Could the U.S. and other prosperous nations find themselves hauled before a UN climate court to account for perceived global warming sins and asked to pay restitution?
That possibility edged closer this week when the draft agreement the UN hopes to adopt in Paris this December suddenly included an "International Tribunal of Climate Justice."
This would allow developing nations to sit in judgment over the U.S. and its allies, but not subject those nations to the tribunal's jurisdiction themselves.
This is not the first time that a climate court has appeared in a UN climate text. In 2011 a nearly identical provision crept into the draft at the UN's climate summit in Durban. The provision was stripped from the text after CFACT's Climate Depot blew the whistle and Marc Morano's exclusive was picked up by the media.
This time they substituted the word "tribunal" for "court" and insist that the body will be "non-judicial."
They must have thought we wouldn't spot the thin edge of the wedge until after it was inserted.
We have three different drafts of the UN climate pact available for you to inspect at CFACT.org. The June draft is around 80 pages long and reads like a radical's wish list. The French hosts of the upcoming conference stripped the draft down to around 20 pages on June 5th, hoping to create a version that would be easier to slip through.
Over 130 developing nations led by South Africa and egged on by China and India refused to work with the short draft and this week negotiators in Bonn put out a draft nearly twice as long. That's when the "climate tribunal" was inserted.
The pre-Paris negotiations have become quite contentious. Climate radicals and developing nations are demanding severe restrictions on the developed world along with hundreds of billions of dollars in wealth redistribution.
The American negotiating position has for years been to hold the line against these demands.
The question is, how far will President Obama sell out America's interests in order to get the developing nations to sign?
Judging by the recent Iran nuclear deal, it appears that Obama and Secretary Kerry may be willing to give away the store in order to claim a foreign policy victory.
Nothing being proposed in the UN climate talks will meaningfully alter the temperature of the Earth. None of their so-called "solutions" can pass a cost-benefit analysis.
It would be a mistake to sign any version of a climate agreement currently envisioned.
We intend to dig through this process and make sure the public knows about any "International Tribunal of Climate Justice" and other equally bad provisions before President Obama signs us on to them.