Reposted from comments on the new Urban Future thread here
Originally from the blog Fightin’ Words
[picapp src=”b/2/3/7/IOC_2016_Olympic_c1a5.jpg?adImageId=5771484&imageId=6683524″ width=”500″ height=”361″ /]
Above: Obama’s last visit to Copenhagen didn’t work out so well for the USA.
The Minnesota Free Market Institute hosted an event at Bethel University in St. Paul on Wednesday evening. Keynote speaker Lord Christopher Monckton, former science adviser to British Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher, gave a scathing and lengthy presentation, complete with detailed charts, graphs, facts, and figures which culminated in the utter decimation of both the pop culture concept of global warming and the credible threat of any significant anthropomorphic climate change.
A detailed summary of Monckton’s presentation will be available here once compiled. However, a segment of his remarks justify immediate publication. If credible, the concern Monckton speaks to may well prove the single most important issue facing the American nation, bigger than health care, bigger than cap and trade, and worth every citizen’s focused attention.
Here were Monckton’s closing remarks, as dictated from my audio recording:
At [the 2009 United Nations Climate Change Conference in] 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 regime from the European Union will rubber stamp it. Virtually nobody won’t sign it.
I 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 satisfication of what is called, coyly, “climate debt” – because we’ve been burning CO2 and they haven’t. We’ve been screwing up the climate and they haven’t. 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, who took over Greenpeace so that my friends who funded it left within a year, because [the communists] captured it – Now the apotheosis as 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 it. He’ll sign anything. He’s a Nobel Peace Prize [winner]; of course he’ll sign it.
[laughter]
And the trouble is this; if that treaty is signed, if your Constitution says that it takes precedence over your Constitution (sic), and you can’t resign from that treaty unless you get agreement from all the other state parties – And because you’ll be the biggest paying country, they’re not going to let you out of it.
So, thank you, America. You were the beacon of freedom to 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 humanity away forever. And neither you nor any subsequent government you may elect will have any power whatsoever to take it back. That is how serious it is. I’ve read the treaty. I’ve seen this stuff about [world] government and climate debt and enforcement. They are going to do this to you whether you like it or not.
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 fifty-ninth minute and fifty-ninth 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 climate and, even if there were, an economic treaty does nothing to [help] 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, O Ship of State!
Sail on, O Union, strong and great!
Humanity with all its fears,
With all the hopes of future years,
Is hanging breathless on thy fate!
Lord Monckton received a standing ovation and took a series of questions from members of the audience. Among those questions were these relevent to the forthcoming Copenhagen treaty:
Question: The current administration and the Democratic majority in Congress has shown little regard for the will of the people. They’re trying to pass a serious government agenda, and serious taxation and burdens on future generations. And there seems to be little to stop them. How do you propose we stop Obama from doing this, because I see no way to stop him from signing anything in Copenhagen. I believe that’s his agenda and he’ll do it.
I don’t minimize the difficulty. But on this subject – I don’t really do politics, because it’s not right. In the end, your politics is for you. The correct procedure is for you to get onto your representatives, both in the US Senate where the bill has yet to go through (you can try and stop that) and in [the House], and get them to demand their right of audience (which they all have) with the president and tell him about this treaty. There are many very powerful people in this room, wealthy people, influential people. Get onto the media, tell them about this treaty. If they go to www.wattsupwiththat.com, they will find (if they look carefully enough) a copy of that treaty, because I arranged for it to be posted there not so long ago. Let them read it, and let the press tell the people that their democracy is about to be taken away for no good purpose, at least [with] no scientific basis [in reference to climate change]. Tell the press to say this. Tell the press to say that, even if there is a problem [with climate change], you don’t want your democracy taken away. It really is as simple as that.
[Update: this section on a question from an attendee to the presentation has been removed from this WUWT article because even though Monckton clearly refuted it, it is turning into a debate over presidential eligibility that I don’t want at WUWT. If you want to see it and discuss it. Do it at the original blog entry Fightin’ Words – Anthony]
Regardless of whether global warming is taking place or caused to any degree by human activity, we do not want a global government empowered to tax Americans without elected representation or anything analogous to constitutional protections. The Founding Fathers would roll over in their graves if they knew their progeny allowed a foreign power such authority, effectively undoing their every effort in an act of Anti-American Revolution. If that is our imminent course, we need to put all else on hold and focus on stopping it. If American sovereignty is ceded, all other debate is irrelevant.
Edited to add @ 8:31 am:
Skimming through the treaty, I came across verification of Monckton’s assessment of the new entity’s purpose:
38. The scheme for the new institutional arrangement under the Convention will be based on three basic pillars: government; facilitative mechanism; and financial mechanism, and the basic organization of which will include the following:
World Government (heading added)
a) The government will be ruled by the COP with the support of a new subsidiary body on adaptation, and of an Executive Board responsible for the management of the new funds and the related facilitative processes and bodies. The current Convention secretariat will operate as such, as appropriate.
To Redistribute Wealth (heading added)
b) The Convention’s financial mechanism will include a multilateral climate change fund including five windows: (a) an Adaptation window, (b) a Compensation window, to address loss and damage from climate change impacts [read: the “climate debt” Monckton refers to], including insurance, rehabilitation and compensatory components, © a Technology window; (d) a Mitigation window; and (e) a REDD window, to support a multi-phases process for positive forest incentives relating to REDD actions.
With Enforcement Authority (heading added)
c) The Convention’s facilitative mechanism will include: (a) work programmes for adaptation and mitigation; (b) a long-term REDD process; © a short-term technology action plan; (d) an expert group on adaptation established by the subsidiary body on adaptation, and expert groups on mitigation, technologies and on monitoring, reporting and verification; and (e) an international registry for the monitoring, reporting and verification of compliance of emission reduction commitments, and the transfer of technical and financial resources from developed countries to developing countries. The secretariat will provide technical and administrative support, including a new centre for information exchange [read; enforcement].
UPDATE: Thanks to WUWT reader “Michael” who post the URL on another unrelated thread, we now have video of Lord Monckton’s presentation:
Sponsored IT training links:
Join 1z0-053 online course to pass 642-812 exam plus get free link for 642-973 exam material.
Regardless of what you think the guarantees of your Constitution are, these agreements are going on behind closed doors. The public face is the Copenhagen Treaty as with all the others, including Kyoto, but the power brokers and financiers already have it sewn up.
It would be difficult to argue otherwise that one of the most influential documents in the global warming agenda is the Stern Review. Stern is a former World Bank Chief Economist and became head of the UK Government Economic Service. The Stern Review was commissioned by Gordon Brown with major input from the Tyndall Centre and Phil Jones’ Climate Research Centre.
It came out conveniently at the time of the US mid-term elections and was designed to embarass Bush. In May last year, Lord Stern published a set of proposals for a global deal on climate change at the London School of Economics and Political Science.
http://www2.lse.ac.uk/ERD/pressAndInformationOffice/newsAndEvents/archives/2008/globaldeal.aspx
There is a link to the document, called Key Elements of a Global Deal. Read it, as a matter of urgency. It is the basis for the things that Monckton describes.
Stern mentions some of the contributors to his plan: It has several contributors, with participants from HSBC, IdeaCarbon, Judge Business School at Cambridge University, Lehman Brothers and McKinsey and Company and has been inspired by a number of discussions with international policymakers, financiers and academics.
For an interesting aricle on the Lehman Brothers and Global Warming, check here: Did global warming send Lehman Brothers broke?
http://www.ipa.org.au/publications/1438/did-global-warming-send-lehman-brothers-broke
“There’s much debate about the causes of the global economic crisis. According to the popular media some of the chief suspects include ‘greed’, ‘obscene executive salaries’, and ‘predatory lenders’. But maybe the origins of the crisis lie somewhere else entirely. Maybe a long lunch with Nicholas Stern is to blame.
For Lehman Brothers, global warming was a means of making money. The firm promoted trading in ‘carbon credits’ via an emissions trading scheme. In the wake of his firm’s bankruptcy Fuld was summoned to the Congress and asked to explain how it was that he appeared to have collected paychecks of US $480 million over the last decade. What Fuld could have been asked, but wasn’t, was how much extra he would have made if the United States Government had followed Lehman Brothers’s urgings and established an emissions trading scheme.
And the connection to Nicholas Stern and the long lunch? He’s acknowledged in the report as ‘through the course of a long lunch’ having provided a ‘brilliant overview of the principal climate change issues as he had come to see them.'”
There is mention of a company called IdeaCarbon. They have a web site, http://www.ideacarbon.com/strategic/index.html.
They are marketing a carbon trading consultancy called CARBONfirst described here:
IDEAcarbon’s premier strategic advice service has been created to give senior decision makers TAILORED INTELLIGENCE, (my emph) about key developments in climate change policy and the evolution of the carbon markets.
Here is a list of consultants:
The CARBONfirst network includes:
Lord Stern, Advisor, IDEAGlobal and author of the Stern Review of the Economics of Climate Change
Ian Johnson, Chairman of IDEAcarbon, a special advisor to the UNFCCC (parent body of IPCC)
Christiana Figueres, leading UN climate negotiator and member of the IDEAcarbon Ratings Committee
Nitin Desai, Advisor IDEAcarbon, former Under Secretary General for Economic and Social Affairs in the United Nations
Paul Ezikiel, Advisor IDEAcarbon and recently MD At Credit Suisse where he ran the Global Carbon Trading business.
MD of IdeaCarbon for 2007/8 was Dr Samuel Fankhauser. He is a Principal Research Fellow at the Grantham Research Institute on Climate Change at the London School of Economics. Lord Stern is Head of the LSE Grantham Centre.
Fankhauser is also the Chief Economist at an outfit called Globe International. I bet you never heard of them before:
http://www.globeinternational.org/content.php?id=1:0:0:0:0
“GLOBE facilitates high level negotiated policy positions from leading legislators from across the G8+5 parliaments and from regional dialogues, which are informed by business leaders and key international experts.
Internationally, GLOBE is focussed on progressive leadership from G8 leaders and the leaders of the major emerging economies as well as formal negotiations within the United Nations. GLOBE has a particular interest in the role that International Financial Institutions can play.
GLOBE shadows the formal G8 negotiations and allows legislators to work together outside the formal international negotiations. Without the burden of formal governmental negotiating positions, legislators have the freedom to push the boundaries of what can be politically achieved.
Importantly, GLOBE’s discussions can be translated into policies and practical solutions through legislation both at the national, regional and international level. Legislators also have a critical role to play in holding their own governments to account for the commitments that are made during international negotiations.”
Fankhauser has worked on climate change issues at the Global Environment Facility and the World Bank and served on the 1995, 2001 and 2007 assessments of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.
Bet you never heard of the Global Environment Facility either did you?
http://www.gefweb.org/interior_right.aspx?id=50
The Global Environment Facility (GEF) is a global partnership among 178 countries, international institutions, non-governmental organizations (NGOs), and the private sector to address global environmental issues while supporting national sustainable development initiatives.
The GEF is also the designated financial mechanism for a number of multilateral environmental agreements (MEAs) or conventions; as such the GEF assists countries in meeting their obligations under the conventions that they have signed and ratified.
Dr Fankhauser is also a member of the UK Climate Change Committee, which is empowered to tell the government what carbon reduction targets they should strive for. http://www.thenewspaper.com/news/29/2927.asp
The Chairman of the UK Climate Change Committee is Lord Adair Turner and he introduced Lord Stern’s proposals at the LSE, also attended by Rajendra Pachauri, (IPCC Chair), Robert Zoellick, (World Bank President) and Tony Blair, a major promoter of carbon control. Turner, who spent 13 years at McKinsey, is also Chairman of the UK Financial Services Agency, in charge of regulating the Banks.
In 2006 he joined forces with Al Gore:http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/2947509/CO2-study-to-be-launched-today.html
CO2 study to be launched today By Tom Stevenson (Filed: 18/09/2006)
The increasing importance of climate change to investors will come
under the spotlight today when Lord Adair Turner and former
vice-president Al Gore launch the most comprehensive analysis yet of
the contribution to global warming of the world’s biggest companies.
The Carbon Disclosure Project, which is backed by 225 institutional
investors speaking for $31,000bn in funds under management, is the
fourth of its kind since 2002 and provides the clearest picture so
far of the annual CO2 emissions of companies such as Ford, Google,
Exxon Mobil and BP, and their strategies for reducing emissions.
On January 29th this year, Gore addressed the Senate;
http://www.climatechangefraud.com/political-exasperations/3231-gore-lectures-senate-on-global-warming-again
That evening Lord Turner attended a cocktail party hosted by Gore.
In February he had breakfast with George Soros. Soros has just announced he he will invest $1 billion in clean-energy technology and create an organization to advise policy makers on environmental issues, according to a Bloomberg report. http://www.mysmartrend.com/nw/14586.
“Soros announced the investment at a meeting on climate change sponsored by Project Syndicate in Copenhagen yesterday. In an e-mailed message George Soros said, “I want to apply rather stringent criteria to the investments. They should be profitable but should also actually make a contribution to solving the problem.”
He did not provide any details on the type or scope of investments that he may make and he will also establish the Climate Policy Initiative, which will be based in San Francisco, where he will donate $10 million a year for 10 years. ”
Oh, did I mention that the London School of Economics is a partner in the Global Governance grouping at http://www.glogov.org, along with Potsdam, Tyndall etc.
The Grantham Institute which Lord Stern heads was set up in Feb 2007 by US billionaire Jeremy Grantham: http://www.innovations-report.com/html/reports/environment_sciences/report-79626.html
Mr. Grantham will sit on the management board of the Grantham Institute for Climate Change, along with Imperial’s Rector Sir Richard Sykes who will chair the Board; Carter Roberts, President and CEO of World Wildlife Fund; and Fred Krupp, President of Environmental Defense.
At the same time, Grantham set up a sister institute at Imperial College, London. A common advisory board will oversee the work of both Institutes.
The Grantham’s total investment of over £24 million, made through the Grantham Foundation for the Protection of the Environment, is one of the largest private donations to climate change research.
Professor Sir Brian Hoskins, CBE, FRS is the Director of the Grantham Institute for Climate Change at Imperial College, London
“Committed to ensuring that climate research is used to advise governments and influence policy, Sir Brian was a member of the Royal Commission that first proposed a 60% target for reduction of UK carbon dioxide emissions by 2050. He also acted as a scientific advisor to the Stern Review, credited with pushing the issue of climate change to the centre of the political agenda in the UK, and was a member of the IPCC assessment team recently awarded the Nobel Prize.”
Most of the members of the UK Climate Change Committee are based at or associated with Imperial College and LSE and many of them with the World Bank and IPCC. Their powers of control over UK emissions targets will soon be enshrined in law.
So UK Climate Policy is now directly influenced by WWF International and Environmental Defense and cross-linked to IPCC. This is only the tip of the iceberg if I may use the phrase.
You should take Lord Monckton very seriously indeed.
Welcome USA to the wonderful world of the EU
where yes means yes, and no means yes as well
Ian (UKIP)
Hmmmm-he didn’t say anything about the black helicopters or alien abductions. Doesn’t lend credence to the skeptic position.
Could you please tell me if the UK is also going to sign this infernal thing and if so, what recourse do we poor bast***s have on this side of the pond?
I cannot believe that you would reprint this garbage – even as a quote.
[ SNIP, sorry, this section on a question from an attendee to the presentation has been removed from this WUWT article because even though Monckton clearly refuted it, it is turning into a debate over presidential eligibility that I don’t want at WUWT. If you want to see it and discuss it. Do it at the original blog entry Fightin’ Words – Anthony]
If you wish to tailspin into the “Birther” movement that is, certainly, your prerogative, but you will lose all legitimacy in the larger political and scientific community. One of the essential problems about political polarization in this country is the inability of the extreme right to accept the legitimate electoral results of the American people. If such sentiment is represented here – then there really is no possibility of discourse.
Prais Kim Obama Il, errr I mean King Jong Il.
Sing it!
Obama aint ceding nothing.
But we’re ceding everything.
“When the people fear their government, there is tyranny; when the government fears the people, there is liberty.”
Thomas Jefferson
Don’t Tread on Me!
I don’t have confidence in the US Government-I’m part Cherokee.However this is not going to go down with out one heck of fight. Here in the US we have a curious breed of Democratic Pol called a “Blue Dog.”They are fiscally conservative and usually represent conservative areas.Nominally the South and Mid West,they are, for the most part squeamish when it comes to a lot of this stuff as they are worried about their seats.
The Cap and Tax bill isn’t even on the table,in the senate-yet and may not make it before Copenhagen.Even in the Blue side of Oregon Pete DeFazio isn’t drinking that kool-aid.He’s a Warmist but somewhat luke warm, he sees this as the next big bubble to burst.Our Senatoral contingent is hopeless,but they too are looking at the polls. and polling is that people are really,really mad.latch on to your Congresscritter and Senator.You might not think you can do any good- but sometimes a Jack Russell can get the best of the Rottweiler it takes a grip on the right spot…
Scientific Technological Elite
‘The prospect of domination of the nation’s scholars by Federal
employment, project allocations, and the power of money is ever
present and is gravely to be regarded.
Yet, in holding scientific research and discovery in respect, as we
should, we must also be alert to the equal and opposite danger that
public policy could itself become the captive of a
scientifictechnological elite.’ -Dwight D. Eisenhower
scientifictechnological elite
The light of freedom fades and dims,
Our rights grow cold.
Barbarians plot their morbid whims,
The huns take hold.
Their cup with vile transgression brims,
Our suffrage sold.
Science saneness slumps and dims
We suffer now.
Sorcerous science soars and swims,
As warmers bow.
Unsacred science sings sweet hymns
To their cash cow.
The proud, who govern, have they won?
Is science now their hired gun?
Will they sink our kids in debt
As climate scams their lies abet?
Markey Waxman spun their web
The truths revealed they caused to ebb.
They lied about the heavy cost
Of opportunities now lost.
To fight the dread greenhouse effect
The taxman will the fees collect.
The sucking singularity
Will inhale our liberty.
The trillions that will now be spent
Can never make a tiny dent
In climate, whether cold or hot.
But votes it will secure a lot.
The votes are there to spread the wealth
And then to snare the country’s health.
Shall we join the clean third world
With our socialistic flag unfurled?
Will the people benefit?
Who will science then permit
To go into earth’s paradise?
What will be the entry price?
If you’re alive will that suffice
Or must you die to qualify?
The Senate now our only way
To stop this underhanded play.
And if we fail to stop it there
It then becomes a state affair.
If congress, senate and the state
Let stand this document of hate.
What sanctuary might we find
Where freedom’s values are enshrined?
And if this madness fills the globe
Shall we live the lows of Job?
And with persistence, sans dispair,
Can we, in time, this earth repair?
The time is short, to right this wrong
Don’t let them make us ‘move along’.
With guile and strength we all must mend
This tattered, filthy wretched end
So that our offspring may ascend.
The House is gearing up for the reconciliation process on health care. This means the need for 60 votes to pass is reduced to 50.
http://www.kaiserhealthnews.org/Daily-Reports/2009/October/15/Reconciliation-Afternoon.aspx
Could the same be applied to a climate change treaty?
oakwood (04:20:28) :
“This is scaremongering in the style of Gore, and in the style of those who like to scare the UK about European Union membership. When the key point of AGW sceptics is that belief and actions should be based on sound evidence and common sense rather than emotion or faith, this approach is not helpful.”
Sorry to have to disagree with you old chap on your EU comment, but I for one, & I am not alone by a long way, don’t want to be forced into part of anything that is unelected, undemocratic, unaccountable, & unsackable, run by a bunch of provincial state appointed Commissioners (unelected) who are little more than failed socialist politicans for the most part, who “decide” what laws are good for us & what are not, without due process or referral to the people, because that is precisely what it is. It buys its way through by placing large somes of money on the table until it gets what it wants. 1,000 years of history written off in less than a generation. The lives that have been scarificed making & keeping Britain Great were for nothing, & the number of times the “thin red line” has either stood alone, or rallied those wavering allies, against some little jumped up European corporal (admittedly the Kaiser was of noble blood) who wanted to conquer the world. No I’m afraid to say that our political classes have sold the people out for their own 30 pieces of silver. Britain will be forced against its will, without democratic process, fully into the EU, as part of the left’s new homogenised sterile federal USE, that is the (dis)United States of Europe, presumably as a counter to the might of the USA (fat chance, none of us speak the same language, we all have our own peculiarities & customs, & see things differently, which is great, vive la difference). So stick to global warming. Monkton is absolutely right, & why shouldn’t he fight fire with fire, just as that overweight, pompous, silver tongued, slick talking, arrogant, multi-vehicled, multi-homed, multi-millionaire, Albert Gore. At least Monkton gets the science accurate & makes sense.
Apologies for the ad homs on dear Mr Gore, he is such an honest & genuine sweetypie, & butter wouldn’t melt in his mouth!
Oh & Richard III (05:26:13), that delightful gem extract you posted explains everything nicely, impoverish the “west”, enrich the “east”! That’s all this is about, yar-boo sucks politics of the marxist socialists.
The road to hell is paved with good intentions.
So true that quote.
Good or bad intentions=same result the majority of the time.
America has always stood up for itself.Other countries could not dictate what Americans could or could not do,that has changed,now developed countries are dictated to by a handful of people.
Want me to cut emissions by making my people suffer the equivalent of a recession?I can do that,where do I sign?While suffering the recession,you want me to pledge billions to governments who keep their people in poverty?I can do that,it’s our fault that these people are suffering,all the aid over the years has not been enough,we should have given more,I will offer penance for my people,please accept,and tell me what more I can do.I am always eager and willing to hear your wisdom.
Strange times we live in.Who would have predicted after the war that one day The President of The United States of America would offer his bended knee to a group of people in Europe,or anywhere else in the world.
Mike86 (06:37:28) :
No, and they need that 2/3rd in the Senate for a treaty. The heathcare bill is not a treaty.Also all this will do is kick it to congress.We aren’t done in by a long shot…
John Egan (06:26:39) :
I cannot believe that you would reprint this garbage – even as a quote. …
If you wish to tailspin into the “Birther” movement that is, certainly, your prerogative, but you will lose all legitimacy in the larger political and scientific community.
Why? Shouldn’t all sides of a debate be presented, then allowed to be judged on merit?
One of the essential problems about political polarization in this country is the inability of the extreme right to accept the legitimate electoral results of the American people. If such sentiment is represented here – then there really is no possibility of discourse.
That, coming from the side that screamed that George Bush was “Selected, not elected” for eight years is hilarious.
REPLY: this section on a question from an attendee to the presentation has been removed from this WUWT article because even though Monckton clearly refuted it, it is turning into a debate over presidential eligibility that I don’t want at WUWT. If you want to see it and discuss it. Do it at the original blog entry Fightin’ Words – Anthony
I’m sure President Obama is doing what he believes is right. That doesn’t make it right — he is merely acting upon his sincere beliefs and doing what he feels is right for this country.
Let’s not forget that some evil things have been done by people doing what they believe is right. I won’t make comparisons to Hitler, Stalin, Mao or Che Guevara except to say that those people and their henchman also believed they were doing the right thing. The Nuremberg Trials convicted and hanged many people for doing what they believed was the right thing.
My point is
— Don’t subscribe evil motivations to somebody just because you disagree with them.
Collerary point
— Just because somebody is sincere in their beliefs doesn’t make them right, or their actions moral, either.
You ought to be aware that, under Article 11 of the Treaty of Paris (1783), should any of the 13 former North American colonies wish to relinquish their sovereignty, it passes to the legitimate heirs and successors of His Majesty King George III.
Nothing in that treaty even comes close to creating a “new world governement”.
Part 38 describes the government [read: governing body] of the “institutional arrangements” created to facilitate Convention related activities.
Furthermore the verbiage of section 38 is “will” as opposed to the “shalls” seen elsewhere.
Will is used to show intent, it is a non-binding statement.
This is where the US is right now, and I hope it clarifies what is happening and what is at stake for all of us:
The Obama administration is hoping to win new commitments to “fight global warming” from China and India in back-to-back summits in November, including the first Indian emissions trading scheme.
The US hopes the new commitments will revive negotiations to seal a global treaty on climate change in Copenhagen in December, by setting out what action each country will take. But such bilateral deals also risk seriously weakening any Copenhagen agreement by allowing the idea of a global limit on greenhouse gas emissions to be abandoned.
The US’s twin diplomatic push will see Barack Obama meeting China’s president Hu Jintao in Beijing on November 16-17 before playing host to India’s prime minister Manmohan Singh at the White House on November 24. The visits appear timed to provide a much-needed boost to a proposed law to reduce US emissions now before the Senate, as well as to the Copenhagen talks.
The US wants to move away from a legally binding global agreement to one where individual countries pledge cuts in their national emissions. US officials are hopeful that breakthroughs with India and China could still provide the underpinnings for at least a limited deal at Copenhagen. “China and India are both critically important to achieving our international goals on carbon reduction. We need them as part the system,” said Senator Ben Cardin, a Maryland Democrat who serves on the foreign and environment and public works committees.
Indian officials are looking to their prime minister’s visit to Washington to replicate an energy agreement signed between the US and China in July. India is preparing to unveil new measures to reduce its surging growth of so-called “greenhouse gas” emissions: its own version of a carbon cap-and-trade scheme, in which polluters can buy and sell emissions permits, and a new solar project. They will introduce a domestic cap-and-trade programme, but the cap will be on energy intensity, not carbon. This would limit how much carbon can be emitted for each unit of energy produced, which will slow the rise of emissions rather than cutting them back, and allow the Indian economy to continue to grow and alleviate poverty.
Obama’s visit to Beijing amy produce concrete commitments from China on how it would reduce its large and rapidly rising emissions. China has now overtaken America as the world’s largest single polluter, producing 23% of global “greenhouse gas” emissions. India is producing an increasing share of the world’s emissions, but it is responsible for just 5%. President Hu announced at a UN summit last month that China would reduce energy intensity by “notable margins”. “If the US and China can come to some sort of view on this then I think it will unlock a lot of things,” said Björn Stigson, president of the World Business Council for Sustainable Development. “If that is not the case than i think we will not see a very comprehensive agreement in Copenhagen.” The council represents 200 global companies with a combined value of $7 trillion, including household names such as Shell, Toyota, DuPont, adidas and PricewaterhouseCoopers.
Nonetheless, as well as unlocking the Copenhagen negotiations, new moves from India and China would help Obama at home, where his Democratic allies in the Senate face a tough struggle trying to pass a climate change bill to cut US emissions.
Democratic leaders in the US Senate will begin an intense push on October 27 to craft a final bill. But that leaves barely three full working weeks before Copenhagen to try to put that bill to a vote.
The White House – which has been focused on trying to get a healthcare bill through Congress – persuaded Democrats to hold off on opening up debate in the Senate on climate change. The first draft – an 821-page work that calls for reducing greenhouse gas emissions by 20% over 2005 levels by 2020 – has been on hold for two weeks. Now the date for a showdown has been fixed for 27 October. With Republicans predicting disastrous economic consequences from carbon taxes, and rustbelt Democrats fearing job losses in dirty industries, most commentators say there is only a slim chance of producing legislation before Copenhagen.
Big US Companies Want Their Share of the Global Warming Bonanza.
US business leaders say a deal between the US and China on climate change could make or break the negotiations at Copenhagen. The last round of negotiations in Thailand exposed the divide between the industrialised and developing worlds over responsibility for “causing global warming” and “compensation” for the poor countries, which will be hit the hardest.
“If the US and China can come to some sort of view on this, then I think it will unlock a lot of things,” said Björn Stigson, president of the World Business Council for Sustainable Development. “If that is not the case than I think we will not see a very comprehensive agreement in Copenhagen.”
What is this strange new body “The World Business Council for Sustainable Development” which most people have never heard of before?
The council represents some 200 global companies with a combined value of $7 trillion, including household names such as Shell, Toyota, DuPont, and Adidas. Other executives said the US and China could come to a larger accord through joint ventures in technology development – especially carbon capture and storage. “I have come to believe that there needs to be a ladder of co-operation between US corporations and Chinese corporations, US cities and Chinese cities,” said Jim Rogers, the CEO of Duke Energy.
Its all about politics. This isn´t an environmental problem but a political problem.
Please read:
Rote Lügen im grünen Gewand. Der kommunistische Hintergrund der Öko-Bewegung by Torsten Mann.
“Mann is convinced that the real aim of this charter is promoting world communism under the new “global sustainable community” label. He outlines a series of quotations from Gorbachev’s books and speeches that could prove he is right. In 1987, Gorbachev wrote in a book published in several languages: “In October 1917 we have definitely broken with the old world. We are approaching a new world, the communist world. We will never leave this road.” Worldwide ecological menaces, Gorbachev said in 1988, show that all nations are interdependent and that the world needs an incontestable authority and an international ecological court of justice. “We need a planetary ecological revolution of our minds”, Gorbachev said in 2007. This is also the program of the German Greens. Their aim is an “ecological revolution” that puts an end to the era of cheap energy and wealth growth. The program of the German Greens reproduces the plan of Henry Morgenthau drafted by Soviet secret agent Harry Dexter White in 1944 in order to destroy the German economy, Mann says. He refers to books from Green leaders Joschka Fischer and Jürgen Trittin who claim “sufficiency” and “global equity”, i.e. high prices for fuel and other commodities as well as “sustainable mobility” by car sharing and heavy road pricing must become the guiding principles of the economy. These propositions were integrated already in 1997 in Angela Merkel’s government program.”
In http://www.gaertner-online.de/Communist%20Greens/index.html
We can´t be naif. Its all about politics. Google the word ecosocialism, greensocialism and so on and you will understand much about this historical error.
anti-comuna
I love the smell of boiled frog in the morning…(sniff)
Mike
Karl’s got it right: “government” has to be read in context. You can’t just read a treaty which establishes an “institutional arrangement” and describes its executive as its “government” and start screaming “OMFG, One World Government! It’s the AntiChrist!” Well, you can, but you look pretty silly.
Gen. Cornwallis: Last time I checked, the Treaty of Paris had ten articles. It’s quite short, you can read it for yourself.
http://www.law.ou.edu/ushistory/paris.shtml
I may be a total idiot… but the constitution, if you read it,
All such treaties must be made under the authority of the united states, and it does not affect the U.S. constitution, solely the states constitutions are overriden. Further, if it is not within the express, delegated powers granted to the government by that constitution (and alienation of those powers was not granted) it is null and void as though it was never passed.
The government cannot make treaties affecting powers it does not possess, nor can it make treaties that cede its powers (granted and possessed by the people) to persons not under the control of those people.
Oh, and Art. 1, which is the only remaining article, provides that the British Crown has ceded all claim of every sort over the rebellious colonies. So far from Paris giving us any sort of claim over the original thirteen colonies, it establishes unequivocally and irrevocably their independence from the United Kingdom.
The ambitions of these elites is no less than the complete dis-enfranchisement of the commons.
But if the commons is only interested in baseball and footie, beer and bingo, they may well succeed.
Vincent (05:40:11) :
I doubt the EU would sign. Why would they cede to someone else the very powers they’ve spent years scheming to win for themselves?
You could not possibly be more wrong. The EU and UN are just different heads on the same monster. They’re both working together with the goal of global governance. The UN is the tool of the European socialists and has been almost from the outset.