It is now widely understood that Copenhagen’s COP-15 no longer promises to deliver a signable Kyoto II. Instead it will be, at best, “Bali II” — a distinction meaningful only to the Kyoto geeks among you. In short, that means it is hard to imagine that anything rising to the level of Senate ratification will likely emerge, even if President Obama does not choose to simply skirt that Senate obstacle with a Congressional-Executive Agreement, as discussed in this space on several occasions.

Yes, yes, I’ve already been told by a Danish diplomat that whatever can be agreed upon will be hailed as “Bretton Woods” in scope and tenor — the institutions weren’t created there, but the roadmap agreed upon will (one more roadmap to . . . the next such meeting). As always, millions will be spent on pushing the chimerical “historic climate pact reached!” headlines which accompany most such events — or at least when the politics demands them.

In fact, it is pretty well understood to be a failure no matter how you look at it. No new countries are now willing to agree to Kyoto-style rationing, as all along was expected of them in any such successor pact. And they’re demanding that $140 billion per year or so just from the U.S. in order to give us a pass. So the only “solution” on the table is a staggering wealth transfer from the rich countries to the poor in the name of the climate bogeyman said rich countries created at their own short-sighted peril. That’s not politically tenable.

So, what to do? How do cheerleading and politically activist media-types style the failure of the Obama administration to rope us into Kyoto II? Wasn’t it supposed to be an easy glide once the main reason for the lack of international climate harmony — George W. Bush — was out of the way? Hmm. Yes. That’s the problem with dishonest narratives. Sometimes it’s hard to keep the lies straight.

Blaming developing countries for refusing to commit to job-killing emissions reductions would be too much in keeping with Bush’s excuse (and that of the unanimous Senate instruction of 1997, which reporters are now suddenly recalling) for why the U.S. wouldn’t ratify anything resembling Kyoto. And they can’t ratify a Bush position on this, goodness no. And waste eight long years?! Besides, these four years are all about showing the world we’ve rid the place of that tyrant!

No, I think the media are turning the prism juuuust enough to say that what they’re saying is something different than ratifying Bush’s stance.

Obviously, politics now demand a different story line, as the White House is no longer fair game no matter how unfair the ignorant “refused to sign”/”withdrew from” Kyoto I hysterics were.

Sure, the Kyotophile media could just blame the Senate, but it’s at least two years too soon to try that, what with friendlies running the joint.

So here’s what I think. This week we have already seen a Washington Post story explaining how, you know, what the poor really need is more energy (and don’t miss Myron Ebell’s take on it here). Today, Time magazine discovered the same thing. Huh.

Might we be seeing the story line that failure in Copenhagen is justifiably explained by the fact that those countries really shouldn’t agree to any such promises?

The only problems with this scenario are that it excuses our lack of privation (unless we pay that staggering tab china, India et al. have presented), and that it lacks a bad guy. And I just don’t think the global warming media can deal with not having a bad guy.

Well, they’ve invented them before. Regardless, watching how they spin this one out is worth watching.