US has not signed on to the International Criminal Court. Why not? In part because it would be unconstitutional to do so. The founding fathers were very nervous that they would be tried by a foreign power for having the unmitigated gall to declare independence. Accordingly, they made it unconstitutional for the US government to allow one of its citizens to be tried overseas for a crime committed in the US. Like, say, by the ICC. So international law and domestic law have a very uneasy coexistence. The ICC has no jury. The Bill of Rights, on the other hand, guarantees every American a jury trial … how can those possibly be reconciled? Finally, you have the role of the Senate and the President reversed. There’s a good discussion of the issues at [senate.gov](http://www.senate.gov/artandhistory/history/common/briefing/Treaties.htm). The money quote is: > [@](#): > > **Treaties** > > The Constitution gives the Senate the power to approve, by a two-thirds vote, treaties made by the executive branch. > > The Senate has rejected relatively few of the hundreds of treaties it has considered in its history. Many others, however, have died in committee or been withdrawn by the president rather than face defeat. > > Some presidents have found it helpful to include senators in negotiating treaties in order to help pave the way for later Senate approval. > > The requirement for a two-thirds vote ensures that a treaty will need bipartisan support to be approved. > > The Senate may also amend a treaty or adopt various changes, which may lead the other nation, or nations, to further negotiate the treaty. > > The president may also enter into executive agreements with foreign nations that are not subject to Senate approval. [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/copenhagen-to-set-up-transnational-climate-government/516101.md?page=2)