Tiny? One word is not tiny. If you think the difference between "should" and "shall" is tiny, you can't be trusted to proofread the text of a deal. Good for Kerry, noticing. But in saying "We cannot do this," he revealed something quite un-tiny.
The U.S. team, led by Kerry and chief climate negotiator Todd Stern, struggled to fend off demands from small island states and other poorer countries for guaranteed “loss and damage” compensation, essentially payment for negative impacts of climate change. But the Obama administration would not contemplate such an open-ended financial obligation that Congress would have to approve and U.S. citizens would have to pay for....
After the call to Fabius, U.S. and French officials decided together that the word change had been accidental. As such, it could be handled as an ordinary typographical error and erased at the discretion of the conference leader.
Posts
56 comments:
I love it that the French Foreign Minister is Fabius.
"But the Obama administration would not contemplate such an open-ended financial obligation that Congress would have to approve and U.S. citizens would have to pay for...." Assumes facts not in evidence. By contrast, I'm sure the administration "contemplated" such an obligation but only refrained because it was a counterproductive non-starter. If only they could get rid of those troublesome Republicans, and of those backward Americans . . . It's hard to be a proper Prog sometimes.
As such, it could be handled as an ordinary typographical error and erased at the discretion of the conference leader.
Excuse me?
Kerry reveals the Game right there.
Those at the Summit wanted the Biggest Paper Victory they could get as long as it obviously really didn't mean anything with a commitment.
Thank God .
Governor William J. Lepetomane would approve.
I am Laslo.
Obamaclimate.
One word is not tiny.
You must always...wait, never...
In this case one word won't make much difference. Really ain't no such thing as a carbon cap.
...a “carbon cap” necessarily means that a government is committing to either a cessation of economic growth or to the systematic advancement of technological innovation in energy systems on a predictable schedule, such that economic growth is not constrained. Because halting economic growth is not an option, in China or anywhere else, and because technological innovation does not occur via fiat, there is in practice no such thing as a carbon cap.
It's all a money scam.
Kyoto writ small.
This emperor has no clothes.
I too wondered about that change. There is legal force behind the word "shall" which "should" lacks. Both words stem from the same root and mean obligation. But "shall" in this instance means "in the future" and luckily, the indefinite future.
how is it expected this can be a real obligation for the US, if Kerry and the President are running around saying this deal can be done even without Congressional approval (Senate power to approve and ratify treaties), and yet they have a consideration for the costs that Congress would duly have to fund if we did have a real obligation? You can't have it both ways, regardless of "should" or "shall".
U.S. and French officials decided together that the word change had been accidental.
So they decided on a lie. I'm sure it's not the first time in this process.
Interesting, a secret change from "should" to "shall" is tiny and accidental, so it can be secretly changed back to should and no one need know about it. This one made it into the Washington Post, but it makes me wonder, what other "secret typos" are lurking about?
I read that the treaty contemplates our fair share at $700B. Borrowed from the Chinese and paid (in part) to the chinese even though they produce more CO2 than we do.
The concept of "payment for negative impacts of climate change" begs the question. Should not the major carbon dioxide producers be paid for the positive impacts of climate change? By arctic shippers, for example. Or, by any country that finds itself with a longer growing season.
If CO2 is to be the scapegoat for every drought and hurricane, it is logically also the cause of every temperate summer and mild winter.
"Borrowed from the Chinese and paid (in part) to the chinese"
Actually, the Chinese have stopped buying our debt and have sold off most of it. What now funds our debt is Treasury creation of money by electronic wizardry which will go unnoticed until someone tries to collect Social Security or some other government "obligation" one day soon.
Then the house of cards will fall down.
There was a similar situation with the 10 commandments...initially the 10 suggestions.
The Drill SGT said...
I read that the treaty contemplates our fair share at $700B. Borrowed from the Chinese and paid (in part) to the chinese
--
Fiscal "recycling"
So much for fucking seas stopping rising.
The unwritten story - so far - is how Obama plans to implement this Paris "deal" without Congress.
Kerry was yammering this weekend that the private market would just follow along in the US due to signaling and the desire to be part of he right crowd. He may well be right.
But with this "deal" the US loses again. On par with Iran "deal."
And other than Hillary, has there ever been a worse Secretary of State?
Unless it's ratified by the Senate it has no significance whatsoever to the US. As Kerry clearly knows. So it's all rather academic.
Take a look at this little PDF comic book on "UN Climate Talks: The Ritual" if you haven't see it already.
Interesting, a secret change from "should" to "shall" is tiny and accidental, so it can be secretly changed back to should and no one need know about it. This one made it into the Washington Post, but it makes me wonder, what other "secret typos" are lurking about?
Sounds like an existential threat to humanity, doesn't it?
In this context, "should" is a shorter version of "only if you feel like it later"
Maybe secret typos is just the latest trick to pull on us. But on the bright side, they had a fabulous conference -- superb food, accomodations and entertainment. It was totally worth it.
Laslo said...Those at the Summit wanted the Biggest Paper Victory they could get as long as it obviously really didn't mean anything with a commitment.
Nothing in the agreement kicks in until 2050, when everyone who signed will be dead and gone. The whole conference was a big circle jerk. And there is no enforcement mechanism other than public shaming. It's typical of the modern treaty.
Global Warming and Climate Change is a hoax. If it were a problem, the leaders would actually be doing something about it. The net affect will be zero.
They could have said "must" and it would not make any difference. Who is going to enforce it? Does anyone believe that nations will not violate it if their needs or beliefs change?
He can still manipulate regs via EPA, no? You know...in the spirit f this "mandate".
Remember the Kyoto Treaty under Clinton/Gore? The one that he never submitted to Congress for ratification?
The Senate voted on it anyway in a non-binding resolution. 95-0 against.
Perhaps the Senate should vote on the Paris treaty the same way.
John Henry
AA: If you think the difference between "should" and "shall" is tiny, you can't be trusted to proofread the text of a deal.
We understand the difference, do all of the non-English speaking signatories understand it (or did we verify that it was accurately translated into every other language used by the Conference attendees)?
Like the "Shall Not Be Infringed" clause of the Second Amendemnt?
Laslo Spatula: "Governor William J. Lepetomane would approve."
Harrumph!
He was, after all, simply attempting to save his phoney-baloney job.
File under: "How Governor William J. Lepetomane lost me and I had to vote for Hillary to make the dems "own it"", by Althouse.
Years ago, a phrase in a friend's master's thesis ("worth noting") was returned from the printer's as "worth nothing".
It is a good thing SoS Kerry is reading the language after the fact. He must take his example from Nancy Pelosi.
This is eerily like the Obama campaign for POTUS; is he running for President of the World?
Two tremendous victories here:
- The world is saved! Of course this treaty means no such thing, no matter where you fall on AGW. But it is the latest, greatest virtue signal. Useful to prop yourself up and condemn the other guy - at least to the massive population of rubes.
And.....
- Billions upon billions will be made available to flow through the right people.
No wonder the "journalists" cheered so vigorously.
Ignorance is Bliss said...
U.S. and French officials decided together that the word change had been accidental.
So they decided on a lie. I'm sure it's not the first time in this process.
Yes. Like Obamacare and exchanges.
I'm not getting upset about this agreement, because it is meaningless. China and Indian have joined the party, unlike Kyoto, but they will cheat because, well, why not?
Instead of billions on high speed rail and ethanol and whatever, how about advanced research and development of small, cost effective, pre-fab nuclear reactors? Win-win.
Kerry is surprised that a right was pulled from a penumbra. It's not what he would have selected. He should have been careful with his disseminations. Now he shall be obligated without his consent. Well, it was his choice to engage in conference with untrustworthy partners in order to enjoy a momentary bump.
How can someone who does not understand the difference between "shall" and "should" be hired by the Washington Post to write about the agreement?
He can still manipulate regs via EPA, no? You know...in the spirit f this "mandate".
And so they will; they will indeed.
When Kerry gives up his yacht and his wife's multiple houses, I'll think there is a crisis over carbon footprints. Until then, I want EXACTLY the same possessions he has, please and thank you.
The administration wants a treaty that requires nothing from Congress, however, the agreement will be used to extract money from the US, but it will be done via the US court system, and the direct payers will be US mining and manufacturing companies.
Does anybody have any evidence that John Kerry is NOT a blithering idiot?
I am asking for a friend.
Should expresses the speaker's authority but not his confidence.
Ann Althouse said...But in saying "We cannot do this," he revealed something quite un-tiny.
Yes, well spotted, Professor--if the principal drafters understand the essentially false/insincere nature of the "binding" agreement I'm not sure why anyone else should treat it with much respect.
To think we pay taxes to be represented by morons who participate in such imbecility. How much simpler and cheaper it would have been for the US to tell the other signatories politely to fuck off, we are not joining you in this idiocy. I hope the next president will simply state the US is not bound in anyway to this accord and that will be that.
I'm surprised the "shall" wasn't "shalt"
I enjoyed this passage:
The U.S. delegation also agreed to an aspirational goal of keeping future temperature increases below 1.5 degrees Celsius (1.8 degrees Fahrenheit), a far tougher challenge than the original target of 2 degrees C (3.6 degrees F).
Nothing is as aspiring as an aspirational goal. But why stop at 1.5 degrees? I would have voted for keeping future temperature increases below zero. Sooner or later we'd win.
1.5 degrees Celsius x 9/5 = 2.7 degrees Fahrenheit.
Quality reporting as usual from these folks.
Birkel said...
Does anybody have any evidence that John Kerry is NOT a blithering idiot?
I am asking for a friend.
He married up.
Blogger Fritz said...
Birkel said...
Does anybody have any evidence that John Kerry is NOT a blithering idiot?
I am asking for a friend.
He married up.
That just shows that Theresa had bad taste. Unless he's hung like a pony. Then that would explain a lot.
Igv said,
"Instead of billions on high speed rail and ethanol and whatever, how about advanced research and development of small, cost effective, pre-fab nuclear reactors? Win-win."
Simple. Insufficient room for graft. That other shit? Crony capitalist gold mines.
Unless he's hung like a pony.
That's the rumor, he may have started it. But he has twice married extremely wealthy women. He is basically the world's most successful gigolo.
You know he started going by the initials JFK (John Forbes Kerry) for a little while, maybe he's trying to bring back Camelot:
It's true! It's true! The crown has made it clear.
The climate must be perfect all the year.
A law was made a distant moon ago here:
July and August cannot be too hot.
And there's a legal limit to the snow here
In Camelot.
He want's to be King Arthur to Obama's King Canute, who ordered the tides to stop, but still got his feet wet.
"Someone had changed a single word..."
Haven't they heard of revision control? They should know precisely who changed that word. Without revision control, how do they know that is the only word changed?
In the end, the joke's on us. The TPP has a clause that makes binding anything agreed upon in this round of the Paris climate talks. So Congress doesn't have to approve for it to become law.
Ah, the old "erased at the discretion of the conference leader." Deal fixed! Does the conference leader retain that power? Conference leading sounds like a good job, maybe like being a FIFA or Olympics commissioner. We'll have to get revisions to all of the contracts and M&A treatises and textbooks, now that John Kerry and his "team" have invented a new way to do agreements. John Kerry notices someone changed a key if not the key word, states that it is unacceptable, and then his "team" comes up with that for the "fix?" If so, they are not fit to negotiate a deal to buy a table, let alone make agreements to be imposed on us all to take on this foe currently known as carbon dioxide (pf&sbm). pf&sbm = plant food and sedimentary bedrock maker.
That word change and its detection was not a proofing issue, it was a trickster negotiator issue. Of course the trickster may have been Kerry so that he could get this story published.
The agreement is meaningless for now, luckily, so there's that. This is also not as bad as Eric Holder's self-serving and lame interpretation of "Notwithstanding any other provision of law" to mean that other provisions of law are not captured.
"Shall" is a usage of English lawyers. "Must" is preferred in the US to express mandatory requirements. The FAA says, 'Nearly every jurisdiction has held that the word "shall" is confusing because it can also mean "may, will or must." Legal reference books like the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure no longer use the word "shall." Even the Supreme Court ruled that when the word "shall" appears in statutes, it means "may."' https://www.faa.gov/about/initiatives/plain_language/articles/mandatory/
That noted, many people outside of the US think that "shall" means the same thing as "will" or "must".
Post a Comment