Dodging another UN bullet

‘The Future We Want’ offered sustained power and money grabs in name of sustainability

Guest post by Paul Driessen and Duggan Flanakin

The Future We Want outlined a “common vision” for planetary “sustainable development,” as proclaimed by the “Organizing Partners of the Major Group of NGOs,” to guide the taxpayer-funded Rio+20 summit that ended last week in disarray and acrimony.

The activist organizations that cobbled the document together filled it with hundreds of platitudes and pseudo-solutions to global warming cataclysms, newly reconstituted as threats to resource depletion and biodiversity – and presented as standards and mandates for countries, communities and corporations.

The terms “sustainable development,” “sustainable” and “sustainability” appeared in the original text an astounding 390 times. Like “abracadabra,” these nebulous concepts were supposed to transform the world into a Garden of Eden global community, under United Nations auspices, that will use less, pollute less, and save species and planet from their worst enemy: humans.

To glean the document essence, however, readers only needed to understand two concepts: control and money – to impose the future the activists wanted.

The NGOs and UN called for “donations” from formerly rich European Union and Annex II (Kyoto Protocol) countries, at 0.7% of their gross national product per year. With the combined GNP of the contributing nations totaling about $45 trillion in 2010, the transfers would total $315 billion per year, or $3.2 trillion per decade.

President Obama and Secretary of State Clinton had previously committed the United States to provide up to $105 billion annually, based on our $15 trillion GNP (and stressed-out line of credit). With US per capita GNP pegged at $47,340 – each American family of four would pay $1,325 a year. That may seem like chump change compared to TARP, Obamacare or the Obama Stimulus. But over a decade US citizens would involuntarily shell out well over a trillion dollars to UN sustainability schemes.

The UN claims it has already received more than $500 billion in pledges from governments and companies, to reduce fossil fuel use, increase renewable energy generation in poor countries, promote bicycle use in Holland, teach sustainability in universities, conserve water – and in passing reduce global poverty. Time will tell how many pledges are worth the paper they were printed on

To oversee this unprecedented wealth transfer to UN bureaucrats and NGO activists, The Future We Want architects sought to establish “an intergovernmental process” to assess financial needs, consider the effectiveness, consistency and “synergies” of existing instruments and frameworks, evaluate additional initiatives, and prepare reports on financing strategies. This grand scheme would be implemented by an intergovernmental committee of 30 “experts,” who will be accountable to – no one, actually, except perhaps the Secretary General of the esteemed United Nations.

The document reassured readers that “aid architecture has significantly changed in the current decade,” and “fighting corruption and illicit financial flows [has become] a priority.” Diogenes would search in vain for evidence of this.

Indeed, the very idea of still more aid must be questioned. “Has more than US$1 trillion in development assistance over the last several decades made African people better off?” Zambia-born economist Dambisa Moyo asks in her book, Dead Aid. “No,” she answers emphatically. What’s needed are investment, development, less regulatory red tape, and an unleashing of entrepreneurial instincts.

Nevertheless, the UN is determined to plow ahead, claiming that somehow, this time, they will get it right. Surely, the prospect of promoting sustainability and saving the planet and its species will convert scurrilous dictators, Western politicians and their cronies into honest leaders who would never divert eco-funding to political friends, Swiss bank accounts or crony-capitalist wind and solar projects.

With Rio de Janeiro’s Christ the Redeemer statue bathed in green light (to symbolize ecology – or was it money?) and the National Religious Partnership for the Environment proselytizing throughout the event, surely miscreants would sin no more.

Meanwhile, Statement 61 (of 283!) helpfully pronounced that “urgent action on unsustainable patterns of production and consumption … remains fundamental in addressing environmental sustainability” … and each country should “consider the implementation of green economy policies in the context of sustainable development and poverty eradication.”

In essence, the Rio+20 message was, “You got a problem? The UN team has an app for that!”

From poverty eradication to food security, nutrition and “sustainable agriculture,” to water and sanitation, to energy, sustainable tourism and transport, and sustainable cities and “human settlements,” the Future We Want “framework for action and follow-up” had it covered! Of course, there were caveats.

Everyone has a right to safe, sufficient, nutritious food – but biotechnology, chemical fertilizers, insecticides and modern mechanized farming are unsustainable. Electricity is vital, but the 1.4 billion now without lights or refrigeration must be content with “green energy.” Health “is a precondition for, an outcome of, and an indicator of, all three dimensions of sustainable development,” but no DDT allowed.

The authors also promised “full and productive employment, decent work for all, and social protections” for workers, to clean up the oceans, stop illegal mining and fishing, and ensure that only “sustainable forest management” prevails (the cut-no-trees kind that produces uncontrollable wildfires).

The Future We Want also lauded women, the scientific and technological community, indigenous peoples, young people, workers, trade unions, small-scale farmers, NGOs and “civil society” – while placing new burdens on the corporations that will be expected to generate trillions to prop up these efforts.

The document also included multiple proposals for technology transfers – but deleted all references to protecting patents and intellectual property rights. It also excised language “respecting the right to freedom of association and assembly, in accordance with our obligations under international law.”

Thankfully – despite attendance by 45,000 delegates from 180 nations – the Rio+20 summit became just another gabfest, the mandates became even more ill-defined “goals” and “recommendations,” and the world dodged another Kyoto-style bullet.

The activists and bureaucrats will doubtless be back, in a couple more years, in an exotic new locale, with new plans for saving the planet from scary new catastrophes.

However, poor countries are slowly catching on that these UN events are little more than neo-colonialist, eco-imperialist schemes to control and restrict economic development – and poor families are beginning to realize they won’t get a dime from these sustainability pledges or derive any tangible benefits from the green schemes.


Paul Driessen is senior policy advisor for the Committee For A Constructive Tomorrow ( and and author of Eco-Imperialism: Green power – Black death. Duggan Flanakin is director of research and international programs for CFACT.

0 0 votes
Article Rating
Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
June 26, 2012 3:17 pm

Looks like the liberal Utopians are all very safe from ever being struck by a good idea.

Interstellar Bill
June 26, 2012 3:30 pm

For every one of those 45,000 parasites there must be thousands more similarly sucking the lifeblood out of the world’s economy. The world-averaged Big-Govt take is likely near 50%, which is what all those millions of parasites would need at, say, $1Million each annually.
What a boon they’ve received from the AGW fantasies!
Like the latest metastasis of an incurable cancer, that wretched idea will take its eternal place with all the other Bad Ideas that keep the left afloat:
Fairness, Equity, and Diversity,
topped with a noisome sauce of Social Justice,
recently buried in a thick helping of
Sustainability, Climate Change, and the Precautionary Principle.
Our intellectual landscape is littered with such Leftist poison.

Steve C
June 26, 2012 3:31 pm

” …a Garden of Eden global community … ”
Strange how it always comes across as Hell, administered by committees of Satans.

Gary Hladik
June 26, 2012 3:34 pm

“Thankfully – despite attendance by 45,000 delegates from 180 nations – the Rio+20 summit became just another gabfest, the mandates became even more ill-defined “goals” and “recommendations,” and the world dodged another Kyoto-style bullet.”
45,000 minds are a terrible thing to waste.

June 26, 2012 3:39 pm

I posted a link on the previous post on UVa explaining that the regional accreditation agencies are major enforcers for achieving the UN’s social, economic, and political visions globally without needing another treaty. And they already live off of our tax money and tuition payments. And nobody really understands they are UNESCO’s enforcers and social poison delivery system. Like ICLEI, they are part of why the UN system says it already has what it needs in place at the local levels. The Quality Assurance process to transform education globally.
And when I read the Policy Briefs from the Planet Under Pressure conference, between what’s going on in higher ed through the Bologna Process that the Lumina Foundation is bringing us and what the accreditation standards mandate for elementary and secondary plus what IGBP is up to in Sweden pushing that Future Earth Alliance, we are still rolling. The silly plans to replace economic growth with personal well-being are going into place behind our backs.
Unfortunately. Which is why it is important for all of us to be talking and sharing.

June 26, 2012 3:39 pm

“Everyone has a right to safe, sufficient, nutritious food”
What a crock. Federal government in USA can’t even get it right… Plenty of papers to prove them wrong but that never stopped the feds to come up with horrible guidelines. Just like everything else. I wish UN would disband. Totally useless these days.

June 26, 2012 3:44 pm

Who wrote ‘The Future We Want’? Karl Marx?

June 26, 2012 3:52 pm

“Everyone has a right to safe, sufficient, nutritious food ……”
Ah, no. This (and similar statements )is a common misconception. Everyone has the right to ‘hunt’ for food. Everyone has a right to ‘pursue’ all kinds of things, but that doesn’t equate to actually having a right to it. If you don’t believe me, try to take my 48 oz Slurpee and big mac away from me. 😉

June 26, 2012 3:53 pm

The Future I Want doesn’t include a massive cabal of international bureaucrats pandering to dictators and trying to bleed everyone else dry just so they can get their Power And Control fetish on.

June 26, 2012 4:01 pm

“45,000 minds are a terrible thing to waste.”
“What a waste for these 45,000 to lose their minds.
Or not to have a mind is being very wasteful. How true that is.”

June 26, 2012 4:01 pm

It’s good that we didn’t get another Kyoto-style dictat, and the UN is an expensive folly. But I like the idea of someone thinking differently, outside the box and weirdly. So long as we are cautious about listening too hard, it’s the way forward.
Just because they are wrong on CAGW, I dont write them off totally.
I blame my stoopid government for signing up to these treaties, not the stoopid UN

June 26, 2012 4:04 pm

Man in search of a new religion, seeking to explain the mysterious universe and his place amongst its the vastness, bowed down and prayed. Oh Holy Sustainer, sustain us so that we be sustained.
And the Holy Sustainer, spoke. “Art thou not already sustained? Have I not provided thee with sustainability? Why doth thou seek what thou already hath been given?”
And man replied, “Damn! Even thy Holy Sustainer is not falling for our BS!”

June 26, 2012 4:09 pm

As I just mentioned at one of our local Aussie sites, the luxury and glam location of these climate summits may prove a blessing in the end.
While professional politicians are okay at submerging their excesses and perks, the suddenly-sexy climate lobby seem to be incapable of holding back from the trough, even under the close glare of publicity. Preaching incoherently about climate justice and CAGW is a perfect chance for beige people to take on a little brief colour. Being so thoroughly dull and herd-conscious, they would never do anything too radical at their own expense – but when it’s OPM, they just can’t control themselves.
The only thing better than the parties is the chance to play at being anything but white and middle class. To be thought just medium-cool by Kumi Naidoo, even for a second, would be all their wet dreams come true. Punish my imperialist flesh with that organic Fair trade hemp cord, Kumi – but not too hard!
That’s the good thing about Rio, Cancun etc. The world gets to look at a bunch of publicly paid, safely insured and fully superannuated bores acting rad and being sexy-as-Borat on everybody else’s dime. I say let them keep leaving jet trails to and from expensive resorts. If conscious reason fails, unconscious comedy will eventually succeed.
Yes, I truly believe comedy is on our side – and we don’t have to write, produce or direct a damn thing. Our Green Betters, impudent freeloaders and trough-swillers at heart, will do it all.

ursus augustus
June 26, 2012 4:24 pm

It all reminds me of the Occupy Movement, without any real cause, just political ambition and arrogance.

June 26, 2012 4:37 pm

Gary Hladik says June 26, 2012 at 3:34 pm:
45,000 minds are a terrible thing to waste.
🙂 45,000 x zero = zero
The true waste is manifested in both the financial and environmental largesse of Rio+20.

Robert of Ottawa
June 26, 2012 4:40 pm

Yes, but these events continue, go on and on. Yes, the BRICs and others are waking up to the scam. But the scam party is paid for by states controlled by elite socialistas, such as the UN breaucrats and really wealthy western intellectual dilletantes, who don’t pay any tax anyway.

Robert of Ottawa
June 26, 2012 4:41 pm

I love Brasil, visit it often, but never when a UN conference is being held there.

David A. Evans
June 26, 2012 4:46 pm

I’m very happy for the African people to mine coal and provide themselves with cheap and plentiful electrical power. Whilst I don’t have any evidence that there is such coal, the abundance over the rest of Earth would indicate it is likely to be there. Let them use it and help with clean coal technology, (Sulphur, and other pollutants.)
CO2 is NOT a pollutant!
I know that for a while the miners will be effectively slaves but the economy will evolve out of that. It’s how it’s always been and little chance of changing that.

June 26, 2012 5:04 pm

Steve C says: ” ” …a Garden of Eden global community … ” Strange how it always comes across as Hell, administered by committees of Satans.”
All power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely.

June 26, 2012 5:09 pm

Liberal or conservative, religious or secular Utopians are nothing more then power and control grabs by someone. I see not difference between them, all would take from and control me or you. No one group has a lock on being demigods all are equally undemocratic. They can only be trusted to do one thing that is what ever serves their interests best. Therefore remember, if you are opposed to something like Rio + 20 you must also oppose those that are most vociferous against it.

June 26, 2012 5:11 pm

This cr^p is alarming. This is the type of thing that conservatives have suddenly woken up to; we are shell-shocked by these shameful shenanigans. But we need to firm up the conservative bloc; while according to a Pew poll only 19% of Repubs believe in mann-made global warming, there appears to be stragglers, especially on some critical energy related issues. Alan Caruba here wrote today:

Americans [without being told about it] were being deprived of one of the most affordable and proven sources of electrical power, coal.
In the Senate, on June 20, a resolution to block [the MACT anti-coal act] failed. The vote was 46 ayes to 53 nays. Among the Republicans who sided with the Democrats to kill the measure were Sens. Lamar Alexander of Tennessee, Kelly Ayotte of New Hampshire, Scott Brown of Massachusetts, and the two Maine Senators…
The Utility MACT rule is so bogus, so based on illusionary computer models, so devoid of any real science that it constitutes a brazen act of criminality. It asserts that the health risks from mercury emissions is such that it is necessary to impose a rule that, by its own estimates, implementing it will cost $9.6 billion in 2016.

Amazing that Lamar Alexander and Kelly Ayotte voted for this measure. That’s perhaps the most shocking thing. Yes, we want a big tent, and we want Repubs to feel free to cross the aisle, but not here. O’s war on energy is central to what’s undermining our country, and Repubs need to stand together against O’s war. I say primary these individuals come next time. In the meantime, get on their cases for these insane and insidious votes whenever we can.

June 26, 2012 5:27 pm

Lest we forget:
“One must say clearly that we redistribute de facto the world’s wealth by climate policy. One has to free oneself from the illusion that international climate policy is environmental policy. This has almost nothing to do with environmental policy anymore.”
~ Ottmar Edenhofer, Co-Chair, UN/IPCC, WG-3

June 26, 2012 6:04 pm

Steve C says:
June 26, 2012 at 3:31 pm
” …a Garden of Eden global community … ”
Strange how it always comes across as Hell, administered by committees of Satans.

Naaahh… They are all going to Paradise. I don’t think Satan wants any part of that crew coming in and trying to run things. Eternal whining, eternal begging, eternal calls for fairness. It is certainly enough to chase Satan out of hell.

June 26, 2012 6:10 pm

What is ‘The World We Want’ actually based on?
“The significance of Agenda 21 for global development was reinforced and the necessity of its consistent global implementation highlighted at the WSSD.”
Source: Page 2, The Future We Want
So what is Agenda 21?
“Chapter 27: Strengthening the Role of Non-Governmental Organizations – Partners for Sustainable Development
Over the last decades, the importance of non-governmental organizations (NGOs) in global governance has increased tremendously. Today, the UN and its agencies have grown dependent on NGOs to implement UN resolutions and goals, in a mutually beneficial relationship.”
Source: Review of implementation of Agenda 21 and the Rio Principles
So the united NATIONS thinks that Non-Governmental-Organizations (like the UN, Greenpeace, WWF, Tides, etc) are important to Global Governance. Your vote is unimportant, only your donations to ‘Charity’ and funding of the ‘United NATIONS’.
People, you should read the UN Agenda 21 plan, it is quite an eye-opener. They really want and they really believe the UN and the NGOs should have domain over national elected governments. It is Not the United NATIONS anymore.
People that you can not vote in or out of office being able to decide what you are allowed to do.
This is real ‘Big Brother’ type stuff. They are not kidding.

michael hart
June 26, 2012 6:20 pm

“Modern energy” is another one of those weasel phrases.

June 26, 2012 6:25 pm

The UN (United Numpties) are world leaders in Antihumanism. Time to wind them up for the betterment of all mankind.

June 26, 2012 6:27 pm

This too is alarming:

“IUCN – The World Conservation Union
IUCN Environmental Law Programme Capacity Building Initiative”
“There is an agreed need to further progress the implementation of Agenda 21 but effective implementation will not occur without capacity building and effective governance. There is a need to develop and invest in a major new framework for environmental law capacity building at all levels, one that serves to forge links between existing institutions and processes and facilitates good governance for sustainable development.
To be effective, such a programme requires global coordination, regional and national delivery and effective collaboration through a partnership of leading international, regional and national organizations. “

Did you read what it says?
In case you missed it, it says “global coordination, regional and national delivery”
“global coordination”, that is the unelected UN and the unelected NGOs
“regional and national delivery”, Regional would be things line the unelected EU. National would be the bottom of the pile, the people that you could vote for.
This is an interesting organization:

“The IUCN (global) Environmental Law Centre (ELC) will facilitate co-operation, co-ordination and regional and national delivery.
IUCN’s Environmental Law Programme (ELP), established in 1958, is the world’s environmental law network. It has the ability to mobilise and co-ordinate the efforts of the best environmental lawyers and organisations from countries all over the world. The ELP includes the Commission on Environmental Law, a volunteer network of over 750 of the world’s leading environmental lawyers from 120 countries around the world. IUCN ELP has a long and successful track record of working in partnership with others to develop and deliver major capacity building projects and it is ideally placed to take the lead in the development of such a programme and related projects.
IUCN is a membership based organisation, with 79 State members, 112 government and 735 national and international NGO members (together with 42 regional and country offices, and a volunteer network of over 10,000 experts in six commissions), and can facilitate self assessment of capacity building needs from both a government and civil society perspective. “

Yea, they are serious, and have been for a long time.
Speak now or forever hold your peace.

June 26, 2012 6:37 pm

“Like “abracadabra,” these nebulous concepts were supposed to transform the world into a Garden of Eden global community, under United Nations auspices…”
Yes, put the snakes in charge of the new Garden of Eden. What could go wrong?

June 26, 2012 7:05 pm

Like finding a collasally huge footprint in a primordial mud, the question latter generations will ask when finding this drivel will be ‘….what the frick is this?????? Where did it come from???’ This is truely frightening stuff. The threat to western civilization is as clear as the first jack boots marching out of Germany. Where’s Winston Churchill when you need him!!!

June 26, 2012 7:20 pm

The outcome is evidently UNsustainability.

Robert Kral
June 26, 2012 8:00 pm
June 26, 2012 8:09 pm

Food is a need, but it is not a right. By calling food a right, the sustainability bureaucrats get to take the position of being the granters of that right. Such power authority does not belong in the hands of mere mortals.

June 26, 2012 8:09 pm

Such authority does not belong in the hands of mere mortals.

June 26, 2012 8:34 pm

i’ve posted a number of CAGW-inspired disasters in Australia in Tips&Notes in the past few days, for example the third multi-billion dollar desal plant being mothballed because cylclical rains have filled almost every dam in the country, and we’re being drenched with more rains as i type.
however, the MSM has barely reported on the latest moth-balling of the Sydney desal plant – and i’ve seen nothing on TV – and the couple of media reports that are available online don’t even make a connection between the latest moth-balling and the two previous ones in Melbourne and Gold Coast, Queensland.
the construction costs plus the ongoing maintenance costs are unbelievably massive, yet you would never know it was alarmist PREDICTIONS by the likes of palaeontologist, Tim Flannery, (our Chief Commissioner of the Australian Climate Commission) which caused this waste in the first place.
meanwhile, our Govt is employing heavy-handed tactics to prevent the public from understanding it is not only their personal electricity bills (but everything) which will increase with the introduction of an absurd carbon dioxide tax on 1st July, something the MSM has not bothered explaining properly or at all.
the corruption of the MSM boys and girls who would be out of work if they did not follow the official meme of CAGW is almost total shameful:
26 June: Age: Jessica Wright: Abbott’s carbon tax flyer exposes businesses to fines: Bradbury
A flyer sent out by Tony Abbott has potentially exposed small businesses to fines of up to $1 million each.
The Opposition Leader wrote to thousands of small business owners warning them of the impact of the carbon tax. The letter, from Mr Abbott and opposition small business spokesman Bruce Billson, is accompanied by a flyer that shop keepers – specifically butchers – have been encouraged to place in store windows…
But the Assistant Treasurer, David Bradbury, has warned that the Liberal leader has potentially exposed shop owners to fines of up to $1 million each.
Mr Bradbury hit out at Mr Abbott, saying he was improperly giving ”businesses the green light to jack up their prices” and warned that shop keepers who put up their prices without due justification were risking large fines from the ACCC of more than $1 million for each infraction…

Bob, Missoula
June 26, 2012 8:46 pm

I think the US needs to get out of the UN it is a useless organization however if they want to tax us (the US) I think they should go after a full five percent not the measly .7% they asked for. The one percent should be on the federal budget surplus not GDP.

Bob, Missoula
June 26, 2012 8:48 pm

I meant five not one in the last sentence.

June 26, 2012 8:52 pm

What we know and read of the extreme eco-socialist agenda both explicit and implied, in UN Agenda 21 must surely be a mere shadow of that which is spoken about, aspired to, and plotted toward behind closed doors.
The tragedy is that those who don’t learn from history are doomed to repeat the same mistakes. The UN ardently pursue a vision of global eco-socialist collectivism as intently as others once pursued visions of a 1000 year Reich or the proletarian utopia of Marx. Such ardent pursuit slides into political imposition, which merges seamlessly into totalitarian enforcement. Have we really to face another long, miserable, destructive orgy of violence and mayhem addressing the homogenisation of humanity by yet another version of the Ministry-of-We-Know-Best?

Reed Coray
June 26, 2012 9:30 pm

As pointed out by various WUWT blog commenters, belief/disbelief in CAGW is not a “left”/”right” issue. There are several people who have commented on this blog that they are to the left of political center and strongly disagree with CAGW. It wasn’t long, however, after I started looking into CAGW that I came to the conclusion that CAGW advocates as a group seem to have left-leaning beliefs. Put it this way. Pick at random from a crowd two people–one who says he/she is is a political conservative and one who says he/she is a political liberal. I think I’d make a lot of money if I made an even money bet that if the liberal had an opinion about CAGW that opinion would be that CAGW is reality. I’d make some, but not as much money, if I took an even money bet that if the conservative had an opinion about CAGW, his/her opinion would be that CAGW is a hoax. The recent RIO+20 conference confirms my beliefs–at least relative to liberals. I believe that with the break up of the Soviet Union, people who advocate a socialistic form of government lost their power base and started searching for an alternative. They latched onto the environment as the horse they could ride to their socialistic utopia. Because global warming was the environmental issue that got all the press and money, a significant percentage of socialistic advocates latched onto CAGW. This doesn’t make CAGW a left/right issue, but it sure makes it seem that way.

Miss Grundy
June 26, 2012 9:36 pm

“Scott Brown of Massachusetts”….I invite every Massachusetts resident to give that wimpy and ill-educated sumbitch a call or email and tell him that he is Elizabeth “Fauxcahontus” Warren Lite.
May I suggest a campaign slogan for him? Abumper sticker?
“Best of a Bad Lot”
If university education does not expand to five years, enough to require all candidates to take more basic science courses in chem , physics, math and biology (to get a B.A.), and more basic and B.S. candidates to take more liberal arts courses (history, literature, English composition, foreign languages etc —NOT GENDER AND RACE “STUDIES”.) , we will continue to be led by functional illiterates.
And if you can’t do the math to learn basic chem, physics, or math — don’t go to college!
(sez I, with a B.A. in History, a B.S. in Chemical Engineering, and a professional degree)

CRS, Dr.P.H.
June 26, 2012 9:50 pm

The fundamental definition of “sustainability” is “making omelets without breaking eggs.” I’m sorry, these folks have run face-first into the laws of entropy.
After enough years of human habitation, the ecosphere will resemble warm mud. Not much we can do about it except, well, leave.

June 26, 2012 9:57 pm

Given this post, it can’t hurt to offer up my Future We Want (Dread) logo/cover redesign again:
As noted, WUWT, CFACT, please feel free to make the image your own and use/modify at will (vector available by request). I’m biased, but I think my version is a better representation of SD than the UN’s. Keep up the pressure. COP18/Qatar is only 5 months away. They will eventually go down (I hope) but they will be kicking and screaming and screeching the whole way.

Steve Garcia
June 26, 2012 10:10 pm

…”pseudo-solutions to global warming cataclysms”…
Until solar panels and windmills become non-pseudo solutions/options for producing energy in the multi-terawatt range on a state or national scale – which in 40 years they have not even remotely accomplished – all the platitudes in the world won’t elevate them a factor in anything global.
The proof is in the pudding, and the pudding is runny in the extreme.
Only high-energy-density solutions are worth talking about, much less putting public or private money into.
Pseudo solutions are like hyped up mine stocks: Cover your wallet if you can!
Steve Garcia

June 26, 2012 11:02 pm

rio done, but we already have 700 meeting in melbourne about what? see if you can find any hint of CAGW in this Murdoch paper’s official AAP news agency article:
26 June: Herald Sun: AAP: Climate change taking hold, summit hears
National Breaking News
Queensland’s floods, Cyclone Yasi and the ongoing drought in Australia’s southwest are signs of the urgent need to adapt to climate change, a leading researcher says.
NATIONAL Climate Change Adaptation Research Facility (NCCARF) director Jean Palutikof says mankind has a lot of work to do to ensure it copes with the turbulence of a shifting climate.
“(Climate change) is insidious and essentially non-linear, and has the capacity to deliver shocks and surprises which we are currently not well protected against,” Professor Palutikof told the Climate Adaption in Action conference in Melbourne on Tuesday…
A host of national and international researchers are sharing their ideas on how individuals, businesses and governments can cope with the impacts of climate change.
CSIRO chairman Simon McKeon lamented mankind’s “love affair with fossil fuel”, saying that without it, the conference likely wouldn’t have been needed in the first place.
He also said endless debate in the media over the plausibility of climate change had hampered action.
“Change is hard enough, but when science isn’t given a fair go in the media it’s doubly hard,” he said.
Preventing food shortages and managing natural disasters are among the topics being tackled by some 700 people at the three-day conference.
Federal Climate Change Minister Greg Combet said in a brief video message that the impacts of climate change were increasingly demanding a more proactive approach to wild weather in Australia…
Indigenous Wurundjeri tribe elder, Aunty Diane Kerr, offered the simplest – and perhaps most telling – advice as she offered a traditional welcome to the land: “If you do care for the country, the country will care for you”.
The conference, jointly hosted by the CSIRO and NCCARF, continues until Thursday.
really and truly, it’s all over for our govt, media and scientific institutions.

June 26, 2012 11:07 pm

It’s time all these NGO’s, on both sides of any argument, were barred from all lobbying etc. If they have something to say, let them stand for their parliament, house etc and let the public say if they agree or disagree with their proposals

June 26, 2012 11:13 pm

——-From poverty eradication to food security, nutrition and “sustainable agriculture,” to water and sanitation, to energy, sustainable tourism and transport, ————-– but biotechnology, chemical fertilizers, insecticides and — modern mechanized farming are unsustainable.—– must be content with “green energy.”——————- also promised “full and productive employment, decent work for all,———-
Yes, women can again pull the plow and gather dung. A rickshaw and sedan chair on every street. Jobs for all. Abundant dried grass and twigs. Lights in the day time. Enviro -paradise. The occupy movement will love it!

June 27, 2012 12:15 am

Who is this “we” that they’re talking about?

June 27, 2012 12:18 am

The United States had the good sense to pull out of the League of Nations nearly 100 years back.
Let’s hope it has the good sense to pull out of the UN too, so killing it.
Either that, or we need another good old fashoined existential world war to wash out the ever-increasingly liberal BS and its purveyors from the UN system and the various NGOs (both national and international) as they are presently constituted.
It is self-evident that these organisations are aimed at undermining and ultimately destroying civilisation as we know it by whatever means – pseudo-science and enviro-mumbojumbo is just the latest vehicle.

June 27, 2012 12:27 am

To Reed Coray 9.30pm.
With respect Sir, I believe that there is little doubt where Green political philosophy lies.
In a thorough description ‘in their own words’ you will find written. Their particularly toxic hybrid of ecological Marxism drags ‘conventional Marxism’ to hitherto unplumbed depths of human subjugation :
“Many descriptions could be applied to the Greens, but none seems more accurate than Jack Mundey’s own description of “ecological Marxism”, which sums up the two core beliefs of the Greens. First, the environment or the ecology is to be placed before all else. This is spelt out in the first principle in the Greens Global Charter, to which the Australian Greens are subscribers: “We acknowledge that human beings are part of the natural world and we respect the specific values of all forms of life, including non-human species.”[34]”
“Second, the Greens are Marxist in their philosophy, and display the same totalitarian tendencies of all previous forms of Marxism as a political movement.”
‘The Greens’ Agenda, in Their Own Words’ Kevin Andrews

June 27, 2012 3:54 am

US national debt is approaching $16 trillion. See it in real time:
Foreign Assistance shows where the US is spending its money abroad. The Global Climate Change Initiative is an example from the website:

Gail Combs
June 27, 2012 4:07 am

WTF says:
June 26, 2012 at 3:44 pm
Who wrote ‘The Future We Want’? Karl Marx?
Yes with ample help from Fabian Socialist George Bernard Shaw

Under Socialism, you would not be allowed to be poor. You would be forcibly fed, clothed, lodged, taught, and employed whether you liked it or not. If it were discovered that you had not character and industry enough to be worth all this trouble, you might possibly be executed in a kindly manner; but whilst you were permitted to live, you would have to live well.”

George Bernard Shaw: The Intelligent Woman’s Guide to Socialism and Capitalism, 1928, pg. 470)

“The moment we face it frankly we are driven to the conclusion that the community has a right to put a price on the right to live in it … If people are fit to live, let them live under decent human conditions. If they are not fit to live, kill them in a decent human way. Is it any wonder that some of us are driven to prescribe the lethal chamber as the solution for the hard cases which are at present made the excuse for dragging all the other cases down to their level, and the only solution that will create a sense of full social responsibility in modern populations?”
Source: George Bernard Shaw, Prefaces (London: Constable and Co., 1934), p. 296.

These are not isolated statements made at some point in his life. These statements and many others were made over decades consistently and repetitively. Here’s another:….

“The notion that persons should be safe from extermination as long as they do not commit willful murder, or levy war against the Crown, or kidnap, or throw vitriol, is not only to limit social responsibility unnecessarily, and to privilege the large range of intolerable misconduct that lies outside them, but to divert attention from the essential justification for extermination, which is always incorrigible social incompatibility and nothing else.”

Source: George Bernard Shaw, “On the Rocks” (1933), Preface.

“We should find ourselves committed to killing a great many people whom we now leave living, and to leave living a great many people whom we at present kill. We should have to get rid of all ideas about capital punishment …
A part of eugenic politics would finally land us in an extensive use of the lethal chamber. A great many people would have to be put out of existence simply because it wastes other people’s time to look after them.”

Source: George Bernard Shaw, Lecture to the Eugenics Education Society, Reported in The Daily Express, March 4, 1910.

Nice people aren’t they? Here is the United Nations connection.

American Bioethics Advisory Commission
Galton’s suggestion that eugenics should function as a religion was ehoed by George Bernard Shaw, Bertrand Russel and others.3 A pungent assertion of the religious character of eugenics comes from Julian Huxley, the first Director-General of the United Nations Educational, Scientific, and Cultural Organization (UNESCO) and a member of the Eugenics Society: “We must face the fact that now, in this year of grace, the great majority of human beings are substandard: they are undernourished, or ill, or condemned to a ceaseless struggle for bare existence; they are imprisoned in ignorance or superstition. We must see to it that life is no longer a hell paved with unrealized opportunity. In this light, the highest and most sacred duty of man is seen as the proper utilization of the untapped resources of human beings.”
“I find myself inevitably driven to use the language of religion.” Huxley continued, “For the fact is that all this does add up to something in the nature of a religion: perhaps one might call it Evolutionary Humanism. The word ‘religion’ is often used restrictively to mean belief in gods; but I am not using it in this sense…I am using it in a broader sense, to denote an overall relation between man and his destiny, and one involving his deepest feelings, including his sense of what is sacred. In this broad sense, evolutionary humanism, it seems to me, is capable of becoming the germ of a new religion, not necessarily supplanting existing religions but supplementing them.”4
The Population Council, one of the new eugenics organizations that emerged after World War II, no longer spoke of eugenics as a religion, but launched “studies relating to the social, ethical and moral dimensions” of population studies, recognizing that these questions involved matters “of a cultural, moral and spiritual nature.”5 The new field of bioethics is a response to issues raised by eugenics.6 Bioethics is based on situation ethics, which was developed largely by Joseph Fletcher, a member of the American Eugenics Society…..
In fact, the United States government is responsible for much of global population control. In 1976, a formal definition of national security interests, NSSM 200, described the major threats to the United States….
In Africa, according to the American government in 1976 and ever since, there is a threat to American national security interests: population growth. The Agency for International Development was given the responsibility of defending America from this grave threat. NSSM 200 was classified until 1992; when it was declassified, the Information Project for Africa distributed it, ad the covert depopulation policy tucked into the American foreign aid program caused a great deal of resentment.37…..

Gail Combs
June 27, 2012 4:43 am

Andrew30 says: @ June 26, 2012 at 6:10 pm
…..Source: Page 2, The Future We Want
So what is Agenda 21?
“Chapter 27: Strengthening the Role of Non-Governmental Organizations – Partners for Sustainable Development
Over the last decades, the importance of non-governmental organizations (NGOs) in global governance has increased tremendously. Today, the UN and its agencies have grown dependent on NGOs to implement UN resolutions and goals, in a mutually beneficial relationship.”….
What is really interesting is WHO controls the NGOs? Most if not all do not have “Voting” memberships so they are actually controlled by the Foundations funding them such as Tides, the various Rockefeller foundations, Ford Foundation…

…”Very few of even the larger international NGOs are operationally democratic, in the sense that members elect officers or direct policy on particular issues,” notes Peter Spiro. “Arguably it is more often money than membership that determines influence, and money more often represents the support of centralized elites, such as major foundations, than of the grass roots.” The CGG has benefited substantially from the largesse of the MacArthur, Carnegie, and Ford Foundations….

The Rockefeller foundations for example, fund Tides, Greenpeace, Sierra Club, WWF, Friends of the Earth, David Suzuki Foundation among others link and link and link and link

“For more than a century ideological extremists at either end of the political spectrum have seized upon well-publicized incidents such as my encounter with Castro to attack the Rockefeller family for the inordinate influence they claim we wield over American political and economic institutions. Some even believe we are part of a secret cabal working against the best interests of the United States, characterizing my family and me as “internationalists” and of conspiring with others around the world to build a more integrated global political and economic structure – one world, if you will. If that’s the charge, I stand guilty, and I am proud of it.” – Pg. 405 of David Rockefeller’s Autobiography, Memoirs

The ‘Innocents’ Clubs’:

…During the 1920’s and most of the 1930’s Münzenberg played a leading role in the Comintern, Lenin’s front for world-wide co-ordination of the left under Russian control. Under Münzenberg’s direction, hundreds of groups, committees and publications cynically used and manipulated the devout radicals of the West….Most of this army of workers in what Münzenberg called ‘Innocents’ Clubs’ had no idea they were working for Stalin. They were led to believe that they were advancing the cause of a sort of socialist humanism. The descendents of the ‘Innocents’ Clubs’ are still hard at work in our universities and colleges. Every year a new cohort of impressionable students join groups like the Anti-Nazi League believing them to be benign opponents of oppression…

Amazing how “Occupy Wall Street” rails against Wall Street yet supports the very mechanism that Wall Street is using to usurp their rights. In these days of the internet there is absolutely no excuse, except lazyness for not investigating in depth what you are supporting. ESPECIALLY when there is a radical transformation of your life at stake.

Gail Combs
June 27, 2012 4:52 am

Dennis Nikols, P. Geo says:
June 26, 2012 at 5:09 pm
Liberal or conservative, religious or secular Utopians are nothing more then power and control grabs by someone….
That is the main reason I am an independent and vote the incumbent out unless I have a very good reason to vote him in. Unfortunately there is really no difference between liberal and conservative politicians because they are all members of the Regulating Class and therefore our ENEMIES.
“There is danger from all men. The only maxim of a free government ought to be to trust no man living with power to endanger the public liberty.” ~ Giannina Braschi

June 27, 2012 6:59 am

The advocates and supporters of big and Bigger government have a Universal App for every social problem. But the guts of the app are very small and generic: higher taxes and less liberty. The app always runs with elevated privileges, and once installed it is pretty immune from being removed by the little people whom it seeks to have supervisory control over.

Gail Combs
June 27, 2012 7:17 am

Garacka says:
June 26, 2012 at 8:09 pm
Food is a need, but it is not a right. By calling food a right, the sustainability bureaucrats get to take the position of being the granters of that right. Such power authority does not belong in the hands of mere mortals.
Yes and the FDA/USDA now has the RIGHT to tell us what we are ALLOWED to grow and what we are ALLOWED to eat!
The Food Safety Modernization Act and the Commerce Clause

…Ignorance about the law’s broad reach (and how it will be construed by the courts) has thwarted opposition to the bill, which will likely pass Congress. For example, a newspaper claims the bill “doesn’t regulate home gardens.” The newspaper probably assumed that was true because the bill, like most federal laws, only purports to reach activities that affect “interstate commerce.” To an uninformed layperson or journalist, that “sounds as if it might not reach local and mom-and-pop operators at all.” (The bill’s sponsor, Rep. Rosa DeLauro, has sought to forestall opposition to her bill by falsely claiming that that “the Constitution’s commerce clause prevents the federal government from regulating commerce that doesn’t cross state lines.”)
But lawyers familiar with our capricious legal system know better. The Supreme Court ruled in Wickard v. Filburn (1942) that even home gardens (in that case, a farmer’s growing wheat for his own consumption) are subject to federal laws that regulate interstate commerce. Economists and scholars have criticized this decision, but it continues to be cited and followed in Supreme Court rulings, such as those applying federal anti-drug laws to consumption of even home-grown medical marijuana. Indeed, many court decisions allow Congress to define as “interstate commerce” even non-commercial conduct that doesn’t cross state lines — something directly at odds with Rep. DeLauro’s claims….
Hans Bader is Counsel at the Competitive Enterprise Institute in Washington. After studying economics and history at the University of Virginia and law at Harvard, he practiced civil-rights, international-trade, and constitutional law.

… Here are some of FDA’s views expressed in its response on ‘freedom of food choice’ in general and on the right to obtain and consume raw milk in particular:
“Plaintiffs’ assertion of a new ‘fundamental right’ to produce, obtain, and consume unpasteurized milk lacks any support in law.” [p. 4]

“It is within HHS’s authority . . . to institute an intrastate ban [on unpasteurized milk] as well.” [p. 6]
“Plaintiffs’ assertion of a new ‘fundamental right’ under substantive due process to produce, obtain, and consume unpasteurized milk lacks any support in law.” [p.17]
“There is no absolute right to consume or feed children any particular food.” [p. 25]
There is no ‘deeply rooted’ historical tradition of unfettered access to foods of all kinds.” [p. 26]
“Plaintiffs’ assertion of a ‘fundamental right to their own bodily and physical health, which includes what foods they do and do not choose to consume for themselves and their families’ is similarly unavailing because plaintiffs do not have a fundamental right to obtain any food they wish.” [p. 26]
FDA’s brief goes on to state that “even if such a right did exist, it would not render FDA’s regulations unconstitutional because prohibiting the interstate sale and distribution of unpasteurized milk promotes bodily and physical health.” [p. 27]
“There is no fundamental right to freedom of contract.” [p. 27]

(note I am not promoting drinking unpasteurized milk although milk from tested, vaccinated herds that is tested and certified should be as safe as the rare beef stamped USDA certified….)
YOU HAVE NO RIGHT TO BE HEALTHY By Derry Brownfield (May he rest in peace. We lost a great man.)

Gail Combs
June 27, 2012 7:24 am

Reed Coray says:
June 26, 2012 at 9:30 pm
…. I believe that with the break up of the Soviet Union, people who advocate a socialistic form of government lost their power base and started searching for an alternative. They latched onto the environment as the horse they could ride to their socialistic utopia. Because global warming was the environmental issue that got all the press and money, a significant percentage of socialistic advocates latched onto CAGW. This doesn’t make CAGW a left/right issue, but it sure makes it seem that way.
NOPE, it was a Socialist agenda from the get go. Look up Maurice Strong. Where people get confused is they think Big Oil and Big Banks are “Capitalists” they are not and never were.

Gail Combs
June 27, 2012 7:46 am

DonK31 says:
June 27, 2012 at 12:15 am
Who is this “we” that they’re talking about?
NOT THEM and that is for sure. The “we” are the people they want to convert back into serfs and slaves.

Reed Coray
June 27, 2012 8:35 am

Manfred says: June 27, 2012 at 12:27 am; and Gail Combs says:June 27, 2012 at 9:30 pm
In that the green movement is and always was populated mostly by people with socialist (Marxist) leanings, I agree with both of you, CAGW, however, is only a part of the green movement–a major part for sure, but only a part. The opinions I hold and the points I was trying to make were (1) by itself AGW is a scientific issue, not a political one. Some readers of this blog have taken offence to comments that imply only conservatives believe CAGW is a hoax. (2) The ranks of the green movement swelled with the break up of the Soviet Union because the advocates of a one-world socialistic government saw environmentalism, not the shining example of the Soviet Union, as the vehicle to achieve their goals. (3) Two of the reasons they chose CAGW as their main environmental issue were the coverage by a predominately liberal press, and the massive amounts of money distributed by governments to various organizations to “study” man’s influence on the temperature of the Earth. I put “study” in quotes because most “study efforts” weren’t directed at uncovering truth, but rather were funded to show that AGW exists and/or to show that the effects of CAGW are catastrophic.

June 27, 2012 10:08 am

The Future WE Want….(you to pay for…..)
“WE” are the bureaucratic hacks that share a vision of what UTOPIA (aka Hell on Earth) looks like.
One only needs to study history to get a glimps of what “THE FUTURE” holds, which usually involves ending up on your knees in some abandoned corn field with a gun to your head, getting ready to “get your mind right.”.
“WE” needs to end its idiotic quest for building Utopia, and return to what “THEY” do best: namely, inefficiently building roads that aren’t needed (during rush hour, of course) and delivering junk mail (inefficiently and at a great loss)…

Gary Pearse
June 27, 2012 1:15 pm

“received more than $500 billion in pledges from governments and companies, to reduce fossil fuel use, increase renewable energy generation in poor countries, promote bicycle use in Holland, teach sustainability in universities, conserve water – and in passing reduce global poverty.”
These types are singularly ill equipped to do anything to better the world – even the way they would like it to be. They have no idea what economics is. Where do they think that wealth comes from? – it isn’t from the unproductive sector that includes government and NGO organizations. When will we stop wasting obscene amounts of cash on them? Why do we seem to accept the authority they already wield? Shame on the oil companies and others who fund many of the NGOs now that we know what they are really about. Shame on the developing countries for allowing NGOs to disrupt investment and development in their countries.
Okay, I’ll take a few deep breaths and go for a run.

June 27, 2012 2:04 pm

I liked the original title of the report “Your Money We Want”.
Straight to the point.

Brian H
July 10, 2012 3:29 am

jorgekafkazar says:
June 26, 2012 at 5:04 pm

All power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely.

Get it right:
All power tends to corrupt, and absolute power corrupts absolutely.
It’s a much smarter statement in Lord Hamilton’s original version. Try it, you’ll like it.

Brian H
July 10, 2012 3:42 am

It seems to me that Watermelons International thought they had reached the point where they could make a Final Push, and take over from both the top down and bottom up. But they erred.
The great Silent Center roused itself, and withheld its essential consent, and rejected demands for perpetual subservience. It is now on the lookout, sharpish, for disguised extensions and repeats.

%d bloggers like this:
Verified by MonsterInsights