• The Heritage Network
    • Resize:
    • A
    • A
    • A
  • Donate
  • Obama to Copenhagen but No Berlin?

    Proponents of cap and trade legislation and an international treaty to reduce greenhouse gas emissions are pushing for President Obama to make the trip to Copenhagen. For instance, Carter Roberts, CEO of the World Wildlife Fund affirmed, “We believe it’s fundamental for the president to go to Copenhagen, to look other leaders in the eye convey our commitment as a country, and secure theirs.”

    President Obama has the left the plane door open for a trip to Denmark, saying, “If I am confident that all of the countries involved are bargaining in good faith and we are on the brink of a meaningful agreement and my presence in Copenhagen will make a difference in tipping us over the edge, then certainly that’s something that I will do.”

    Granted, that’s a big ‘if’ since the hype surrounding Copenhagen has dulled a bit and the chances of an international agreement to reduce greenhouse gas emissions are dwindling. But the timing of the President’s remarks is interesting; his absence at the fall of the wall anniversary in Berlin drew much criticism both here and abroad.

    President Obama’s staff cited a packed schedule for him not making the trip; of course, the date of the Berlin Wall hasn’t changed. German newspaper Der Spiegel called it “Barack Too Busy”, and especially given Ronald Reagan’s integral role , Newt Gingrich said President Obama’s absence was “a tragedy.”

    Regardless, if President Obama does make the trip to Copenhagen, he should go with these things in mind:

    Byrd-Hagel Still U.S. Policy: Heritage Senior Policy Analyst in Energy & Environment writes, “In 1997 the U.S. Senate unanimously passed the Byrd-Hagel Resolution, which warned President Clinton not to enter into any global warming treaty that leaves out developing nations or hurts the American economy.” Any country, including the U.S. that agrees to emissions cuts is also agreeing to stunt its economic growth, which is why we see a growing divide between the developed and developing countries. Indian climate envoy Shyam Saran asserted, “Whatever emerges from Copenhagen should enhance our prospects for development, not diminish them. Climate change action should not become a pretext for the perpetuation of poverty.”

    Kyoto Did Not Work: The 1997 Kyoto Protocol to reduce greenhouse gas emissions was largely a failure. Emissions from most developed nation signatories outpaced those of the United States but their efforts did not come without cost.

    Copenhagen Could Threaten U.S. Sovereignty: In testimony to the House Committee on Foreign Affairs, Heritage Fellow Steven Groves warns that “the contemplated post-Kyoto treaty is a serious threat to American sovereignty and other vital U.S. national interests because of its legally binding nature; its intrusive compliance and enforcement mechanisms; and the inability to submit reservations, understandings, or declarations to its terms.”

    Copenhagen Could Threaten National Security: Because the military is the nations’ largest consumer of fossil fuels and capping carbon dioxide emissions would tax energy, Heritage Deputy Director James Carafano advises that a climate treaty “would make the economies of the U.S. and its allies less competitive, depriving them of the capacity to defend themselves and aid other nations.”

    China Has Real Environmental Problems: Many praise China as a leader in renewable energy investments but the country is a leader in coal – over 40 percent of the world’s coal use and climbing. Heritage Research Fellow in Asia Economic Policy Derek Scissors stresses that China has bigger environmental concerns: “Water shortage and pollution are more important to the PRC, and most of the world, than greenhouse gases. Nearly two-thirds of Chinese cities, plus over 200 million rural residents, face water shortages. At the end of 2008, close to half of key river and waterway sections were classified as being so polluted that they were unsuitable for human contact and, in some cases, even irrigation.”

    For more on Heritage’s work on the Copenhagen Climate Change Conference, visit Copenhagen Consequences.

    Posted in Energy [slideshow_deploy]

    14 Responses to Obama to Copenhagen but No Berlin?

    1. Bobbie Wright - AL says:

      I have spent this entire year trying to figure out what this president is doing to our country. This bill, in addition to all the debt already piled up would absolutely put America under. There is a National Carbon Capture Center at the steam plant just 5 miles from my house. Has Cap and Tax already begun "under the table" as some of the healthcare has?

    2. Nicolai Alatzas says:

      Interestingly because we did not sign the Kyoto Protocol. The carbon sequestration market in the US carries some of the most valuable market value in the world. This is in part because our REC's(Renewable Energy Credits) are of voluntary in nature. When a company or country is mandated to sequester carbon the value of their REC's diminish in value.

      Bobbie jay this is probably why you have the Capture Center down the road. You may be able to find out which market the REC's are being traded on and actually determine what the credit value is.

    3. Freedom of Speech, T says:

      Maybe China should STOP lending us money and call in their note. Then they would have money to clean up their water supply – don't count on that.

      And, if no one lends us anymore money, the ONLY option our government credit card officials will have is to PRINT more money and RAISE taxes to such an oppressive rate that millions of Americans refuse to pay any more taxes and call for repealing the 16th Amendment.

      The government is acting irresponsibly and radically. They are breaking America by legislative tyranny and then punishing its people. There is strength in numbers. Will millions of people finally say enough is enough. Will they have the courage?

      There is always a breaking point. If the government controls the people and not vice versa, and just games the system (1/2 of them are attorneys), then what rights do the people have left?

      The only way to stop them is money.

    4. Nicolai Alatzas says:

      Also keep in mind that Senate ratification of an international treaty requires not just 60 but 67 votes. Say 34 senators rally to block such a treaty—senators from, oh, Wyoming, Vermont, North Dakota, Alaska, South Dakota, Delaware, Montana, Rhode Island, Hawaii, New Hampshire, Maine, Idaho, Nebraska, West Virginia, New Mexico, Nevada, and Utah. Thus can representatives for 22,540,352 people—7.4% of the population—block the will of the other 281,519,372. Indeed, senators representing 7.4% of Americans can thwart the entire world's efforts to address the climate crisis.

      Killing a treaty is easier than killing a clean energy bill. Why, killing a clean energy bill requires representatives for 25,289,049 people—fully 8.3% of the population!—to thwart the will of the remaining 278,770,675. (If you're keeping score, the guilty parties here would be: Wyoming, Vermont, North Dakota, Alaska, South Dakota, Delaware, Montana, Rhode Island, Hawaii, New Hampshire, Maine, Idaho, Nebraska, West Virginia, New Mexico, Nevada, Utah, Kansas, Arkansas, Mississippi, and Iowa.)

      What is the point of chasing your tail if you 7.4% of Americans control the futures?

    5. Bellicus_Pium, Repub says:

      Everything Obama seems to do and say undermines American status and economic strength.

      Does he really not see what he is doing to our Republic, or is it on purpose?

    6. Grandma, from Michig says:

      Well, Bobbie, I've figured it out. Take 2 minutes and watch this video:


      Here's evidence of politician committing treason–violating oath of office to uphold Constitution. Yet, no one does anything constructive–yes, one man is questioning the bully, Rep. Murtha, but gets nowhere. Why isn't Murtha arrested and charged with violation of his oath of office? Why? Because there really is no Constitution anymore. It's all gone. The "oath of office" appears to be toward the shadow government that is totally in control. Notice the way the shadow government conducts a vote–the minority rules. As with all "wars" the winner helps themselves to the booty.

    7. Evan Symonds, Florid says:

      Please see on You-Tube http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=stij8sUybx0 Lord Christopher Monckton's speech (he was Margaret Thatcher's Minister of Science, I believe) in St. Paul recently where he makes it crystal clear that the issue of "global warming" is false, fabricated to make an excuse for creating a world government and moving wealth from the better-off nations (mainly the US) to third world countries. He said Obama is poised to sign and thus cede US sovereignty.

      There goes the United States of America. Lord Monckton is an avid fan of our Constitution and did this to warn us of its impending nullification. We MUST do all we can to make this known and make sure it does not happen.

    8. Pingback: RagingElephants.org » Obama to Copenhagen but No Berlin?

    9. philip says:


    10. Zeke, MN says:

      President Obozo is fighting three wars, Irag, Afganistan, and one against his own people!

      Don't tread on me

    11. Tim Az says:

      Basically what Mao-Bama has said is if its not about me or it presents me with a less than stellar victory on global warming than I'm just not going to play with you guys. It's my way or the highway.

    12. Ross writes from Flo says:

      I'm confused… If the American people realizes or decide that a signed treaty is not in our best interest and then elect like-minded people to Congress, then voids it. What is the world going to do, 'sic' the UN on us? Or take us to the World Court?

      SO WHAT! Who will enforce it? And by what authority? We haven't completely sold out… a major foreign Army has occupied our country yet.

      Is the world going to evict us from our homeland? I don't think so!

      Will the world stop trading with us? Not likely.

    13. jeff Michigan says:

      The people who are in favor of all these TAX plans and SPENDING plans should be asked "What do you want to leave for your children, grandchildren, great grandchildren as your legacy?"

      The people who vote for these programs are more concerned about power and what it will do for themselves than for the good of the country.

      The people who vote for these programs do not take time to look at all aspects of a bill they sponsor and have an attitude that the Government is the cure all for all the problems, even though the government created the problems so they can be the HERO with the solutions. The solutions they prepose only make matters worse. Do they run their personal lives and finances in the same manner that they run the NATIONS. God help us if they do.

    14. Roger S., Ma. says:

      Having viewed Lord Monckton's lecture –long but entertaining and very informative: the guy's brilliant, the time well spent!– URL'd by Evan Symonds (above, thanks!), then studied the downloaded power-point slides, it's difficult NOT to conclude that once again we have been, and will continue to be, lied to!

      In a nutshell: They — greedy congressional power brokers, sleazy pseudo scientists, UN would be potentates, political losers of all stripes (some with unearned Nobel prizes to their "credit"), and sundry self-aggrandizing riffraff including "captains of industry" actually "in bed" with Big Government — are once again trying to hard-sell us the "Socialist Prayer Beads" for the "Marxist Jumping Beans"; or vice-a-versa. Who knows? Of course at 1.000% profit to themselves, which is all that matters to them!

      We must tell them ever so clearly that we see no reason to believe them and will not be buying!

      "Waxman-Markey" = "Taxman-Snarky" + the "Boojuming" of US sovereignty.

      "Mistakes" of this magnitude are never made "innocently", thus nothing else can be intended.

      Senators must be placed on notice that to approve anything coming from Copenhagen automatically spells political suicide. Ditto, any approval of Carbon/Trading/Taxing schemes via new EPA legislation. It may be "…not good to fool mother nature". It will be much worse to cheat the taxpayer one more time!

    Comments are subject to approval and moderation. We remind everyone that The Heritage Foundation promotes a civil society where ideas and debate flourish. Please be respectful of each other and the subjects of any criticism. While we may not always agree on policy, we should all agree that being appropriately informed is everyone's intention visiting this site. Profanity, lewdness, personal attacks, and other forms of incivility will not be tolerated. Please keep your thoughts brief and avoid ALL CAPS. While we respect your first amendment rights, we are obligated to our readers to maintain these standards. Thanks for joining the conversation.

    Big Government Is NOT the Answer

    Your tax dollars are being spent on programs that we really don't need.

    I Agree I Disagree ×

    Get Heritage In Your Inbox — FREE!

    Heritage Foundation e-mails keep you updated on the ongoing policy battles in Washington and around the country.