Guest opinion: Dr. Tim Ball
President Obama used the Paris Climate Conference to advance his legacy: an agreement was mandatory no matter the truth or the cost. As a result, the final agreement was meaningless because to get everybody to sign it was made unenforceable. All signatories were willing to agree because they are all politicians playing their own game; not what is right or best for the people. This objective was acceptable to the main drivers outside of the actual political arena. They were using climate change to impose their socialist goal of punishing and weakening capitalism and redistributing their wealth, which they claim was obtained at the expense of the developing nations. Avowed communist and anti-capitalist Naomi Klein attending Paris as a member of Pope Francis delegation saw the political opportunities in climate change.
She herself admits that, as she began to take the problem of climate change more seriously and to think about it more deeply, it did not cause her to change her mind about anything. On the contrary, it reinforced everything that she had always believed. “I was propelled into a deeper engagement with it partly because I realized it could be a catalyst for forms of social and economic justice in which I already believed.”
Ironically, those countries that held out for an unenforceable agreement, like Russia, India, and China, tried socialism and are now embracing aspects of capitalism. The reason they don’t want enforceable limits on fossil fuels is because they want to develop their economies and they know first-hand it doesn’t work with socialism. The result is the paradox that was the Paris Climate Conference. While a small group of people worked to undermine development and capitalism through a false global warming charge, half the world’s population represented by these nations, strives for development through capitalism. Richard Lindzen retired Professor of Atmospheric Physics at MIT summarized the situation best.
“Future generations will wonder in bemused amazement that the early twenty-first century’s developed world went into hysterical panic over a globally average temperature increase of a few tenths of a degree, and, on the basis of gross exaggerations of highly uncertain computer projections combined into implausible chains of inference, proceeded to contemplate a rollback of the industrial age.”
The conflict in Paris was a separate conflict between those who want to “rollback” the industrial age for those currently developed by capitalism and industrialization and those who want the same advances and benefits. It has little or nothing to do with the political objectives of those, like Klein, who wants total control of people’s lives. Paris only served to promote Obama’s personal objective. Meanwhile, the use of environment and climate for Klein’s socialist objectives continues quietly, surreptitiously and insidiously. It is built around the dictum “Think globally, act locally” attributed to Rene Dubos, an advisor to the Maurice Strong chaired 1972 United Nations Conference on the Human Environment.
Maurice Strong, through the United Nations Environment Program (UNEP), transferred the objectives of the Club of Rome into policy. He set up a system that effectively bypassed politicians and legislators. Elaine Dewar, author of Cloak of Green concluded:
Strong was using the U.N. as a platform to sell a global environment crisis and the Global Governance Agenda.
For example, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) was created by and through the World Meteorological Organization (WMO). The bureaucrats of the WMO are government employees from 191 national weather offices of the UN organization. Those bureaucrats inform and direct and thereby control the politicians.
Strong is most responsible for setting up the bureaucratic structure necessary to control the political and science agendas. Neil Hrab wrote in 2001 that Strong achieved this by:
Mainly using his prodigious skills as a networker. Over a lifetime of mixing private sector career success with stints in government and international groups…
This began in earnest with the 1977 United Nations Conference on the Human Environment Stockholm Conference. As Hrab notes:
The three specific goals set out by the Secretary General of the Conference, Maurice F. Strong, at its first plenary session—a Declaration on the human environment, an Action Plan, and an organizational structure supported by a World Environment Fund—were all adopted by the Conference.
What was the Action Plan? It is the goal Strong considered most important and was set out in the Declaration of United Nations Conference on the Human Environment. A key comment in this Declaration explains why Paris is of limited consequence for the larger goal.
Local and national governments will bear the greatest burden for large-scale environmental policy and action within their jurisdictions. International cooperation is also needed in order to raise resources to support the developing countries in carrying out their responsibilities in this field.
This objective was set out in Local Agenda 21 Planning Guide, prepared by The International Council for Local Environmental Initiatives (ICLEI) with a Foreword by Strong. One person who stumbled across this document and realized the implications wrote,
Community leaders around the world are now called to implement a new “Communitarian” system of governance, which overrides our (US) constitutional rights and freedoms.
“Land…cannot be treated as an ordinary asset, controlled by individuals and subject to the pressures and inefficiencies of the market. Private land ownership is also a principal instrument of accumulation and concentration of wealth and therefore contributes to social injustice; if unchecked, it may become a major obstacle in the planning and implementation of development schemes. Public control of land use is therefore indispensable….”
The idea and process appear in Chapter 28 of Agenda 21.
“Each local authority should enter into a dialogue with its citizens, local organizations, and private enterprises and adopt ‘a local Agenda 21.’ Through consultation and consensus-building, local authorities would learn from citizens and from local, civic, community, business and industrial organizations and acquire the information needed for formulating the best strategies.” (Agenda 21, Chapter 28, sec 1,3.)
While everybody is focused on Paris, a steady ubiquitous plan of action is taking control of all communities. It is the Climate Action Plan that stems from Agenda 21 using IPCC climate science and predictions as justification. It is central to the diatribe that appears on the White House web page.
In 2007, the British Columbia government of Gordon Campbell was persuaded to create a Climate Action Committee to implement a Climate Action Plan. The committee appeared diversified, but the presence of Andrew Weaver lead author in four IPCC Reports (1995, 2001, 2007, and 2013) guaranteed his dominance. David Keith was at the University of Calgary where he created a Carbon Engineering a company producing CO2 sequestration technology, in my opinion, it is a conflict of interest. Keith is now at Harvard University. The list of Ex-Officio members comprises other IPCC members and all academics at the University of Victoria, including three computer modelers. The non-academic committee members were completely overwhelmed.
The Committee produced the Climate Action Plan (CAP) (It is likely this link won’t open. However, you can access it through this page, lower right hand corner) that included a carbon tax and the installation of Smart Meters. (At the Heartland Conference in Las Vegas, a person identified himself after my presentation as the inventor of the Smart Meter and said they are not being used as I intended.) Smart meters are promoted by BC Hydro the utility that controls all power in the Province. Most of the opposition to the meters involves health effects from the RF transmissions. The larger problem is their potential use for identifying what the authorities determine as excessive users. On page 10 of the document, Weaver confirms the objective of ignoring what Federal levels of government do just as Strong planned.
“What [the B.C. government has] done here is they recognize this is the right thing to do, it’s the only thing to do to address this problem and we’re not going to wait for the feds or someone to do it. We’re going to show leadership in North America and you watch, it’s going to start to have a ripple down effect and others are going to start to join up as the years go by.”
This appears like more conflict of interest, as he is the one who used IPCC computer models to create the proof that human CO2 was the problem. This despite, the complete failure of any projection they ever made. Weaver is now Green Party leader in BC and a member of the Provincial Legislation. The PR Company for BCHydro is Hoggan and Associates. James Hoggan is also Chairman of the David Suzuki Foundation and proud creator of DeSmogblog as he attests in his book Climate Cover-Up.
I became aware of the intrusive nature of the CAP when invited to make a presentation on Mayne Island in the Straits of Georgia (Figure 1).
Figure 1 (Source: BC Ferries)
A group of concerned citizens attended a presentation by Provincial government bureaucrats promoting the CAP. It began with showing Al Gore’s movie An Inconvenient Truth followed by a discussion of proposed plans, including banning all vehicular traffic. I was invited to make a public PowerPoint question and answer presentation. The local eco-bully immediately attacked, I use that term deliberately, and left early when I was able to answer all his questions and counteract his claims. Now there are a group of citizens who constantly monitor what is going on including asking occasional questions of clarification. The problem is I cannot visit every community or counteract the power, accessibility and persistence of the bureaucracy. As Laurence Peter, creator of the Peter Principle explained,
Bureaucracy defends the status quo long past the time the quo has lost its status.
The extent of the intrusiveness of CAP continues despite the meaningless nature of Paris. Figure 2 shows the number of US States already committed to CAP.
I urge people to find out what is happening in their State or local government. They are under the pressure to save the planet sweetened with a variety of financial incentives that are hard to resist, but as the people of Mayne Island found, they never heard the “other side’ of the story. The problem is there is the combined waste of Federal money and the negative impact on societies and economies all to deal with a false problem created by the UN.
Paris achieved its goal in allowing Obama to achieve his personal objectives. All participants agreed to an agreement because they are all there with personal objectives. It is like the comment about “honor among thieves”. The real drivers of the agenda didn’t care because they know the agenda of total control, as devised by Maurice Strong through Agenda 21, is in full flight as Local Agenda 21, but almost completely under the radar. The actions are cloaked in the claim that the planet will be free, released from the burdens imposed by capitalism and those who seek individual liberty. As Vaclav Klaus, former President of the Czech Republic said as his opening remark as Keynote Speaker at the first Heartland Climate Conference in New York, “We just went through 70 years of communism, why the hell would you want to go back to that?” He also wrote in his book “Blue Planet in Green Shackles,”
It should be clear by now to everyone that activist environmentalism (or environmental activism) is becoming a general ideology about humans, about their freedom, about the relationship between the individual as the state, and about the manipulation of people under the guise of a noble idea.”