UN: U.S. Mayors Climate Protection Agreement

[Patricia M. McBride]

Information I gathered and had not posted.  I thought you might find it of interest.  Cities in Florida who have signed on are listed below.  This is redistribution of $$$ at it's finest and certainly, Obama would love it (and I assume get very rich personally and everthing for him is about him 100%).  My comments are in italics and parens.

.............................................................

From the UN Framework convention on Climate Change: Status of Ratification of the Kyoto Protocol.  The United States has not ratified this treaty, so the governors who signed on with this are in direct violation of current US law and have violated the constitution for signing what amounts to a treaty with a UN affiliated organization.  I always believed the treaties were supposed to be mutually beneficial but this one is for the UN and we are 100% losers if this treaty were approved (and climate change as we all know is a faux issue, so this is a money grab totally) 

Link:  http://unfccc.int/kyoto_protocol/status_of_ratification/items/2613.php

U.S. Mayors Climate Protection Agreement

As of May 2009, 944 mayors from across the United States had signed the U.S. Mayors Climate Protection Agreement.

Under the Agreement, participating cities commit to take following three actions:

• Strive to meet or beat the Kyoto Protocol targets in their own communities, through actions ranging from anti-sprawl land-use policies to urban forest restoration projects to public information campaigns; (These cities are imposing regulations on their communities and the tax payers there that do not exist in law and should be forced to pay reperations for any and all damage done to individuals by imposing a UN initiative that was never agreed to by our country)
• Urge their state governments, and the federal government, to enact policies and programs to meet or beat the greenhouse gas emission reduction target suggested for the United States in the Kyoto Protocol -- 7 percent reduction from 1990 levels by 2012; (act as a lobbyist for the UN?  Really?)  and
• Urge the U.S. Congress to pass the bipartisan greenhouse gas reduction legislation, which would establish a national emission trading system (this is only a little over 900 cities and they want the government to impose it on everyone else, because they signed on to this nightmare faux climate deal from the UN ........no thanks)

Learn more at the U.S. Conference of Mayors Climate Protection Center.

LINK:  http://www.icleiusa.org/action-center/getting-started/us-mayors-cli...

Cities and Counties in Florida who signed onto the Mayors climate protection agreement:

Alachua County

• Boynton Beach
• Broward County
• Coconut Creek
• Collier County
• Cutler Bay
• Davie
• Delray Beach
• Fort Lauderdale
• Fort Myers
• Gainesville
• Key West
• Lake Worth
• Lee County
• Leon County
• Maitland
• Marathon
• Miami
• Miami-Dade County
• Miami Gardens
• Monroe County
• North Miami
• North Port
• Orange County
• Orlando
• Palm Bay
• Palm Beach County
• Pinecrest
• Plantation
• Sarasota
• Seminole County
• South Daytona
• South Miami
• Tallahassee
• Tamarac
• West Palm Beach
• Winter Park, FL

[amanda choate]

Very frank:

http://www.papers.risingsea.net/downloads/Challenge_for_this_genera...

[amanda choate]

Virginia and North Carolina have both passed legislation outlawing the use of science in determining the probability of sea-level rise in their states. In Virginia they cannot even use the term sea-level rse and instead have to refer to it as "recurrent flooding." So because some guys are smart they asked a simple question; From previous studies, which ones were correct in determining sea-level rise? This may make them predictive going forward. Using established science t o determine the future with all the "ifs" thrown in. Turns out using previously tested methods, the agregate average is around 39 inch increase in sea level rise in the next 90 years. So we do not have to reinvent anything to figure this stuff out, the science is already there. The contribution of man made pollutants can be determined and causality confirmed. Carbon dioxide is an issue, an issue that can be mitigated.

What is the worse thing that can happen if we adopt cleaner, greener policies, a cleaner planet? Would that be so terrible? Oh I know, it costs too much. Yeah, well not as much as rebuilding our coastal communities because we did nothing except ignore scientific facts. Not some fly by night science, but science that has already been proven, good science. This is why we bother to fund science, it makes a difference.

There is nothing sinister in these communities attempting to clan up theplanet. And you know what if the citizens voted them, then that is what they get. It is goal setting, best practices, science driven protocols. These protocols could make a difference, and if the US were leaders instead of followers we might help future generations of Americans who will already b eing paying down our debts.

We Americans are like bad tennants, we don't do upkeep, don't pay the rent on time, and we are trashing the place to boot. The landlord would evict us except he needs us to cover his own bad habits.

The time where we pretend there is nothing wrong is and do nothing except make things worse is over. The chickens have come home to roost.

Or, buy some waterfront property in Ocala, beat the rush.

[Paul Davis]

As someone who previously took an oath to protect the defend the Constitution of the United States I take strong offense that you assert that these cities and counties are required to have a treaty in order to implement any action that they choose to implement. The UN has no authority to direct the United States or its entities to do anything. For you to insist that there be a formalized treaty with the U.N. before they act is preposterous. The U.N. has no such authority in the U.S., and it should not have. On the other hand, the Mayors can take whatever action under state law and their own local regulations that they have the constitutional right to do. No treaty is required for that.

[Patricia M. McBride]

Because these mayors are forcing UN anitiatives on the people who live in their cities when the treaty rules they are imposing are not in fact law or legal and the treaty was never approved (except perhaps in their heads).  By doing so, they are imposing an illegal mandate or mandates on people and perhaps doing damage to private businesses by doing so.  The mayors do not have a legal right to enter into the contract with a foreign entity that they have as it is akin to signing a treaty and they are not authorized to do that; only the senate can approve treaties.  Because they are violating the law, they could be forced to pay for the losses of businesses due to imposing draconian regulations some foreign ie the UN, tells them to impose.  The UN has no authority to impose anything of this sort in the United States.  You can't impose the rules of a foreign entity on US citizens which is exactly what these mayors are doing.

[Paul Davis]

I am not sure I understand how that if the regulations "do not exist in law" the cities are able to "impose regulations on their communities". Can you explain that?

What legal device or mechanism would allow for them to be assessed "reparations"?

I am not sure that I am following the logic of the argument here. It all sounds a bit kooky to me.