Nopenhagen: Who to Blame? Why, the US, of course!

[SSG Snuggle Bunny]

Why did Copenhagen fail to deliver a climate deal?

The summit failed to deliver a way to halt dangerous climate change

About 45,000 travelled to the UN climate summit in Copenhagen - the vast majority convinced of the need for a new global agreement on climate change.

So why did the summit end without one, just an acknowledgement of a deal struck by five nations, led by the US.

...

2. THE US POLITICAL SYSTEM

Just about every other country involved in the UN talks has a single chain of command; when the president or prime minister speaks, he or she is able to make commitments for the entire government.

Not so the US. The president is not able to pledge anything that Congress will not support, and his inability to step up the US offer in Copenhagen was probably the single biggest impediment to other parties improving theirs.

Viewed internationally, the US effectively has two governments, each with power of veto over the other.

Doubtless the founding fathers had their reasons. But it makes the US a nation apart in these processes, often unable to state what its position is or to move that position - a nightmare for other countries' negotiators.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/8426835.stm

I'm sure the reason the founders had was because of idiots like Obama who swalllow this crap and need to be checked.

[Oceander]

Why did Copenhagen fail to deliver a climate deal?

The summit failed to deliver a way to halt dangerous climate change

About 45,000 travelled to the UN climate summit in Copenhagen - the vast majority convinced of the need for a new global agreement on climate change.

So why did the summit end without one, just an acknowledgement of a deal struck by five nations, led by the US.

...

2. THE US POLITICAL SYSTEM

Just about every other country involved in the UN talks has a single chain of command; when the president or prime minister speaks, he or she is able to make commitments for the entire government.

Not so the US. The president is not able to pledge anything that Congress will not support, and his inability to step up the US offer in Copenhagen was probably the single biggest impediment to other parties improving theirs.

Viewed internationally, the US effectively has two governments, each with power of veto over the other.

Doubtless the founding fathers had their reasons. But it makes the US a nation apart in these processes, often unable to state what its position is or to move that position - a nightmare for other countries' negotiators.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/8426835.stm

I'm sure the reason the founders had was because of idiots like Obama who swalllow this crap and need to be checked.

That would be disingenuous of a UK-based news agency to say something like that, if one could assume that any of their writers actually learned anything other than liberal puke in school - y'know, something like, maybe, a little history back to, say, 1770, and King George III - in which case one could point out that the Founders, masters of understanding human nature that they were, created a federal government that would be at odds with itself except in those circumstances where an idea was, in fact, so strong, so correct, that it could command a consensus (which is not 100%) amongst people of all major political persuasions, and not just the political prejudices of the side that got to nominate the prime minister.

In other words, if you get yourself gored on the strict separation of powers implemented in the US Constitution, then it's a pretty good bet that the idea you were trying to sell was a bad idea - sort of like Global Warming, which as we all know now, was a concocted fraud and therefore the very epitome of a bad idea.

Founders - 1, liberals/socialists - 0