In the United States, the agreement cuts the ground from under people like Mitch McConnell, the next Senate majority leader, and others who have long argued that there is no point in taking aggressive steps against greenhouse gases as long as major developing countries refused to do likewise.
This argument effectively undermined Senate support for ratification of the 1997 Kyoto Protocol. The climate deniers in Congress will find other reasons to oppose a strong climate strategy, and are doing so even now. But the “China” argument has effectively disappeared.They got it all in there, eh? And by the way, what exactly is a "climate denier"? Does anyone on either side deny there is climate? And what does a "strong climate strategy" mean? Does the NY Times think mankind can significantly alter the climate of the Earth to any significant degree (pun intended)?
No, this editorial makes it clear that climate is secondary to nailing cracker Republican men of greed in a world of need for liberals. Like everything else they know best--if we stupid hicks would only listen to them their awesome climate strategies would make it cooler next summer.
Meanwhile this so-called agreement seems to call for China to basically do nothing until 2030, when their "cap" on peak emissions begins, while the United States agreed to CUT output by 26 percent over 2005 levels by 2025. So our goals happen before theirs. What a deal. Especially considering Chiner has already exceeded our CO2 output on a yearly basis.
And of course India is not included, but it doesn't matter because the Peking Commies have zero intention of following through on this, mainly because they are liars engaged in a virtual war with the United States as it is. Obama most assuredly knows this, he just wanted a climate cream pie to smear in McConnell's face (God knows what else he gave them to get this announcement) after the ass-kicking last Tuesday and the butt-hurt Times editorial writers wanted the same thing and are pleased.
Is it even worth mentioning that the administration seems to be bargaining--poorly--with a bunch of countries who are concurrently telling us to go to hell? Evidently there's a smart power reason hidden in this somewhere, but us stupid voters can't see it.
Here's the Times helping their hero again, this time by calling illegal aliens "immigrants" that the president is planning to "shield"...
Nowhere in that image is the actual truth conveyed. But it will get worse. With the GOP in power Obama can now be shown by the media as the underdog, fighting for underdogs. They will always find a way to tilt the slant heading towards the historic first female president and first "first man".
AND THERE IT IS... 11/14/14
Up on top the following was scribbled...yesterday:
With the GOP in power Obama can now be shown by the media as the underdog, fighting for underdogs.And presto, here is today's Times:
Obama, Down but Not Out, Presses AheadActually the article itself wasn't too terribly bad, it's the headline that carries the message.