-
Passport
Syria’s Lung-Eating Rebel Explains
-
Transitions
Is Venezuela Becoming a Failed State?
-
The Cable
Issa Subpoenas Pickering on Benghazi
Posted By Blake Hounshell
Thursday, December 17, 2009 - 4:00 PM
Share
I'm not sure an appearance by Oklahoma Sen. James Inhofe was really needed to ensure that the U.N. climate summit in Copenhagen ends in failure. The delegates seem to be perfectly capable of taking care of that inevitability on their own.
Inhofe is an idiot and his consistent misrepesentation of climate science is disreputable, but I have to say that he made some good points here in his Copenhagen press conference:
In the U.S. Senate, a senator or group of senators can block legislation through what's called a filibuster...Breaking a filibuster requires 60 votes. As is obvious, McCain-Lieberman supporters, even with a bill full of holes and exemptions-in other words, a pale shadow of its former self-didn't even come close to crossing that threshold." They needed 60, they got only 44.
Here we are six years later, and nothing has changed: cap-and-trade failed in 2003, it failed in 2005, and it failed in 2008. As we look ahead, an economy-wide cap-and-trade bill stands no chance of passing. I want to be sure the 191 countries understand this: again, an economy-wide cap-and-trade bill stands no chance of passing.
Mind you, Inhofe is crowing about this situation, not bemoaning it. And then he follows with a bunch of misleading claims about "ClimateGate," almost of all of which were demolished by this "exhaustive" AP investigation.
I think he's also wrong in claiming that there is "no chance" the Senate will pass some sort of cap-and-trade bill. I think there will be a bill at some point next year.
That said, it just might get so watered down in the process of getting to 60 votes that it becomes a meaningless exercise. A lot of folks who follow the climate-change issue closely say: that's fine, let's just get SOMETHING passed and we can always ratchet the caps down later. But if the narrative becomes that the last bill didn't "work," so why bother passing legislation that might hurt the U.S. economy without saving the planet, then that strategy will backfire.
AXEL SCHMIDT/AFP/Getty Images
Now that's analysis.
I want to like FP Passport; I really do. But it seems to me that most of its contributors are capable of only the most superficial analysis of international issues and are more interested writing condescending Slate-like criticisms of conservative figures. Though I may not always agree with what Drezner, Walt or Ricks write, they're at least interesting and demonstrate a minimal understanding of their respective subject areas. Whereas, FP Passport bloggers remind me of college students who think they're Lawrence of Arabia after spending a semester in Cairo or Beirut. Yes, yes, we're all impressed with your Economist/Atlantic subscriptions. Sorry for getting personal, but it's about time someone noted the decreasing quality of the content here.
Think Inhofe is making factually accurate statements about climate change?
Camus wrote that self-knowledge is the ability to see oneself in the eyes of another.
What you don't seem to get is that when you call US Senators idiots without backing it up, you sound like a jackass still in high-school.
Now that we know a good bunch of the original data was falsified, certainly there are legitimate questions about the underlying science, which no one with any basic knowledge of logic would argue is settled, at least to the point that doubters are not all idiots (and are in the majority of US public opinion); and labeling them such reflects poorly on you.
I linked to an exhaustive AP study
Have a read...
You linked to a few paragraph AP piece that doesn't make any definitive claims, and certainly didn't claim to "demolish" anything. It just sort of reported the story in general terms.
If you're going to do a piece that leads with the idiocy of your subject (not that I'm some Inhofe fan), you're going to have to do better if that same term won't be used about you.
That said, I agree with your basic point that cap and trade isn't going anywhere, but that's hardly news. But what would be interesting would be how the Obama Administration's new edict will allow the EPA to do substantially the same things. I'm not sure about the facts on that, and would love to learn.
The fact that he mentioned the cap-and-trade bill is impossible merely on statistics is completely uncalled for. One government can overthrow the other in a span of 5 years and the bill can be passed. However his appearance in the Copenhagen summit was not at all required and could've screwed things up. Anyways, since things went quite smooth, no issues else he would've been in farmville cheats real trouble this time.
I believe some people have some completely wrong notions and feelings about themselves. There was no need for a State 'Senator' to intervene in a Global Climate summit. He has been elected by the people of his state and not by the international population. Going out of scope is something he should've been warned of doing. Its the same case as in when a local police officer tries to intervene in global anti-terrorism issues without the right Communication Skills .
I believe politicians still believe that if they have gotten themselves votes then it means they've achieved enough trust to even screw up and get away with it. There was absolutely no need for his intervention into this matter. Specially when things were going fine, i have no idea about the outcome but if things worsened due to his entry, he ought to be Webspace blamed.
Sen. James Inhofe has called global warming "the greatest hoax ever perpetrated on the American people."
He does not believe that climate change is zygor guide man-made.
you guys are so wrong. Global warming is real. I don't care if it gets cold every now and then. It's not a hoax, and it's not a liberal thing either. Plenty of ppl other than me can see it's true.
If were not for the fact that Inhofe is US Senator, I might agree that he is a whack-job dolt. But his Congressional power gives him the power to directly influence the future of the planet. He now has the status of world class villain. He has delayed further scientific research, stymied climate mitigation and set back a rational human response to AGW. His anti-science harms the future of everyone.
Really a nice story...
In Germany we have the same "problems"...
King regards
Bodybuilding
This is a really good article about the problems Copenhagen conference. I have to agree to sporty. The german politicians are likewise stupid. I hope there will be an acceptable agreement soon.
Regards from Germany
Filme online sehen
yes, we have to admit that a lot of politicians made stupid decisions in the past. And they will in the future. Actualy I hope that they will find an acceptable agreement within the next months. umts stick vergleich
"legislation that might hurt the U.S. economy without saving the planet" Well if the planet were in need of saving then this would be legit, but the planet is fine. Thus leave the legislation that will hurt the economy alone. Give up and find something useful to do with your lives. Windows Vista Themes
Inhofe, A disputed Personality
Inhofe is an experienced person in the field of climate sciences, but I think his abilities are going down and down. He even cannot present the Original motives of Climate Science and so cannot defend that. I think he must leave this office, because we want people with work and not the words or commitments only. Thanks for sharing views about Inhofe.
Regards,
Chris John
roof cleaning services
Passport, FP’s flagship blog, brings you news and hidden angles on the biggest stories of the day, as well as insights and under-the-radar gems from around the world.
Read More
May/June 2013
-
Profile
-
FP Power Map
-
Think Again
Follow us on Twitter | Visit us on Facebook | Follow us on RSS | Subscribe to Foreign Policy
About FP | Meet the Staff | Foreign Editions | Reprint Permissions | Advertising | Writers’ Guidelines | Press Room | Work at FP
Services:Subscription Services | Academic Program | FP Archive | Reprint Permissions | FP Reports and Merchandise | Special Reports | Buy Back Issues
Privacy Policy | Disclaimer | Contact Us
11 DUPONT CIRCLE NW, SUITE 600 | WASHINGTON, DC 20036 | Phone: 202-728-7300 | Fax: 202-728-7342
FOREIGN POLICY is published by the FP Group, a division of The Washington Post Company
All contents ©2013 The Foreign Policy Group, LLC. All rights reserved.
(15)
HIDE COMMENTS LOGIN OR REGISTER REPORT ABUSE