This story (“‘Comprenhensive’ [sic] climate treaty ruled out for Copenhagen”), which acknowledges something predicted in this space on several occasions, is interesting not just for the welcome affirmation of my prognosticating skills. It is part of a pattern.

For two years, we heard nothing but of course the world must agree to a binding, enforceable Kyoto II in Copenhagen. Of course. Except when it won’t. Now, the indispensible, earth-saving, non-negotiable item suddenly . . . well, we can take it or leave it.

The Executive Secretary of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) Yvo De Boer ruled out the possibility that a “comprehensive” international climate treaty will be ratified at Copenhagen in December.De Boer, speaking at a press conference during the ongoing Summer Davos in Dalian, Northeast China said it is “impossible to craft and draft” a detailed climate treaty in “the time that remains” to address climate change.
“That is not possible. But it is also not necessary,” he said, “I think what Copenhagen has to achieve is a basic political understanding” on the essential issues of climate change.

Sounds familiar. Ah, yes. Now, flash back to the years and years of insistence by the UNFCCC and its constituent branches and members — beginning in 1997 and ending at about the same time this round of insistence began — that of course the developing world will be required to sign on to binding cuts in Round II.

That line of argument was engaged in order to rope in those 35 industrial titans covered in Round I of that deal. And it was abandoned without announcement but instead a similar devil-may-care insouciance. Of course they need not sign on this time.

This second round of now-abandoned of course-ness was utilized to force some semblance of urgency upon a world fully aware of the abject failure of Round I. But the rest of the world isn’t buying — or at least their political classes don’t think they can pull it over on their electorates. And I think what convinced them not to bother was China, India, et al. — those erstwhile treaty partners — demanding an enormous price ($140 billion per year from the U.S. alone) just to continue to their free-ride as passive parties to Round II.

So, what is the lesson to take from this? First, stop listening to (frankly, even reporting on) such of course insistences from the UNFCCC and all Kyoto-related institutions. The entire enterprise has become an an abjectly dishonest racket.

Second, we can always count on someone’s greed queering the deal. Domestically, look at how rent-seeking industry fought over the loot for six years, delaying — and, in my opinion, effectively killing — their cap-and-trade golden goose. Now, China and India have played this role on the international level.

That’s not to say that the assumption underlying that gambit — the world, recognizing that Obama is desperate to claim some “historic climate pact reached” to show how he really isn’t George W. Bush — was irrational. And that’s not to say that U.S. gestures in support of an international climate agreement won’t cost us anything. At at this point — as the joke goes — they’ve all admitted the basic premise, and we’re just haggling over the price.