Guest opinion by David Archibald
“Everybody Wants To Rule The World” was a 1985 song by Tears For Fears. Now in 2015, a number of parties are doing their best to that end – ISIS in the Middle East, Russia chewing up the Ukraine, China in the East and South China Seas and the UN Climate Change Commission. A draft document out of Geneva gives details of the UN plan to rule the world.
For most of us, the memorable thing from the Lima climate late last year was Greenpeace’s despoiling of an ancient Nazca figure of a hummingbird.
But the Lima conference has been quickly followed by another in Geneva. The purpose of the latter conference was to produce the negotiating text for the climate conference to be held in Paris in December. The Geneva meeting was conducted in a rush with no opening statements, even by the head of the UNFCCC, Christiana Figueres. Ms. Figueres expectation of the climate treaty coming is that it will be “a centralised transformation” that “is going to make the life of everyone on the planet very different”.
Just how different is shown by snippets of the Paris negotiating text. Let’s start with this one from page 5:
“All Parties to strive to achieve low greenhouse gas climate-resilient economies and societies, on the basis of equity and in accordance with their historical responsibilities, common but differentiated responsibilities / evolving common but differentiated responsibilities and respective capabilities, in order to achieve sustainable development, poverty eradication and prosperity for the benefit of present and future generations of humankind, taking fully into account the historical responsibility of developed country Parties.”
Animal Farm was supposed to be a cautionary tale about communism. The UN has taken “All animals are created equal but some are more equal than others.” and turned into “All countries are common but some are more differentiated than others.”
How will the UN determine how much one country might be differentiated from another? That is explained on page 85:
“In reviewing and revising Annex I to the Convention, the total amount of greenhouse gases, expressed in carbon dioxide equivalent, emitted by a Party to the Convention since 1750 A.D. shall be added and divided by the current population of that Party. Based on the thus obtained per capita greenhouse gas emissions and population size of each Party to the Convention, the average global per capita emissions of greenhouse gases shall be used to evaluate the status of the greenhouse gas emissions of a Party to the Convention. Each Party to the Convention whose per capita greenhouse gas emissions exceed the global average per capita greenhouse gas emissions shall be proposed to be inscribed in Annex I to the Convention, and the remaining Parties shall not be proposed to be inscribed in Annex I to the Convention.”
Why 1750? Are the sins of the fathers are to be visited their sons even unto the 11th generation, which is us? Climate treaties used to be based on 1990 as the start date because that was convenient to the Europeans as the fall of communism in that year had curbed their coal consumption. The European countries were going to be the easy treaty compliers while the US was punished. That was the plan at the beginning. But now it is changed to 1750.
The significance of Annex 1 is that if you are on it, you will be paying for the whole circus – US$100 billion per annum for kleptocracies. What if you don’t want to be on Annex 1, because you know that global warming is nonsense or something? What might happen is hinted at on page 8:
“Option 4: Decides that the developed country Parties shall not resort to any form of unilateral measures against goods and services from developing country Parties on any grounds related to climate change, recalling the principles and provisions of the Convention”
The option says that developing countries are not to have unilateral measures taken against them but who would bother doing that? The implied target is elsewhere. Countries that are allocated to Annex 1 but don’t cough up the cash might have unilateral measures taken against them by “developed country Parties”.
Australia signed up for the UN climate treaty in 2007. Canada pulled out in 2011 and Russia and Japan have rejected new targets after 2012. Perhaps the US will keep us free – Ms Figueres has said that the US Congress is “very detrimental” to the fight against global warming.
So that is why the global warming scare is so hard to kill. The end game is world domination. With such a big prize – the biggest possible, facts aren’t even inconvenient. They are not part of the process. It has been a long slog but gird your loins for a battle that might last into mid-century. Lima was COP 20 and Ms Figueres is prepared to take it to COP 40.
David Archibald, a visiting fellow at the Institute of World Politics in Washington, D.C., is the author of Twilight of Abundance (Regnery, 2014)
The enemy is the UN.
Why?
Because in spite of it’s lofty ideals, the UN is but a bureaucracy.
Bureaucracies by their very nature expand, grow, spread and dominate if they can.
This fact or human failing is well recognized and this is why we have democracy. Democracy has evolved and in the US was designed specifically in order to counter this well known phenomena.
Under democracy we have individually become wealthy simply because we have been given a relatively free rein in order to build our individual wealth from our own hard work with little or no interference from bureaucratic governments or despotic rulers.
It appears that the UN is intent on becoming the government of every country in the world. Once they can clip the ticket and maintain an effective military force, (and they may not need to even achieve that), there will be no stopping them.
Their failed attempt to clip the ticket on carbon transactions has failed but under Agenda 21 and this Climate game they will get there unless we give a very firm signal to our elected representatives!
It is my belief that there is little actual “democracy” in the election of UN officials, and most certainly the man in the street (who is on the way to being oppressed by this bureaucracy) has no say whatsoever.
UN Agenda 21 is in our governments, legislation, local bodies and education systems. Mention Agenda 21 to a politician and they will dismiss you as a cooke, but look up your government websites and it is all there.
Examples in my own country are discussed at http://www.thedemiseofchristchurch.com
Especially Insidious is how the UN has infiltrated our education system. Please read carefully the links associated with that. In another 10 years or less we will be voting for the UN to rule us!
Cheers
Roger
http://www.thedemiseofchristchurch.com
Ps Get hold of a copy of Ian Wishart’s book “Totalitaria” and spend some time checking his sources.
rogerthesurf,
Correctomundo.
The UN is the enemy. There is no doubt.
I am old enough to recall the history. When North Korea invaded the South, Russia had been very lackadaisical about attending meetings of the Security Council [the 5-member UN group with veto power for each member-country].
With The Soviets absent, the Security Council promptly voted to defend South Korea. As a result, SK was able to fend off the North’s invasion, even after Red China assisted the Norks.
The Soviets would have vetoed that action if they had been present. They learned a painful [for them] lesson.
Ever since then, the Soviets [and their successors, Russia], have never once missed a Security Council meeting.
In addition, they realized that the UN was the future, and they began actively infiltrating the UN bureaucracy. That plan is now complete. They have been successful, in large part because many if not most U.S. politicians, and the American public, are very naive. They believe what they hear, instead of looking at what’s happening.
The UN says all the right words. But look at their actions. Everything is designed to hobble the U.S. and Western economies. The UN’s stated goal of a carbon tax would cause immense harm, doing no good at all. And of course, neither China nor Russia would be bound by the restrictions.
China is now growing the biggest and best military in the world. Anyone who believes what they say about being insular, and interested in only their internal affairs is terribly credulous.
Just look at what’s happening in the South China Sea, where China is unilaterally staking claims to waters much closer to Japan, the Phillippines, and Vietnam, than to China. And thanks to the sadly inept Jimmy Carter, China now controls the immensely strategic Panama Canal. Russia’s new defense budget is now up to a third of a trillion dollars annually — while Obama continues to slash our defense spending and works to politicize the military.
If the U.S. and the West do not reverse course very soon, we will be in a 1939 situation — if not much worse. Because as bad as he was, Hitler did not possess nuclear weapons.
“they began actively infiltrating the UN bureaucracy.”
..
Nice Alcoa bonnet you are sporting there.
“Russia’s new defense budget is now up to a third of a trillion dollars annually”
..
No, it does not exceed $70 billion annually.
According wiki “Russia’s military budget is higher than any other European nation, and approximately 1/7th (14%) of the US military budget.”
Santa Baby
Do you impute thusly that the US does not “need” to spend that money protecting the rest of the world from the rest of the world?
How old are you, rodney? Eleven?
What I wrote is common knowledge. You could even look it up, if you had the gumption.
But you don’t. You would rather be wrong in public.
“Commnon knowledge?”
…
Hardly.
…
Sounds like you are suffering from the conspiracy theory blues.
I don’t buy your Rothschild, one world government, Agenda 21, and the commies are coming way of thinking.
@db, It is sad that WUWT is turning into a more and more political ” debate ” ( debate ,sure). I find that responding to people like rodney just fuels their fire, put them on ignore. Advice to rodney, read the book “And not a shot fired” by a Czech “citizen” by the name of J. Kozak. He explains in great detail of how the communists started the infiltration of western bureaucracies during the 50’s using “refugees” as moles to undermine the west. Their main goal was to create so many regulations it would stifle capitalism and freedom. For an example Rodney could try and read the ACA ( all 1200 pages voted on before anyone read it).
I could tell folks here something about conspiracies. Couldn’t I … “Socrates”?
By choosing 1750 as a start date, how does the UN intend to calculate emissions for those nations that did not exist at that point? Europe, with the exception of the UK, was pretty much a collection of monarchies of varying sizes, with only a vague resemblance to modern borders. The US wasn’t really the US at that point, with the Louisiana purchase, for example, still some 50 years in the future. Australia wasn’t ‘discovered’ until 1770 and didn’t have European settlers until 1788.
I stopped at Russia chewing up the Ukraine. If that is your opinion of an extremely complex situation being deliberately and persistently aggravated by outside governments who have no business being there you have obviously not researched it at all. As there is a very great amount of unbiased information to be found on this conflict which completely annuls your comment, why should I for one minute consider your essay worth reading? Oh and my father’s side of the family is Ukrainian.
Someone needs to send those Paris negotiating texters some punctuation marks. Especially a bag full of periods. Honestly, a 75 word sentence? Who writes this stuff? Take a breath!!
I’m going to have fun plagiarizing from this treaty.
It will not be a “treaty”.
Language, and control of language use (evidence: ISIL versus ISIS. Islamic terrorist versus radicalized extremists), has acquired a centerpiece role in the Liberal’s attempt to control the “message.”
The US delegates to Paris will try very hard to not call the Paris CO2 agreement a “treaty”. The Obama administration has already stated they will not submit the signed agreement to the Senate for ratification, as they know it would never ever get 2/3 vote it needs. Obama will try to go it alone with his unilateral Presidential directives to the executive branch agencies. They will have to legally disguise his orders to the EPA, FERC, etc. It is unclear how he thinks he can get the money to give to the UN though without Congress and a congressional appropriation.
Joel– Yep. That is precisely what will happen.
The weaponized EPA with new CO2 sequestration rules and regulations and Federal/State colossal wind/solar alt-en boondoggles will waste $100’s of billions, if not $trillions until this CAGW hypothesis is officially tossed in the trash bin of failed ideas.
Personally, I think the scientific community outside the climatology field (geophysicists, astrophysicists, chemists, biologists, mathematicians, statisticians, etc.) will have to start blowing the whistle on the CAGW hype, as they begin to fear the blowback against science in general from when the CAGW officially becomes untenable.
CAGW hypothetical projections already exceed reality by 2 standard deviations (RSS data), and within 5~7 years, discrepancies could well exceed 3+ SDs, with no global warming trend for almost a quarter of a century and perhaps even a significant fall of global temp trends for 20+ years.
At that point CAGW will be laughed and eye-rolled into oblivion. Taxpayers simply will not allow seeing their jobs destroyed, their cost of energy skyrocket and their standards of living torpedoed for absolutely no reason.
Will the propose treaty include any penalty or sanctions if any of the parties could not meet their obligations? If none, it will just be a soft law just like most environmental treaties. US has not signed and ratified the Vienna convention on treaties because of the contentious issue related to provisions of the vienna convention that nations could not claim future treaties are unconstitutional as decided by the State Supreme Courts and therefore they could not be enforced even if the treaty has been signed and ratified by their government. Or in simpler terms, the treaty circumvent the constitutional amendment provisions or it over rules the constitution. As a soft law, it just becomes best effort basis. Best effort will now depend on how dogmatic, hysterical and emotional the leadership and the public in a particular country takes climate change such that the best effort becomes the worst thing that happened for the country.
Do not overlook that the parallel attacks on free speech and information warfare that the Green Blob is engaged in as a vital part of this Agenda 21 push from the UN. UNFCCC requires that the majority of populations remain scientifically illiterate and indoctrinated to climate change catastrophism.
(as an aside: If you want to see typical US liberal science literacy in-action, watch this YouTube video, skip ahead to 7:20, and then watch in disbelief.)
The UN will have to come after the internet freedoms, the free flow of information and ideas, too. Sites like Anthony’s WUWT will be prime targets of UN suppression once Obama hands control of the IANA internet root naming function over to the ITU when the ICANN contract expires in October 2015. There is a contractual option to extend the ICANN IANA contract to 2019, which is what should happen.
What is the ITU? It is a UN Chartered agency, just like the WMO, or WHO.
http://www.itu.int/en/about/Pages/default.aspx
The US green liberals have determined that the US government’s control of the internet root domain means that the 1st Amendment free speech and free press rights prevent the US government from imposing internet censorship they need in order to control the AGW message. Thus they have to ensure that on Obama’s watch, since Hillary’s rise to her throne is not guaranteed, they must divest the US government out of the IANA picture in the next 22 months and give it to the UN where no freedom of speech rights exist. Expect Obama to try and pull a fast one on the ICANN contract expiration to thwart Congress from stopping him.
that is a clear and present danger, I agree
I say we penalize the Mongolians. They mastered horse riding, and in doing so, promoted the evil meme of personal mobility, enabling the existence of horse-drawn wagons, coaches and buggies, the predecessors of modern cars and trucks. There was also lots of horse caused flatulence and emissions, the direct lesson of arms races AND finally, as they invaded to the East, they callously trampled the crypto-biotic soils of the fragile steppes. Some of these misdeeds but by no means all, are offset by the good Genghis Kahn did in killing lots of humans who would have otherwise created offspring, ie, future pollution.
And too, I blame the early European, Chinese and Middle Eastern metallurgists who invented cast iron and who smelted ores. If we go back that far, the Western Hemisphere is off the hook completely. And L. Ron Hubbard claimed to have lived 75 trillion years ago. He did some bad shit, too, so let’s bill the Scientologists. I think that about covers everything. Ah, the stone age, we can’t wait to get back to you.
That business about ‘current population’ may also have been made with a sideways glance at immigration policies.
The government says “We can’t cut third world immigration – it would make our population lower than it would otherwise be and we may be penalized for that.”
“the total amount of greenhouse gases, expressed in carbon dioxide equivalent, emitted by a Party to the Convention since 1750 A.D.”
So….. how does one precisely calculate the amount of CO2 equivalent being emitted by a specific population subset 265 years ago?
After the civil war local governments raised taxes on the landowners so high they could not pay and lost their land to the “carpetbaggers”. Same thing can happen again-history repeats.
If this passes, it effectively breaks the agreement the States and the people had with this Republic. Communist U.N. scum want climate reparations? Texas is out, come and take it.
What science? It is the ‘science’ only in papers which support the subjective presumption that there is a problem. Only the papers that are subjectively selected by the UNFCCC’s IPCC and such subjectively selected papers are also subjectively assessed by it. The process is not objective science. It is an ideologically subservient (aka blinded) process, not a scientific one.
I think is ‘pre-science’. a better description for what Figueres is referring to as science.
John
[And she said every life would be made “different.” Not “better” …. .mod]
Grammatical correction to my comment immediately above:
I think
is‘pre-science’ [is] a better description for what Figueres is referring to as science.John
they actually call it post-normal or post-modern science, but it is not science
Bubba Cow
Indeed there is sufficient reason to discuss it in those terms. And in the history of the philosophy of science there are other conceptions that apply to identifying what it is. I am coining the term pre-science in this context because,it isn’t at the level of science if objectivity is a criteria.
John
.m o d,
“Different” as in forced behavior modification and being robbed.
Where do these totalitarians get their intellectual toxins from? Does Gaia send them malignant visions?
John
What does “emitted” mean in option 5?
Does clearing woods for crop land count as emitting?
How about forest fires started by people?
Is killing all the buffalo net (less methane which is 25 times worse in carbon-dioxide equivalent emissions) against cooking fires?
Seems hard to measure all this.
One world government, to the idealist, is a tempting idea as we could be “one people united”.
Unfortunately, the reality is that we are not one people and every petty warlord in the world would only have to scream “nationalism” to be catapulted to power. The whack-a-mole game that is currently being played in the Middle-East could expand throughout the world as international financial and political special interest groups seek to expand their power by placing their people in power in every region of the world.
In short, the one world government that emerges will have to be absolutely ruthless to be effective and therefore will not be benign. Also, it will probably be Chinese.
David Archibald,
If I’m not mistaken, you predicted in 2008 that solar cycle 24 (the present cycle) would herald the onset of mid-latitude cooling to the tune of -2.2C over the course of the cycle.
Solar cycle 24 is now 6 years old and seems to have already passed its peak. As far as I can see, the past 6 years are the warmest on record globally according to all the surface data sets; though I haven’t broken it down by latitude.
Is it safe to say that your 2008 prediction is now officially wrong?
Don’t you mean the adjusted (homogenized) surface data sets. Satellite data says otherwise if you’d care to look. There has been no warming for more than 18 years, plus. http://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/12/02/on-the-difference-between-lord-moncktons-18-years-for-rss-and-dr-mckitricks-26-years-now-includes-october-data/
@ur momisugly David R,
“Solar cycle 24 is now 6 years old and seems to have already passed its peak. As far as I can see, the past 6 years are the warmest on record globally according to all the surface data sets; though I haven’t broken it down by latitude”.
You are not looking very far because even the UN admits there is a “pause”..
As Tom Harley and loads of other people ( those opinions and scientific facts are on the rest of the site or on the net) have shown that your observation is wrong, Mr. Hardly and others are using temperature readings from as many locations from both land And ocean based and coupled with satellite readings that are very recent and far more accurate.
And as usual statements like yours and other warmists always include the words “seems” , “probable”, likely, “potentially etc ,
As in “The solar cycle “seems” to have past it’s peak” It is an ~11-12 year process , that is why it is called a cycle. And the Sun after the next minimum (~ 5-6 years) will start getting active again.
Virtually all of the “warming” derives from data that has been altered, completely dishonestly, upward and from the infilling of large areas for which there is no data with nearby data which, oddly, always makes these dateless areas warmer than the nearby data. In this way, the data-fraud perpetrators can warm the planet, entirely on paper. The entire Arctic region is infilled with data from just a few sites and the region shows ridiculous warming as a result.
Bloody insane!
1750 ! LOL The current Federal Republic of Germany Re-unified dates from 1990, the previous Federal Republic dates from 1949, the previous Unified Weimar Republic dates from 1871 and the German Confederation dates from 1815.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Germany
So, the current Germany, and parts of France get a pass! What kind of phony baloney History of World Part II Revisionist Dogma is this: Ha Ha 😉 Leave it to the UN when you need a laugh.
Well, good.
1750?
The US was a British Empire colony then, as was India if I recall, Brazil was not independent, nor the Spanish South American colonies (and those few to the Far East)….
Seems like England (but not the UK!), Portugal, China, and Spain are going to have to pay for everything to everybody!
Not sure what counts as emitting. Oil and coal are often exported by countries with little industry to countries with large industrial consumption. Australia, South Africa and countries in the mid-east produce a lot of fossil fuels but export most of it. Does the ‘guilt’ lie with the people who used the fuel or the ones that dug it out of the ground and sold it?
What about the ships and aircraft that burn fuel? Panama, Liberia and the Marshall Islands account for most of the fuel burnt in ships even though the ships under their flags aren’t beneficially owned by companies resident there.
What about forests cleared for farming etc.
Where there records of consumption of coal, oil etc dating back to 1750? Will they be adjusted up or down in the same way as temperature records were?
In 1812 the British garrison at Halifax Canada (then a British colony) marched on Washington and partly burned down the White House. So does the emitted CO2 belong to the US, Canada, or Britain?
Don’t worry folks, the seeds of failure are written into the document. Until there are ACTUAL negative climate effects occurring (fat chance in our life times) countries will pursue the exact same strategy they did with Kyoto. Ratify and Renege. The more idiocy like a 1750 start date there is in the document, the more wiggle room democracies will have to explain to their electorates why it isn’t fair to them and so they have to renege. As for non democracies, the only ones that will sign will be the ones that think they will get money from someone else if they do. So, nothing.
Put it on Napoleon’s d*&med account!
I will say it again. That date is set to circumvent the Constitution of the USA.
More meaningless associated risk assessment and econometrics that a grade school student would question. The associated costs will never be estimated or directly assigned.
In other “news”: OMG! Everyone in NYC and Miami are going to drown! 😉
dbstealey says:
“Countries should be rewarded for increasing their CO2 emissions….”
Exactly. What the U.N. and the climate alarmist dim bulbs like Ms. Figueres are forgetting is that current CO2 levels in the atmosphere contribute to global agricultural yields in a world where there is still too much hunger going on. So how much does the current CO2 level in the atmosphere contribute to the annual global agricultural yields….10%, 15%? What is the market value of that added yield each year? How does the value of that extra yield compare to how much the rich nations are supposed to fork over because of climate change? Added up going many years back?
Seems to me that the value of that added agricultural yield needs to be taken into consideration here before Ms. Figueres starts looking for excuses to bash the wealthy developed countries and their CO2 emissions. I realize it may be hard if not impossible to assign a specific percentage of CO2 in the atmosphere to any one major emitter of CO2. Rough guesstimates however would do just fine with me. It can’t any worse that the bash-the wealthy-countries game plan that Ms. Figueres and her ilk are brewing up to force the rich nations to fork over the cash to the poorer ones.
Isn’t the U.S. already one of the world’s biggest providers of foreign aid anyway?
Since the start of 2015 predominantly right-wing governed EU Institutions will not commit a political suicide. If they’re done something already, they’ve squeezed the FCCC budget. It would not be surprising if Australia, Canada and Japan had taken a similar stance.
The FCCC reaction points towards that direction. At least the 1750 stretch reeks this sort of desperation in my opinion. Unfortunately for Figueres, the emerging economies will not finance FCCC or other UN programmes. If Ki-moon must choose whether to retire Figueres, Pachauri et al or to become Seán Lester of the United Nations himself, the choice won’t take long.
Since 1750 there have been 12 wars and 1 major, cold-induced famine in Finland. Just try to image in the CO2 emissions concerned.
Time to get US out of the UN.
The UN out of the US so built something on a nice tropical island somewhere and you’ll never hear from them again.
We have met the enemy and he is UN
Mark and two Cats,
I suggest a possible corollary:
We have met the current UN and they have the same old tired Marxist socialist rhetoric which no one in the old failed Soviet Union actually believed.
John
Trying to pogo off my comment, eh? 😉
. . . rats . . . I’ve been exposed . . . .
: )
John