The UN Climate Change Summit in Durban has outlined the mandate to “respect the rights of Mother Earth” by paying a “climate debt,” a slush fund to bankroll the activities of a one-world government. I bet you did not know that Mother Earth had rights.
Lord Christopher Monckton said that the treaty “calls for the west to achieve 50 percent CO2 emissions reduction within the next eight years, a feat that would completely bankrupt the global economy and spark a new great depression, as well as a more than 100 percent reduction by 2050, which presumably could only be accomplished by killing billions of humans to prevent them from exhaling carbon dioxide.”
Monckton writes, “So, no motor cars, no coal-fired or gas-fired power stations, no aircraft, no trains, back to the Stone Age, but without even the right to light a carbon-emitting fire in your caves.”
The treaty calls for a two degree Celsius drop in global temperatures, which Monckton says, “would kill hundreds of millions and herald a new ice age.” So much reduction in CO2 concentration would “kill plant life and trees on the planet because they need levels of CO2 above 210 ppmv (parts per million by volume) to survive.”
The plan calls to disband military forces as they contribute to climate change. The UN will become the world army and police of the globe. An “International Climate Court of Justice” will enforce the treaty. This will require paying a “climate debt” and reparations to third world nations if carbon cuts are not drastic. Developed nations are thus responsible and guilty for the weather patterns and they must be punished.
Monckton also writes that the money will be collected by UN bureaucrats and distributed according to their judgment. “The UN exists for only one purpose: to get more money. That and that alone, is the reason why it takes such an interest in climate change. The Convention’s all-powerful secretariat (one world government) has no plans for democratic elections.”
The UN has designed new slush funds to enrich its coffers, a tax on shipping and aviation fuel, a worldwide cap and trade, and a new “Green Climate Fund.”
According to Venezuela’s envoy, Claudia Salerno, the Green Climate Fund is “designed to help poor nations tackle global warming and nudge them towards a new global effort to fight climate change.”
I have a huge problem with this statement for two reasons. First, global warming has been debunked as a scientific hoax, and secondly, it is arrogant for bureaucrats to claim that humans can manage the climate or fight changes in climate. Over the past century, only two inches in water level rise has been measured, so it is disingenuous to say that many areas would be underwater without such draconian measures undertaken at the helm of the United Nations.
The “legally-binding treaty” is likely to pass this time, says Lord Monckton. The discussion centered on major polluters like China and India. The U.S. wants all polluters to be held to the same legal standard on emission cuts, while China and India do not wish their fast growing economies to be encumbered by strict guidelines.
Lord Monckton was not allowed at the conference initially, he had to “parachute in.” He represented the Committee for Constructive Tomorrow, which provides “real solutions to dealing with environmental problems that third world nations are experiencing rather than the Marxist party line of environmentalist eco-fascists who want to punish the West alone and its developed nations.”
According to Lord Monckton, the eco-lunatics sent in goons in certain regions of Uganda, killed off the population and then declared the areas “carbon safe zones.” “These people are certifiably insane and are waging a sustained, malevolent attack on the West like termite ants.” They are going to send in troops to shut down entire industries for non-compliance with their UN Treaty.
Lord Monckton suggested that people should read for themselves the document at climatedepot.com at the Committee for Constructive Tomorrow website and at cfact.org. More than 1,000 international scientists disagree over “man-made global warming” claims.
United Nations “scientists” warn that “time is running out to close the gap between current pledges on cutting greenhouse gases and avoiding a catastrophic rise in average global temperatures.”
UN released reports claim that “delays on a global agreement to cut greenhouse gas emissions will make it harder to keep the average temperature rise to within 2 Celsius over the next century.” This Chicken Little, the Sky is Falling warning is so ridiculous, pretending that the UN has the power to stop the eruption of a volcano, a hurricane, a tsunami, or control nature with its demanding third world dictatorships at the helm.
The treaty is based on deliberately erroneous “scientific data” provided by Al Gore and other environmentalist alarmists who claim, “A warming planet has already intensified droughts and floods, increased crop failures, and sea levels could rise to levels that would submerge several small island nations, who are holding out for more ambitious targets in emission cuts.”
The fact that solar flares have intensified, the fact that the data suggest, based on temperature readings in the last century, that we are in a global cooling period, are not variables in this international climate calamity travesty.
If you think that our federal government has not already bought into the climate change debacle, you would be wrong.
The Government Accountability Office (GAO) reported in October 2009 that it is “hard for federal, state, and local officials to predict the impact of climate change, and thus hard to justify the current costs of adaptation efforts for potentially less certain future benefits.”
Based on opinion surveys of 176 people, with only 61 percent returning the questionnaire, the following issues were identified in reference to a “federal climate service:”
The October 2009 report on climate change adaptation recommended the “development of a strategic plan to guide the nation’s efforts to adapt to a changing climate, including the mechanisms to increase the capacity of federal, state, and local agencies to incorporate information about current and potential climate change impacts into government decision making.”
On November 16, 2011, GAO released a document, “Climate Change Adaptation,” during the testimony before the Subcommittee on Oceans, Atmosphere, Fisheries, and Coast Guard, the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation, and the U.S. Senate.
Based on global-scale models, and we know how reliably scientific those are, GAO suggested that data from such models must be downscaled to a geographic area relevant to decision makers.
GAO testified that “climate change is a complex, crosscutting issue that poses risks to many existing environmental and economic systems, including agriculture, infrastructure, ecosystems, and human health.”
The globe has gone through periods of mild to severe climate changes throughout history. Climate change is not something we suddenly discovered and it was never proven scientifically to be the result of human activity.
We do have ample evidence that the University of East Anglia had hidden or destroyed data that had proven the global warming hypothesis to be a hoax. Most recently, 5,000 more e-mails were released as evidence that data was tampered with by the academics pushing the Marxist environmental agenda.
“The data does not matter. We are not basing our recommendations on the data. We’re basing them on the climate models,” said Professor Chris Folland from the Hadley Centre for Climate Prediction and Research. Dr. David Frame, a climate modeler at Oxford University stated, “The models are convenient fictions that provide something very useful.”
“No matter if the science of global warming is all phony…climate change provides the greatest opportunity to bring about justice and equality in the world,” said Christine Stewart, former Canadian Minister of the Environment.
“We’ve got to ride this global warming issue. Even if the theory of global warming is wrong, we will be doing the right thing in terms of economic and environmental policy,” said Timothy Wirth, President of the United Nations Foundation.
“A 2009 assessment by the United States Global Change Research Program (USGCRP) found that climate-related changes—such as rising temperatures and sea level—will combine with pollution, population growth, urbanization, and other social, economic, and environmental stresses to create larger impacts than from any of these factors alone.” Thirteen U.S. federal agencies are subscribers to USGCRP.
“According to the National Academies, USGCRP, and others, greenhouse gases already in the atmosphere will continue altering the climate system into the future, regardless of emissions control efforts. Therefore, adaptation —defined as adjustments to natural or human systems in response to actual or expected climate change—is an important part of the response to climate change.”
As with UN Agenda 21, it seems that the fix is on Climate Change and no amount of dissension from the rest of the population or scientific clarity will dissuade the minority policy makers. One world environmental control by the United Nations through its Secretariat is a bad idea for the developed world; it is a bad idea for the United States, and a bad idea for the sovereignty of many developed nations. It is not just bad policy; it is extortion, plain and simple.
Listen to Dr. Paugh on Butler on Business, every Wednesday to Thursday at 10:49 AM EST
Dr. Ileana Johnson Paugh, Romanian Conservative is a freelance writer, author, radio commentator, and speaker. Her books, “Echoes of Communism”, “Liberty on Life Support” and “U.N. Agenda 21: Environmental Piracy,” “Communism 2.0: 25 Years Later” are available at Amazon in paperback and Kindle.
Her commentaries reflect American Exceptionalism, the economy, immigration, and education.Visit her website, ileanajohnson.comCommenting Policy
Pursuant to Title 17 U.S.C. 107, other copyrighted work is provided for educational purposes, research, critical comment, or debate without profit or payment. If you wish to use copyrighted material from this site for your own purposes beyond the 'fair use' exception, you must obtain permission from the copyright owner. Views are those of authors and not necessarily those of Canada Free Press. Content is Copyright 1997-2017 the individual authors. Site Copyright 1997-2017 Canada Free Press.Com Privacy Statement