Realist, not conformist analysis of the latest financial, business and political news

Green New Deal – Of Course Losing 57 to Zero Is A Sham

Some people just never learn, do they? The latest example being that climate change treaties and plans are now 0 for 3 in the US Senate. And given that it’s the Senate which has to pass such things that’s not a great record. But we’ve got this latest described as just a sham. For, of course, we know full well that the country is just crying out for the social justice that will be ushered in by AOC’s Green New Deal. And if the establishment isn’t wholeheartedly in support of it then that’s just a sham, isn’t it? Got to be, stands to reason!

[perfectpullquote align=”full” bordertop=”false” cite=”” link=”” color=”” class=”” size=””] The Green New Deal failed to pass a procedural vote in the Senate Tuesday, with Democrats slamming the GOP motion as a “sham” and with two exceptions voting “present” in protest. Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell put the ambitious plan to create jobs and improve the environment to a vote to force Democrats to take a public stand on the measure and try to divide the party’s moderates and progressives. The final vote was 57 against and no one for the plan, with 43 Democrats voting present. [/perfectpullquote]

We’re gonna lose, let’s not vote either way, then we can claim it’s a sham. Obviously.

The thing being this isn’t new about climate change. The Paris Treaty isn’t in the US, a treaty at all. Because treaties have to get through the Senate and that just wasn’t ever going to happen:

[perfectpullquote align=”full” bordertop=”false” cite=”” link=”” color=”” class=”” size=””]The first reason is straightforward: The Paris Agreement is a treaty. President Obama, aware that the accord would struggle to meet the two-thirds threshold required by the Constitution’s Treaty Clause (Article II, Section 2), engaged in extravagant rhetorical contortions to avoid calling the Paris Agreement what it was.[/perfectpullquote]

Never even made it to a vote. The reason being that when Kyoto was it didn’t pass either:

[perfectpullquote align=”full” bordertop=”false” cite=”” link=”” color=”” class=”” size=””]The US signed the Protocol on 12 November 1998, during the Clinton presidency. To become binding in the US, however, the treaty had to be ratified by the Senate, which had already passed the 1997 non-binding Byrd-Hagel Resolution, expressing disapproval of any international agreement that did not require developing countries to make emission reductions and “would seriously harm the economy of the United States”. The resolution passed 95–0. Therefore, even though the Clinton administration signed the treaty, it was never submitted to the Senate for ratification.[/perfectpullquote]

The vote against it was before it was even concluded.

The fun thing about the United States is that it’s a representative democracy. Meaning that things to be done have to be approved by the representatives of the people. And climate change stuff tends not to do that.

Ah well, there’s always that social justice plan to dream about, isn’t there?

0 0 votes
Article Rating
Notify of

1 Comment
Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
ufewl ufewlx
ufewl ufewlx
5 years ago

Tim could you please try to clear about what your views are? Being sarcastic does not work but some people believe all sorts of shit. Hence you have wasted my time and your.
Buck your ideas up pal.

Would love your thoughts, please comment.x