• The Heritage Network
    • Resize:
    • A
    • A
    • A
  • Donate
  • Video: Copenhagen’s Implications for American Sovereignty

    In response to the Copenhagen Climate Change Conference December 7th through 18th, The Heritage Foundation is launching a video series to cover all the details and aspects of the climate summit. We’ll address all the angles (climate, energy, national security, sovereignty, trade, and more) and provide you with everything you need to know about Copenhagen.

    Steven Groves, Bernard and Barbara Lomas Fellow in Heritage’s Margaret Thatcher Center for Freedom, discusses what YouTube sensation Lord Monckton made a wildly popular topic: a climate change treaty’s threat to American sovereignty.

    There are a number of reasons an international treaty at Copenhagen could threaten U.S. sovereignty:

    1 out of 192. Multilateral treaties are much more dangerous than bilateral treaties. The United States will be only one of 192 nations at Copenhagen and although most countries are looking for the U.S. and China to take the lead, the U.S. could have much less say regarding the final text.
    Politically binding. In testimony to the House Committee on Foreign Affairs, Groves warned 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.”
    Watching the U.S. The 1997 Kyoto Protocol was an expensive failure, largely because many of the nations who signed on to the treaty failed to meet their emissions targets because the economic pain was too great. Even if they had met the targets, the environmental benefits would’ve been suspect. But because the United States is largely blamed for “causing the climate catastrophe”, other countries will be watching the U.S like hawks while they themselves fall short of their own emissions targets and other treaty requirements.

    You can read the rest of Groves’ paper, “The “Kyoto II” Climate Change Treaty: Implications for American Sovereignty” and the rest of Heritage’s work on Copenhagen here.

    Posted in Energy [slideshow_deploy]

    11 Responses to Video: Copenhagen’s Implications for American Sovereignty

    1. Lwesson, Tejas says:

      The outing of the e-mails of "scientists" who essentially have a hidden agenda in promoting the scam of "Global Warming" no doubt want the sovereignty of nations done away with. Such "treaties" are designed to, not by war, render nations like the US as mere puppet regimes nullifying the irksome Bill of Rights and The Constitution making into subjects the occupants of the US.

      That the Obama Regime continues to pursue such a treaty in light of the scam says much about his real agenda.

    2. Pingback: PA Pundits - International

    3. Tim Az says:

      They will all be fighting over who gets to disperse Americas wealth. These thieves all intend on holding the purse so they can shower themselves first with Americas money before all others are granted the leftovers. LOL Is their really honor among thieves? Stay tuned and find out.

    4. Mike Dodson says:

      Even if Obama were to sign on to a treaty in Copenhagen, it would have no legal effect until approved by the Senate by a two-thirds vote. Only then could it be ratified by the president. At least that's what the Constitution says, but when has that ever stopped this crew?

    5. laura brown says:

      THANK YOU EVERY SO MUCH FOR YOUR GREAT REPORTING JOB–I DO MY VERY BEST TO PASS ALONG EVERY SINGLE WORD YOU SAY–ONCE AGAIN THANK YOU!!

    6. Larry Daniels, Eden says:

      I am willing to listen to unbiased arguments about climate change, but when I hear words such as beauracrats that will control the U.S., it causes me to not believe anything that is stated here. How can one have a country deciding whether or not a treaty has been followed by that country and call it an independent check? Of course, an independent group needs to be set up to be sure the countries of the world are meeting the obligations of the treaty.

      I am surprised that very little science is used in this discussion. In contrast, dire predictions of losing our sovereignty and very costly measures are emphasized if the climate treaty is to become reality. I did not read anything about the costs that will be incurred if we do nothing. What about the huge spike in the amount of CO2 that is now in the atmosphere. How can this not be a topic of this discussion. In addition, where is the discussion about the lives that will be lost (the summer 2003 heat wave in Europe that resulted in over 2000 deaths in Paris is one recent example), the large costs that will be incurred to aid the island nations and coastal areas to deal with the rising water levels, the costs due to increased storm intensities, and the changes that are occurring to many of the worlds flora and fauna?

      I am willing to listen and have an intelligent discussion when what is said is based on unbiased science, but what I hear and read here are certainly things that make me leave in frustration.

    7. Linda Carlsbad, CA says:

      This climate change hoax has to be investigated. This is the most anti-American President we have ever had. How dare him sign any treaty to ruin our economy!

    8. Jerry from Chicago says:

      Who's kidding who? Does anyone honestly believe that India, China and Pakistan are going to stop burning coal during their industrialization? The U.S. did; Western Europe did. And now after the West has industrialized and improved our standard of living, we are going to tell other nations they can't?

      Every industrialized nation has burned coal to get the energy they need to produce electricity, make steel or heat their homes. They did it because it was the cheapest and most readily available form of fuel, and it still is.

      Now our President, in his generosity, promises to send billions to other countries so they can meet emission standards. How generous he is, with other people's money. I would be far more impressed with his generosity if he were giving away his own money (including his salary, book deal revenues, the money he spends on his kids private schooling and the money he plans to make after leaving office).

      That's the thing about liberals, they always want to invite everyone to lunch, but they never seem to be around when the check comes.

    9. Lynn B. DeSpain says:

      To all those who actually believe that Global Warming exist, and than man is the cause, and that man can fix it, "Did you know that you can keep Ice Cream Cold by placing it in a bonfire?" Its the truth, NBC said so, and Obama quoted them!

    10. Patricia Traeger--No says:

      Great to see some real reporting done. I will be following your reports and passing it on to my friends and family. Thank you for what you are doing.

    11. Rick Texas says:

      Typical Heritage Foundation work – thorough, factual and concise – thank you for the work you do, and Best of Luck to Steven and the Copenhagen team in trying to inform and sway those who cannot help themselves from belieeving the lies.

    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.

    ×