Where's the Beef?

A part of its continuing effort to make our lives less convenient and pleasant President Biden represented by “climate czar” John Kerry has signed a global agreement with 12 other countries to place farmers under new restrictions to reduce emissions of methane gas, all in the name of fighting "climate change." This would effectively reduce cattle and other agricultural production, raise the cost of food, and deprive farmers (already beset with supply chain disruptions, drought and increased loan interest rates) and the communities which service them of a substantial portion of their living and lead to starvation for many.

Perhaps this is the unspoken solution of Kerry’s belief that the world has too many people in it. “U.S. special climate envoy John Kerry told AFP that the world's population will not be tenable in 2050, when it is projected to hit nearly 10 billion, but refrained from asking Americans to give up steaks.” But aside from dancing around the issue in his interview, saying he didn’t mean people should give up hamburgers and steaks, he just signed on to an agreement which for most Americans would lead to just that result.

The Secretary for Hot Air.

As the reaction in the Netherlands shows, such a move is so unpopular that Congress would never agree to it and it has a very dubious basis in science no matter how often the climate alarmists and their grifting supporters claim otherwise.

[W]e could not find a domestic livestock fingerprint, neither in the geographical methane distribution nor in the historical evolution of the atmospheric methane concentration. Consequently, in science, politics, and the media, the climate impact of anthropogenic [greenhouse gas] emissions has been systematically overstated. Livestock-born GHG emissions have mostly been interpreted isolated from their ecosystemic context, ignoring their negligible significance within the global balance. There is no scientific evidence, whatsoever, that domestic livestock could represent a risk for the Earth’s climate.

In fact, cattle raising improves the environment because proper grazing management “helps restore soil health and creates a sink for atmospheric carbon and nitrogen."

When forage is digested in the rumen–or the fermentation vat of the ruminant digestive system–methane is produced. The misconception is cattle emit methane mostly through flatulence. However, most methane is actually expelled through belching. As part of nature’s carbon cycle, plants require carbon dioxide to complete the process of photosynthesis. Over time, the methane cattle expel in the atmosphere breaks down into carbon dioxide and water, which can be used by plants. Plants store carbon in their growth above ground (the grazeable forage) and below ground in their often-extensive root system. This builds soil quality over time and helps keep the land productive.

This jiggering of data is endemic in climate propaganda. Even manmade CO2 is much too low to cause global warming.

These results negate claims that the increase since 1800 has been dominated by the increase of the anthropogenic fossil component. We determined that in 2018, atmospheric anthropogenic fossil CO₂ represented 23 percent of the total emissions since 1750 with the remaining 77 percent in the exchange reservoirs. Our results show that the percentage of the total CO₂ due to the use of fossil fuels from 1750 to 2018 increased from 0 percent in 1750 to 12 percent in 2018, much too low to be the cause of global warming.

The administration has signed on to this pact as an Executive Agreement, not a treaty, but unlike most such agreements I have found, this one is not a trade or defense agreement, but rather a commitment to interfere with domestic production.

The country's in the very best of hands.

Twenty days after the signing of this agreement it must be presented to the Department of State’s Office of the Legal Advisor who is Richard C. Visek. He is responsible for deciding whether this should be classified as a treaty and must make his report to Congress no later than 60 days after the entry into force of the agreement.

I’ve no idea how he will rule. It seems to me this agreement makes no provision for compensating those affected and, unlike the other nations that have signed on, we have a Fifth Amendment to our written Constitution which that no person shall be “deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.”

If the Legal Advisor determines it is unconstitutional, that should be the end of this. If he decides it is a treaty two-thirds of the Senate must concur for it to be effective.

In recent decades, presidents have frequently entered the United States into international agreements without the advice and consent of the Senate. These are called "executive agreements." Though not brought before the Senate for approval, executive agreements are still binding on the parties under international law.

If it is merely an executive agreement, and not a treaty, however, a successor administration cannot be bound by it. Another good reason to make sure Biden does not have a second term and John Kerry can retire to his yacht.