Have you paused to wonder why we are no longer being bombarded with “global warming” messages, but somehow it has become “climate change” that we need to be afraid of?
Could it be because “global warming” is not really a problem? Definitely. But the point of this post isn’t to get into the Global Warming “debate”. Mother Nature has already put the topic to bed for anyone who has been paying attention to the weather for the last several years. Rather, this post is to examine why the message changed from “global warming” to “climate change”.
If you do believe that “global warming”, or “climate change”, is a serious problem demanding radical corrective measures, please bother to research the issue from both sides. There are many sources of information and data that contradict the “orthodox” views on “climate change”; for a starting point you can refer to http://www.wnho.net/global_warming.htm. You will at least come to the conclusion that there is no emergency.
So why “climate change”?
Czechoslovakian President Vaclav Klaus, in a BBC interview that focused on “global warming”, said that environmentalism is “a new collectivistic anti-individualistic ideology which puts something else at the top of priorities, not human freedom and democracy… It is another, for me, another very dangerous ideology, endangering human freedom” (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TEQmJBINYj4).
Vaclav Klaus knows very well from first hand experience how to recognize ideologies and movements that endanger freedom, having lived under a communist regime in Czechoslovakia up until its overthrow in 1989. His assertion that the global warming movement endangers freedom should be taken seriously. But you don’t have to listen to Klaus to come to the same conclusion. You can do what he is doing and pay attention to what governments are doing to “save us” from “climate change”.
Someone who pays very close attention to what the government does is Tom DeWeese, founder of the American Policy Center. Mr. DeWeese writes:
In spite of all the evidence to the contrary, in spite of literally thousands of real scientists joining the ranks of the skeptics, Gore just told Congress that the Global Warming crisis is even worse than predicted. Obama, our newly crowned king said, “The science is settled.” Why do they continue to promote a lie? Because global warming never was about protecting the environment. It’s nothing more than the excuse to enforce global governance on the planet by creating a new global economy based on the environment rather than on goods and services.
In short, it’s all about wealth redistribution. Your wealth into a green rat hole.
During the Cold War, communists tried to get us to surrender our liberties and way of life for the wisdom of Karl Marx. Americans didn’t buy it. But now, they have taken the same clap trap and wrapped it all in a nice green blanket, scaring us with horror stories about the human destruction of the environment – and so we are now throwing our liberties on the bon fire like a good old fashioned book burning — all in the name of protecting the planet.It sounds so friendly. So meaningful. So urgent. But, the devastation to our liberty and way of life is the same as if Lenin ordered it.
Interesting. Radical, even. Is there substance to what Mr. DeWeese is saying? Is there something else behind the “climate change” hysteria? Could it be an insidious conspiracy to “enforce global governance” and create a “new global economy” for the purpose of “wealth redistribution”.
The Copenhagen Agreement provides a definitive answer to those questions: Yes.
If you don’t know what the Copenhagen Agreement is you are certainly not alone. That is by design. The Copenhagen Agreement is a draft “global climate-change treaty” that the United Nations “Framework Convention on Climate Change” (UNFCCC) hopes to finalize and ratify in December. It is being kept very quiet because it will give tremendous power to an unelected government body, impose far-reaching draconian restrictions on carbon emissions, and force a transfer of a significant amount of wealth and resources from “developed” nations (the United States, Great Britain, etc.) to “developing” nations. “The aim is to give a new as yet unnamed U.N. body the power to directly intervene in the financial, economic, tax and environmental affairs of all the nations that sign the Copenhagen treaty” (The Wall Street Journal).
British politician, author, inventor and former advisor to Margaret Thatcher, Lord Christopher Monckton warns us in no uncertain terms about the dangers of the Copenhagen Agreement:
At Copenhagen, this December, weeks away, a treaty will be signed — your president will sign it, most of the third world countries will sign it because they think they’re going to get money out of it, most of the left wing regimes around the world like the European Union will rubber stamp it. Virtually nobody won’t sign it. I have read that treaty and what it says is this: That a world government is going to be created. The word government actually appears as the first of three purposes of the new entity. The second purpose is the transfer of wealth from the countries of the west to third world countries, in satisfaction of what is called coyly a “climate debt”, because we’ve been burning CO2 and they haven’t and we’ve been screwing up the climate. We haven’t been screwing up the climate but that’s the line. And the third purpose of this new entity, this government, is enforcement. How many of you think that the word election or democracy or vote or ballot occurs anywhere in the 200 pages of that treaty? Quite right, it doesn’t appear once. So at last, the communists who piled out of the Berlin wall and into the environmental movement and took over Greenpeace so that my friends who founded it left within a year because they’d captured it. Now the apotheosis is at hand. They are about to impose a communist world government on the world. You have a president who has very strong sympathies with that point of view. He’s going to sign. He’ll sign anything. He’s a nobel peace laureate. Of course he’ll sign. And the trouble is this: If that treaty is signed, your constitution says that it takes precedence over your constitution. And you can’t resign from that treaty unless you get the agreement of all the other states parties. And because you’ll be the biggest paying country, they’re not going to let you out. So, thank you America, you were the beacon of freedom for the world. It is a privilege merely to stand on this soil of freedom while it is still free. But in the next few weeks, unless you stop it, your president will sign your freedom, your democracy, and your prosperity away forever, and neither you nor any subsequent government you may elect will have any power whatsoever to take it back again. That is how serious it is. I have read the treaty. I have seen the stuff about government and climate debt and enforcement. They are going to do this to you whether you like it or no. But I think it is here, here in your great nation which I so love and I so admire. It is here that perhaps, at this eleventh hour, at the 59th minute and 59th second, you will rise up and you will stop your president from signing that dreadful treaty. That purposeless treaty, for there is no problem with the climate, and even if there were, economically speaking, there’s nothing we can do about it. So I end by saying to you the words that Winston Churchill addressed to your president in the darkest hour before the dawn of freedom in the second world war. He quoted from your great poet Longfellow: Sail on, oh Ship of State. Sail on, oh Union strong and great. Humanity with all its fears, with all the hopes of future years, is hanging breathless on thy fate.
— http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PMe5dOgbu40
Read on below if you want to get a taste of the actual draft text of the treaty. And if you agree with Lord Monckton, you should do something about it. You should contact your elected representatives and urge them to oppose the treaty. Here is a link you can use to contact them online: http://www.globalclimatescam.com/?page_id=560
We’ve posted a copy of the draft agreement here: http://truthisreason.com/?attachment_id=14; As of the date of this post, the document was also available here: http://unfccc.int/resource/docs/2009/awglca7/eng/inf02.pdf
Here are some excerpts from the draft agreement. Bold emphasis has been added to the UN’s text in order to highlight key points. Our comments are italicized in brackets.
|
Adaptation to the adverse effects of climate change is an urgent global problem that requires long-term and coordinated actions, based on solidarity, and a shared responsibility for facilitating and mobilizing support and action on adaptation. [The entire premise of the treaty is based on the false claim that climate change — what used to be called global warming but can’t be called that any more because it is demonstrably not true — is “an urgent global problem”. Climate change is no more a problem today than it was 100 years ago, or 5,000 years ago for that matter, and there is virtually nothing that man can do to affect climate change. Don’t take our word for it: Do your own research.] The shared vision for long-term cooperative action recognizes the strong link between adaptation and mitigation as well as the cross-cutting role played by financing, technology transfer and capacity building. Failure to implement ambitious and immediate mitigation actions by developed countries will increase the need for adaptation in developing countries and therefore for financial support. At the same time, increased financial support and technology transfer to developing countries will help these countries in their implementation of NAMAs, reducing the risk of crossing tipping points that could result in abrupt climate change. [The UN wants to implement “ambitious and immediate” “financial support and technology transfer to developing countries” to avoid crossing some nonsense “abrupt climate change” “tipping points”.] [Put another way: The treaty seeks to use control ecomonics — as if any person or group of persons is wise enough to effectively control a complex economy — to artificially alter and manipulate “global economic growth patterns”, to force lifestyle changes, to indoctrinate “the youth” with its political ideologies, and at the same time address the “need for gender equity”. Not that “gender equity” is necessarily a bad thing (depends on what is meant), but what does it have to do with climate change? Nothing. But it is an example of how those this treaty grants power to will use the power to further their own political agendas.] [Again, developed nations that sign the treaty will be obligated to transfer financial resources AND technology to developing countries. In other words, our tax dollars will be handed over to other nations. And doubtless in most cases most of the money will end up fattening the ruling elite in the developing countries, rather than serve the supposed intended purpose.] Developing country Parties over riding priority remains sustainable economic growth and poverty eradication, an effort which has been complicated by the effects of climate change. [Huh? What effects of climate change? How could “sustainable economic growth” and “poverty eradication” possibly be “complicated by the effects of climate change” when there have been no negative effects of climate change attributable to mankind?] In order to fulfill this shared vision, Parties have agreed to establish a coherent, cohesive and integrated system of financial and technology transfer mechanisms under the Convention and a follow up/compliance mechanism. These institutions are robust and effective. [In order to be “robust and effective”, the institution responsible for “follow up/compliance” will have to be granted pretty significant power. More on that below…] [It also] [takes] [taking] into account environmental, evolving national circumstances, including social and economic [and political] conditions [, the specific needs and special circumstances of developing countries, precautionary approaches, the right to development and sustainable economic growth] [and other relevant factors]]] [as reflected in the Convention], and ensuring that global crises, such as the financial crisis, should not constitute an obstacle to the provision of financial and technical assistance to developing countries in accordance with the Convention. [In other words, too bad if a developed nation falls on hard times due to a financial crisis of some sort. The money will still have to flow to the developing countries. Welfare on a grand scale.] In the light of a shared vision based on historic responsibility/emissions, debt/per-capita emissions convergence/an equitable allocation of a shared atmospheric resource, [and in accordance with the provisions of the Convention,] Annex I Parties shall provide new and additional financial resources to meet the full costs incurred by developing country Parties [in complying with their obligations under Article 12, paragraph 1, and the full incremental costs of implementing measures that are covered by Article 4, paragraph 1] [, particularly the most vulnerable countries including LDCs and SIDs, of meeting their commitments, towards the full, effective and sustained implementation of the Convention]. They shall also provide new and additional funding to cover the full incremental costs incurred by developing countries in implementing nationally appropriate mitigation actions undertaken in the context of sustainable development. Annex I Parties commit the amount of [ ] billion [Euros/dollars] in order to enable mitigation and adaptation actions in developing countries for the period now up to 2012. The [Conference of the] Parties shall periodically review the adequacy of levels of financing required to support mitigation and adaptation actions in developing countries, including a comprehensive review not later than 2011. [Developed nations (Annex I Parties) will be expected to foot the entire bill, “the full costs”, which will amount to billions each. Elsewhere in the draft minimum early stage numbers of at least USD 67 billion annually are mentioned. Once again, that will be our hard-earned tax dollars to fund what will ultimately become a boondoggle for beauracrats and elitists.] The new agreed post-2012 institutional arrangement and legal framework to be established for the implementation, monitoring, reporting and verification of the global cooperative action for mitigation, adaptation, technology and financing, should be set under the Convention. It should include a financial mechanism and a facilitative mechanism drawn up to facilitate the design, adoption and carrying out of public policies, as the prevailing instrument, to which the market rules and related dynamics should be subordinate, in order to assure the full, effective and sustained implementation of the Convention. [The UN wants to establish a “legal framework” to implement, monitor, report and verify “global cooperative action”, with a “facilitative mechanism” to force the “adoption and carrying out of public policies”. Frightening. So long, elected legislatures. Hello, lowest-common-denominator world government.] [Providing financial support shall be additional to developed countries’ ODA targets.] [Mandatory contributions from developed country Parties and other developed Parties included in Annex II should form the core revenue stream for meeting the cost of adaptation in conjunction with additional sources including share of proceeds from flexible mechanisms.] [This finance should come from the payment of the adaptation debt by developed country Parties and be based principally on public-sector funding, while other alternative sources could be considered.] [[Sources of new and additional financial support for adaptation] [Financial resources of the “Convention Adaptation Fund”] [may] [shall] include: [Mandatory contributions? Huh? Can a contribution be mandatory? No. Not only will the treaty exact “mandatory contributions” from developed nations, but it will also assess taxes and fines on all sorts of industry. Who will pay the bill? We will, as tax payers and consumers. Our hard-earned money will be further taxed and annexed to supposedly combat a non-problem ambiguously labeled “climate change”, but really to establish a world government, to feed a fat beauracracy, and to enable inept and corrupt governments of developing nations to continue to perpetrate fraud and usurp power.] [Activities [shall be part of the National Adaptation Plans and] should include:… Creating legal and regulatory conditions that facilitate adaptation, including disaster resilience (for example, building codes, land-use planning, risk-sharing tools, and strengthening policy coherence among sectors);… Clarifying and securing land tenure and planning – i.e. allocation, ownership and control over lands and resources; Strengthening environmental and natural resources management and enforcement.] [In short, the treaty seeks the establishment of an environmental police state, with power not only to dictate land use, but to regulate “allocation, ownership and control of lands and resources”.] [We will be funding even more climate change propaganda. What better way to solidify their power than by perpetuating the lies on which they are basing it? And “climate change” is such a broad “problem” that it will be easy for them to manufacture justification for their continued existence and authority.] [Of course, “enhancing the capacity” (i.e. providing funding) will only benefit “resource groups” that buy into the assumptions on which the treaty is based, thereby perpetuating the “climate change” myth, as well as other political ideologies. In other words, our money will be taken from us and used to promote ideas and purposes that we don’t necessarily agree with.] Engaging science and policy communities in dialogues to promote effective decision making related to environment and development issues. [Oh, really? Since when has the UN and related parties welcomed a dialogue on environmental issues? They don’t, and they won’t, because the truth is at odds with their agenda.] Given their historical responsibility and development level and based on the principle of equality, developed country Parties shall have deeper cuts in their GHG emissions so as to ensure adequate spaces for developing countries to achieve their goals of substantive development and eradication of poverty. [What “principle of equality”? Is there such a thing as a “principle of equality”? What does that mean? That everything should be forced to be equal, and that making things equal is somehow a good thing? Taking from the haves and giving to the have-nots is not a recipe for long-term prosperity. It will disincentivize those who have, and create a welfare mentality among the have-nots. Getting something for nothing is rarely a long-term benefit for the recipient, and is blatant robbery from those who have earned what they have.] [Signing this treaty will legally bind developed nations — so much for the legislative power of our elected representatives — to meet arbitrary “emmission reduction commitments”, while developing nations won’t be bound to any sort of compliance. That’ll make it even easier for the developing nations’ ruling elite to siphon away funding.] Ambitious and early mitigation commitments are critical for adaptation. Poor mitigation commitments and actions will impose a higher demand on adaptation measures and will require additional funding. Parties acknowledge that enhanced action on mitigation is urgently required to ensure the stabilization of greenhouse gas concentrations in the atmosphere at a level that would minimize negative impacts on the most vulnerable States, particularly small island developing States and the least developed countries. Parties acknowledge that global efforts must be ambitious, must reflect the urgency of our collective endeavours and must be consistent with a mitigation pathway that safeguards the most vulnerable from the adverse impacts of climate change. [The sky is falling! The sky is falling! Quick! Let’s all agree to sell our souls to the devil before it is too late! Right, before they lose their momentum and it becomes even more obvious that there is no man-made global warming, and that climate change always has been, and always will be, and is no reason to legislate away freedom. The emergency measures strategy is one commonly taken by people who don’t have a leg to stand on, but want to take quick advantage of an opportunity to get their way.] [The monitoring and assessment of compliance [shall][should]] [lead to the application of penalties for non-compliance, including increased future reduction commitments by an amount calculated as a multiple of the shortfall in implementation and financial contributions as penalties or fines and paid into an enhanced financial mechanism monetary penalties to be paid to the Adaptation Fund)] [taking into account experiences gained from relevant international agreements].][Option 2 [utilize procedures and mechanisms to address cases of non-compliance determined by the principle that they should be designed to facilitate compliance in the future. ]] [Option 3 [lead to the application of penalties for non-compliance, including [increased future reduction commitments by an amount calculated as a multiple of the shortfall in implementation [and] [as well as ] financial contributions as penalties [10 times to the market price of one tonne of carbon and ] [or] fines [and] paid into [an enhanced] [the Convention] financial mechanism][monetary penalties to be paid to the Adaptation Fund][a mechanism that establishes clear and direct consequences for noncompliance].]]] [The bottom line: The unelected officials in charge of this new governing body will have power to impose financial penalties, as well as to “utilize procedures and mechanisms…designed to facilitate compliance in the future.” That is very broad power.] Nationally appropriate mitigation actions shall not include technologies that have adverse impacts on the environment, including, inter alia, nuclear power and large-scale hydro-electric power.] [If we sign this treaty we are basically signing away nuclear power — perhaps the most environmentally friendly power available — as an option.] The Conference of the Parties serving as the meeting of the Parties to this Protocol shall, at its first session, approve appropriate and effective procedures and mechanisms to determine and to address cases of non-compliance with the provisions of this Protocol, including through the development of an indicative list of consequences, taking into account the cause, type, degree and frequency of noncompliance. Any procedures and mechanisms under this Article entailing binding consequences shall be adopted by means of an amendment to this Protocol. [After the treaty is signed the beauracrats in charge of it will then determine “binding consequences” for non-compliance.] Use to the full flexibilities contained in the Trade Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPS) including Compulsory licensing to access intellectual property protected technologies… Limited/reduced time patents on climate friendly technologies. Countries vulnerable to the adverse effects of climate change] should be exempted from patent protection of climate-related technologies for adaptation and mitigation, as required for capacity building and development needs. [These measures will tend to suppress innovation, because they increase investment risk by introducing greater uncertainty and by artificially limiting profit possibilities.] An assessed contribution from developed country Parties based on the principles of equity, common but differentiated responsibilities, respective capabilities, GDP, GDP per capita, the polluter pays principle historical responsibility of Annex I Parties, historical climate debt, including adaptation debt [These are extremely subjective “assessment” criteria for determining the amount of “contribution” that should be exacted from a developed country. All these criteria would combine to assess a huge amount from the United States. “Historical climate debt”? Can we subtract all the CO2 emissions that resulted from the production of machinery and weaponry that helped preserve freedom in World War I and II, and in Korea, Vietnam, the Cold War and elsewhere? Can we deduct from our assessment the billions of dollars of aid that already flows from the United States to developing nations? Can we account for the historical “prosperity” debt that the world owes to the United States of America for doing exceedingly more than any other nation to provide the freedom, technology and innovation to help hundreds of millions of people throughout the world rise above abject poverty?] |
Not only are the purposes and powers of the sought after bureacracy disturbing, but so is its size and complexity. The agreement will seek to establish all sorts of executive and administrative committees, boards and panels, such as:
- COP (Conference of Parties)
- Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change
- Board of the Multilateral Fund on Climate Change
- The Technical Panel on Observation Systems and Information Management (TPOSIM)
- The Technical Panel on REDD plus (TPREDD plus)
- Technical Panels on Research and Development (TPRDA and TPRDM)
- Technical Panels on Capacity-building (TPCBA and TPCBM)
- Technical Panels on Transfer of Technologies (TPTTA and TPTTM)
- Technical Panel on Market Mechanisms (TPMM)
- Expert Group on Technology Transfer (EGTT)
- Executive Body on Finance and Technology for Mitigation
- Subsidiary Body for Scientific and Technological Advice
- Executive Body on Finance and Technology for Adaptation (EBFTA)
- MRV Panel
- Executive Body on Finance
- Executive Body on Technology
- Executive Council
These and dozens like them will cost money, and, without a doubt, the size and cost of the bureaucracy will rapidly balloon, as will waste, mismanagement and corruption (the UN has a pretty awful track record in this regard). All of this will be paid for by billions of dollars in “assessed contributions” from developed nations (the United States providing the lion’s share if it signs the treaty), who will also be spending untold billions of dollars on their own internal bureacracies and programs in order to attempt to satisfy the requirements of the treaty. Meanwhile, markets and industries will sputter and flounder as they are artificially managed and controlled by government fiat in order to achieve treaty-mandated objectives. And our liberty and freedoms will take a backseat to environmental policies and taxes instituted by a governing body that we didn’t elect.
So, why “climate change”? Because a fabricated emergency is better than no emergency when it comes to attempting to justify radical changes that undermine freedom and force resource redistribution.