Angry in the Great White North

There is an interesting development out of the United States with regards to global warming.  It would appear that some global warming alarmists a no longer interested in a legally binding global treaty for emission cuts:

Washington's climate policy analysts from environmental groups are quietly abandoning -- at least temporarily -- the once sacrosanct notion that nations must agree to legally binding emission targets.

Several experts with ties to the Obama administration either personally or through their organizations said in recent interviews they don't view a new global treaty as likely or even desirable by the time countries meet in December for the next U.N. climate summit in Cancun, Mexico.

You might be forgiven for cheering.  When I first read this, I thought the global warming alarmists had given up, and would for the first time in a decade, finally shut up.

I was wrong.  The alarmists are still talking:

Action is the new buzzword, it seems. The climate conference in Copenhagen last year ended in chaos -- but still with promises from the world's major global warming polluters to slash emissions. Policy leaders now say they want negotiators to focus on achieving goals, not sparring over ideologically fraught legal language.

OK, so we'll talk.  But nothing legally binding, right?  Well, that's where I get confused:

"What we actually need is countries saying they'll take action, countries putting in place domestically enforceable sets of actions and a set of mechanisms to hold countries accountable," said Jake Schmidt, international climate policy director for the Natural Resources Defense Council.

"The one thing I think we don't need is a bunch of commitments that nobody meets," he said.

Domestically enforceable sets of actions?  "Enforceable" sounds sort of like "binding", at least to me.  And what if a country doesn't succeed with their "sets of actions"?  Then they'll be subject to a "set of mechanisms" that will make them "accountable".

Damn, that sure sounds like legally binding treaty to me. 

The one thing that is deliberately missing is "commitments", says Schmidt.

But then this is just Kyoto by another means.  OK, so Canada won't commit to 6% reduction below 1990 levels, or whatever.  Instead, Canada will commit to cutting automobile fuel consumption by 20% -- that's an action.   Or how about increasing the amount of wind-generated electricity in the grid by 50%?  That's another action.

These numbers would have been selected because some greenie thinks this would result in reaching Kyoto numbers.  Or maybe exceed them.

I could have a legally binding treaty that outlines goals and leaves the actions to me to work out.  Or I could have a legally binding treaty that demands the actions, without predicting what goals would be reached, or revealing the goals that only hinted at.

Six of one.  Half-a-dozen of the other.

Either way, I have a legally binding treaty that "holds countries accountable".

What possible reason is there to believe that this sort of treaty would be any easier to negotiate that the other kind?

And would anyone be so stupid as to be fooled by this?  Who would be stupid enough to think this is somehow a change?

Other than Barack Obama's people, I mean.