Washington Post: The UN Needs Enforcement Authority to Solve the Climate Crisis

Steven Mufson, Washington Post Reporter

Guest essay by Eric Worrall

The problem is so big, and elected governments are so unreliable…

‘A kind of dark realism’: Why the climate change problem is starting to look too big to solve

By Steven Mufson
Updated 05 Dec 2018 — 2:03 PM,
first published at 11:26 AM

In the daunting maths of climate action, individual choices and government policies aren’t adding up.

But effective policy is lacking. Nordhaus advocates a whopping carbon tax, which the Climate Interactive model shows would kill off most coal, sharply reduce driving and boost purchases of more fuel-efficient vehicles.

No appetite

Getting such a carbon tax adopted in the US, however, is hard to imagine. Washington state voters in November rejected a $US15-per-tonne carbon “fee” after Big Oil companies poured more than $US31 million into the state to block the measure. BP, which had endorsed a $US40-per-tonne nationwide tax, gave the most to defeat the bill.

Congress hasn’t shown any appetite for a carbon tax, either. A proposal to impose a $US40-per-tonne carbon tax and return the revenue to people in dividends has not caught fire yet.

In France, President Emmanuel Macron has ignited protests by proposing fuel taxes he says are needed to fight climate change. “One cannot be on Monday for the environment,” Macron said, “and on Tuesday against the increase of fuel prices.”

Lack the authority

That’s partly because international organisations lack the authority to enforce rules on wayward nations. In Poland, several major countries are expected to admit to missing the targets they agreed to at the Paris conference three years ago. One example is Brazil, whose new president Jair Bolsonaro, the “tropical Trump”, has talked about clearing part of the Amazon for roads and development. That would damage the world’s lungs – the trees that absorb carbon dioxide and pump out oxygen at high rates.

Read more: https://www.washingtonpost.com/national/health-science/a-kind-of-dark-realism-why-the-climate-change-problem-is-starting-to-look-too-big-to-solve/2018/12/03/378e49e4-e75d-11e8-a939-9469f1166f9d_story.html

What kind of world would we live in, if the UN had “enforcement” powers?

Imagine Brazil wanted to develop the Amazon, to help lift their suffering people out of poverty A United Nations armed with “enforcement” powers could send an international army to Brazil, to stop Brazilian politicians from “damaging the world’s lungs”.

What if French deplorables objected to climate change fuel taxes? The United Nations would issue an enforcement decree requiring the French government to crush the protests, to ensure the progress of vital policy action to combat global warming.

What if the USA elected a President who opposed United Nations policy? I think you get the idea.

There seems little room for doubt about the kind of world we would live in, if greens like Mufson have their way.

0 0 votes
Article Rating
Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
December 7, 2018 6:12 am

30 years ago…the UN/IPCC put a system into place….that guarantees CO2 levels will increase

….that’s what you’ll get

Reply to  Latitude
December 7, 2018 8:35 am

CO2 will be increasing as long as we’re improving the climate and enhancing the ability of the biosphere to flourish. The system that the IPCC/UNFCC/World Bank has been trying so hard to establish insures the perception of tiny increasing trends that they can blow way out of proportion by applying nonsense science. While this fools many, it’s not fooling everyone, so they want to be able to include ‘enforcers’ in their racket of extorting the developed world for being successful and redistributing the ill gotten gains to the third world with no absolutely no accountability for who it goes to or what it’s spent on, all under the cover of ‘green’.

Why isn’t RICO being applied? This is exactly what it was designed to address.

Nancy Anita Hermann
Reply to  co2isnotevil
December 7, 2018 6:25 pm

Would love to read your comments on the Green Religion we are supposed to adopt. Yet another reconstituted enforcement. I say this as a lifelong committed Catholic.

Reply to  Nancy Anita Hermann
December 7, 2018 7:12 pm

Religion has no place in science. Green idolatry (i.e. worshiping windmills), certainly qualifies as the practice of a faith based religion.

The difference is that if you tell a priest that you’ve lost faith in God, he will try and convince you otherwise. If you tell a follower of the green cult that that you’ve lost faith in the IPCC, they will tell you to burn in hell.

Johann Wundersamer
Reply to  Nancy Anita Hermann
December 17, 2018 4:28 am

Nancy Anita Hermann December 7, 2018 at 6:25 pm

Would love to read your comments on the Green Religion we are supposed to adopt. Yet another reconstituted enforcement. I say this as a lifelong committed Catholic.

Nancy, commentators won’t cope “I say this as a lifelong committed Catholic.” without the obligatory /sarc

Reply to  co2isnotevil
December 7, 2018 7:39 pm

..redistributing the ill gotten gains to the third world..

I bet the 3rd world won’t see an iota of that. It’s all earmarked for the ruling class to make and police more of their rules.

Reply to  Latitude
December 7, 2018 10:20 pm

Do we really want to do this again?

Johann Wundersamer
Reply to  Latitude
December 17, 2018 8:04 am

ipcc guru https://www.google.com/search?q=ipcc+rk+pachauri&oq=ipcc+pajauri&aqs=chrome.

now had enough time during detention to learn about the basics of catastrophic climate change.

Even he tells nothing new.

December 7, 2018 6:12 am

Let give the UN authority to regulate traffic between Uranus and Neptune! When they have a 20 year track record of having successfully done so, with publicly available date showing high effectiveness, then we’ll consider expanding that authority to include Pluto, Nd take it from there!

Curious George
Reply to  tomwys
December 7, 2018 9:48 am

Is this the UN who appointed Colonel Gaddafi to oversee human rights, and Mr. Mugabe a goodwill ambassador?

Reply to  tomwys
December 7, 2018 10:46 am

Good concept, but they UN would need another $78 million USD annually to support such a program.

If we had absolute assurance that the funding for the traffic regulation would come from existing budget, then it would be a program to support.

Greg Cavanagh
Reply to  DonM
December 7, 2018 1:36 pm

You are right. If they had “authority” to do such a thing, you’ll can bet your last dollar they’d make several branches of government to patrol it, enforce it, write policy about it, document their failure at it, and want more money to improve it.

James Beaver
December 7, 2018 6:15 am

Rather than the problem being to big for countrys to solve, climate change is too small to solve, as in it’s not actually a problem.

Dan Sudlik
Reply to  James Beaver
December 7, 2018 6:23 am

Roger that James.

John Endicott
Reply to  James Beaver
December 7, 2018 6:26 am

Indeed the author is advocating giving the UN authority to solve a non-problem. It’s not about “climate change” never has been, it’s all about power (and not the kind that is generated through the use of fossil fuels, hydro, nuclear, solar, wind, or any other fuel source).

Reply to  John Endicott
December 7, 2018 1:15 pm

“The whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed (and hence clamorous to be led to safety) by menacing it with an endless series of hobgoblins, all of them imaginary.” H.L. Mencken

Reply to  James Beaver
December 7, 2018 3:23 pm

You beat me to it…I was going to say the same thing.
Notice on the one hand we skeptical scum are not to use “apocalypse” or “catastrophe” when talking about “climate change”.
But the climatariat can talk about imposing a worldwide tyranny to enforce the climate consensus will.
These are some twisted pathetic twits pushing their climate based nonsense.

December 7, 2018 6:18 am

I have my yellow vest order in the shopping cart ready to hit ‘buy’ if something like this ever happens.

Reply to  Greg
December 7, 2018 6:56 am

Actually, given this article is from WAPO, maybe I’ll delete my cart and buy a vest from some place not owned by the same person.

Reply to  Greg
December 7, 2018 3:34 pm

The Amazon post is not our friend. Jeff Bezos is the richest man in the world. He wants what is good for Jeff Bezos. His lackeys and puppets and brown-nosers are not our friend.

steve case
December 7, 2018 6:24 am

“What kind of world would we live in, if the UN had “enforcement” powers?”

If you want a vision of the future, imagine a boot
stamping on a human face – forever. George Orwell

Reply to  steve case
December 7, 2018 8:18 am

Let me check on what the Ministry of Truth is saying today and get back to you.

Duncan Smith
December 7, 2018 6:30 am

“What if the USA elected a President who opposed United Nations policy?”

I think the USA already did, they didn’t need enforcement under Obama and why they need it now.

December 7, 2018 6:32 am

The peons aren’t behaving properly. The solution is (as always) more government.

Reply to  MarkW
December 7, 2018 3:27 pm

The deplorables are rejecting their cake.

Tom Halla
December 7, 2018 6:32 am

Transnational Progressives seem addicted to making claims that because of X, we need for Transnational Progressives to take over. X varies, but the desire remains constant.

Tom in Florida
December 7, 2018 6:33 am

And now the real agenda is no longer hidden.

steve case
Reply to  Tom in Florida
December 7, 2018 7:32 am

And this:

“Isn’t the only hope for the planet that the industrialized civilizations collapse? Isn’t it our responsibility to bring that about?” Maurice Strong 1992

Greg Cavanagh
Reply to  steve case
December 7, 2018 1:38 pm

It doesn’t require a conspiracy. It only requires a commonly held belief.

Climate science is the same. No conspiracy required.

John F. Hultquist
Reply to  steve case
December 7, 2018 5:25 pm
Reply to  steve case
December 8, 2018 7:19 am

Regarding the Maurice Strong quote, is it possible that one of the reasons (or main reason) for many US pollution laws and regulations that started taking off in the latex 60s, early 70s, was NOT to clean up the earth or US but to force these industries offshore?

The reason I ask this is that I’ve noticed that many Asian countries are now industrialized (and Strong spent the last years of his life living in communist China, who is now heavily industrialized).

And the quote from Strong specifies “industrialized nations” vs saying something like:
“Isn’t the only hope for the planet that there is no more industrialized nations anywhere on earth?

Reply to  Tom in Florida
December 7, 2018 9:31 pm

And now the real agenda is no longer hidden.

The agenda has never been hidden. Only when it starts to bite to people sit up and take notice.

December 7, 2018 6:46 am

Un’s Prof. Ottmer Edenhofer spilled the beans not so long ago: “One must say that we redistribute, de facto the world’s wealth by climate policy …This has almost nothing to do the environment any more.”

steve case
Reply to  E.Martin
December 7, 2018 7:30 am

There’s this:

“We are setting out to intentionally change the economic model that has been reigning since the Industrial Revolution. – Christiana Figueres, Executive Secretary – UN Framework Convention on Climate Change.”

December 7, 2018 6:48 am

I wouldn’t trust the UN to oversee a School Crossing guard.

Jon Scott
Reply to  H.R.
December 7, 2018 8:48 am

Thank god they do not otherwise kids would die!

Reply to  Jon Scott
December 7, 2018 9:33 am

You can’t make a supranational omelet without breaking many, many eggs.

Reply to  H.R.
December 8, 2018 8:20 am

1.) You have to have people willing to die for and defend the UN … perhaps the greenies might all sign up 🙂

2.) You have to pay for your army, perhaps the greenies will all donate to the cause.

3.) Then the others with world power have to allow you to build up your army … bye bye greenies.

December 7, 2018 6:49 am

It’s a good and a bad news. Good news is that even the most scary propaganda about alleged catastrophic consequences of human-induced warming is failing: that propaganda simply cannot cover up lack of hard evidence and that becomes evident to the public. Even if this propaganda is ferociously and relentlessly supported by most of the mass media, academia and politicians.

Bad news is that, as consequence of good news, time for more direct solutions. Read: enforcing planet-saving policies on the international level by brute force. I cannot see that happen just yet, but – looks like the other side starts to realize that conventional methods won’t work.

Alan Tomalty
Reply to  Paramenter
December 7, 2018 10:54 am

Who will volunteer to physically force China to stop building and financing coal plants? Any hands? I don’t see any hands. Thought so. So therefore all the alarmists and greenies only agenda is to sink their own economies. And for what? Not only is more CO2 in the air NOT a problem, but we need more CO2 in the air for greenery around the world NOT less.

Reply to  Alan Tomalty
December 7, 2018 12:59 pm

Who will volunteer to physically force China to stop building and financing coal plants? Any hands? I don’t see any hands. Thought so.

Correct. China will be pursuing its own agenda, ignoring all this climatic pressure. Still, China will happily help de-industralise Western economies by, for instance, sponsoring ‘useful idiots’ as Vladimir Ilici Lenin allegedly described Western intellectuals who supported Soviet communist regime.

Reply to  Paramenter
December 7, 2018 10:41 pm

The Chinese are smart enough to know that the IPCC wildly over-estimates the effects of CO2 and that the fear of CO2 by the West is a competitive advantage for them. I expect them to ride this wave of green insanity as far as they can.

If we were smart, we would put a massive tariff on solar cells to offset their cheap energy producing them and punish them for the lax environmental controls on their manufacturing facilities.

Reply to  Alan Tomalty
December 7, 2018 1:31 pm

When it comes to force, the UN is particularly cowardly. They wouldn’t protect people in Rwanda from being massacred and they wouldn’t protect the people in Srebrenica. They make me sick.

Bill Powers
December 7, 2018 6:50 am

Giving power over the people to faceless bureaucrats is the Corporatocracy checkmate move. Orwell saw it coming he simply missed the arrival date. EPA, IPCC matters not what acronyms we use it all spells Deep State Totalitarian Authority. They will just make them agencies of the IRS and enforce Bureaucratic dictates with the FBI.

We snoozed and we losed (sp). They dumbed us down in their Brainwashing Centers called public school and hoodwinked us with their Propaganda Ministry aka the mainstream press. Along the way they bought off the institutions of higher learning with federal grants and turned them into agent training centers for future bureaucratic comrades to keep watchful eyes on all of us Winston Smiths. We the people whom they have declared enemies of the state for destroying the planet by refusing to follow instructions and OBEYing the man.

John Endicott
Reply to  Bill Powers
December 7, 2018 7:52 am

1984 was supposed to be a warning, not an instruction manual.

Bill Powers
Reply to  John Endicott
December 7, 2018 1:52 pm

Idealistic Democratic Socialists like O-C, who is 4 primary colors short of a full crayon box, see it as a Romantic Comedy with a happy ending.

Bruce Cobb
December 7, 2018 6:50 am

The cognitive dissonance amongst the Greenie illuminati runs rampant now. It’s fun to watch the mental gymnastics they have to perform in order to keep the hope of keeping the CAGW dead-cult-walking alive.

December 7, 2018 6:53 am

Let me get this straight. A publication which could not exist without freedom of speech wants, in essence would amount to a world dictator with such powers that in all likely-hood, would limit the freedom of speech the publication needs to exist?
It could just be me, but this seems nucking futs!

kent beuchert
December 7, 2018 7:02 am

If one truly wants to lower CO2 levels, the means is as simpole as can be : molten salt small modular reactors, being developed by a dozen companies and national governments. Cheaper than any exiting energy generation technology, capable of providing all levels of power – baseload, peak load, etc and
inherently safe and manufactured and installed quickly- this would be a strategy far better than what one might get from a carbon tax and would be far more likely to be popular with all parties. One of the biggest obstacles to the move to force lower CO2 levels is the stupid technologies that are being
pushed. I have no objection to making sure CO2 levels do not continue rising but do object to the baindead technological methods the global warming nutballs are recommending.

John Endicott
Reply to  kent beuchert
December 7, 2018 7:49 am

Again (for the hundredth time), Kent, where can we see these in commercial operations so we can evaluate for our selves how cheap, safe, quick-to-install, etc they are? Oh, what’s that? there are none in commercial operation? that’s means you are spouting hype about vaporware. I can get similar hype about solar and wind and breakthru batteries. Hype and reality can (and often are) two differnt things

As I said to you numerous times before, they sound promising but until they make it out of the theory stage and into the practical application stage, all your hype is meaningless.

Ian Macdonald
Reply to  John Endicott
December 7, 2018 10:13 am

Thorium molten salt was tested for a run of several months in the 1960’s. What more do you want? -Cover the planet with them and THEN ask if they are viable? Oh wait, that’s what we’ve done with wind and solar, and found that unless we can develop hypothetical Grid storage, they are NOT viable.

Seems like thorium is the better bet than a battery that only exists on paper. Especially as building a test reactor would cost peanuts compared to the trillions spent on wind turbines.

No progress can be made without taking some kind of financial risk, but the financial risk with a plentiful return makes more sense than the one with a meager return, all else being equal.

John Endicott
Reply to  Ian Macdonald
December 7, 2018 12:02 pm

Thorium molten salt was tested for a run of several months in the 1960’s. What more do you want?

Electric cars were not only tested for a run but in production back in the late 1800s. But they weren’t considered competitive with the interal combustion engine and thus disappeared from commercial use until recently. Just because something was tested in a lab doesn’t make it viable in the real world compared to the alternatives. I want to see some (just one would do, which is one more than we currently have) actually in commercial use to prove that the technology works to scale and can produce the energy economically enough compared to the alternative. the only way to see if they are “cheap, safe, quick-to-install, etc” is to see one operating in the real world.

Seems like thorium is the better bet than a battery that only exists on paper.

thorium would be better than a battery that only exists on paper *if* thorium itself didn’t only exist on paper at the moment.

No progress can be made without taking some kind of financial risk, but the financial risk with a plentiful return makes more sense than the one with a meager return, all else being equal

And no sane investor will take a financial risk to mass produce something that is unproven in the real world whether it be thorium or your better battery. They’ll want to see the first one in real world action (ie a working prototype) at the very least. Promises and hype won’t cut it. And that’s what both thorium and your “on paper only battery” currently has – endless hype but nothing real to show for it.

John Endicott
Reply to  Ian Macdonald
December 7, 2018 12:44 pm

Especially as building a test reactor would cost peanuts compared to the trillions spent on wind turbines.

Great, then build one so we can have something tangible to examine to see how well it works in the real world.

Reply to  Ian Macdonald
December 7, 2018 12:45 pm

Running a test reactor in a lab for a few months is not evidence that it capable of being ramped up to production quantities at an economically viable price.

Reply to  MarkW
December 8, 2018 9:45 am

No. But it’s a start…

John Endicott
Reply to  MarkW
December 8, 2018 11:56 am

Yes, but you don’t get the gold medal when you are standing at the starting line, you actually have to run the race first.

Jon Scott
Reply to  kent beuchert
December 7, 2018 9:33 am

Who wants lower CO2 levels and for what reason? Do any of the green religion followers understand that 280ppm was historically low as in LOW ! That in it’s self should have been a serious question for them to use their models to predict how low it could have got if I did not help out with my gas guzzler. We should be congratulation ourselves for averting catastrophe not crying over it! What level of atmospheric CO2 do they think is “nice”? Important number to work from one would think, like a temperature which is also “nice” and sea level which is “nice”. Who decides what these should be and where are they posted? Of course one person’s nice is not everyone elses “nice”. Why do they not publish a set of valuse considered by the despotic UN to be “nice”? Is it because they do not know? The absurd reference currently for temp based on the Little Ice Age is too stupid for words. In reality the green hysterics “ideal” colour will actually be brown because below 200ppm photosynthesis grinds to a halt and then even green activists and climate pseudoscientists will DIE. I wonder who they would blame then with their last thoughts, clearly not themselves.

Reply to  kent beuchert
December 7, 2018 1:54 pm

There is one outside of Tonopah Nevada. It’s a disaster. It has 10,000 + 1,200 sq ft mirrors that focus the beams on a tower. It melts a fantastic number birds, even for the desert of Nevada. It’s only ever met it’s goals for 3 months out of several years of operation. Just the molten lithium salts cost like $30,000,000 dollars. It’s a total eyesore if you’re driving within 20 miles of the place, as it’s like having a continuous sunrise. It often goes down for several days in a row.

Reply to  kent beuchert
December 7, 2018 9:01 pm

You state that molten salt modular reactors can be “manufactured and installed quickly”. However, you left out the critical word – nuclear. Aside from NIMBYism and the onslaught of the Greens against anything nuclear, I suspect that said reactors could not be manufactured or installed quickly without a massive change in the regulatory environment. The current incumbents of the regulatory agencies aren’t going to budge from the tried and true regulatory approach that has kept them in business for decades. It would take someone more successful than Trump to turn that regulatory battleship from its current course.

And therein lies the biggest single reason that such technology, assuming it works and is scalable, will never be implemented.

December 7, 2018 7:07 am

“‘A kind of dark realism’: Why the climate change problem is starting to look too big to solve

By Steven Mufson
Updated 05 Dec 2018 — 2:03 PM,
first published at 11:26 AM

In the daunting maths of climate action, individual choices and government policies aren’t adding up.”

Mufson should just move to a socialist dictatorship country. He’ll get the oppressive government authority he so treasures. And just like his propaganda at Washpo, mufson will write the same empty drivel at the government approved fake news outlet. All the news the government will allow peons to have.

Pamela Gray
December 7, 2018 7:12 am

I’m not so sure this is so impossible that we can make fun of it. Both seaboards, where most people live, are nodding their heads in agreement to this nonsense. And they are working on ways to change how we vote, how we count, and how we elect our governments just so these nutty ideas can be our new reality. The base on which the constitution sits is not exactly firm anymore and UN suggestions, first the small ones, could become directives. At that point in time, game over.

Liberals will eventually bemoan their short- sightedness. The trick is to get them to see the cliff now instead of after the jump off the cliff. That may be harder than the most wicked science question.

Reply to  Pamela Gray
December 7, 2018 12:29 pm

I don’t think it’s impossible at all – all it requires is that people willing to turn our sovereignty over get voted into the position to do so. And some of them have been.

Pamela Gray
Reply to  Joel Snider
December 7, 2018 1:14 pm

Which is why I said joking about something that sounds ludicrous is not always wise. Ludicrous has a habit of becoming reality. And time was wasted joking about it.

Ian W
December 7, 2018 7:18 am

This is the logical next step for the globalists. It follows the same thread as the Macron/ Merkel EU army. Bureaucratic power requires enforcement power. So while nation states are required to reduce their military capacity, multinational supranational organizations want that military enforcement of their edicts.

Dave Keys
December 7, 2018 7:35 am

We can start by banning the building of new Coal Fired power stations. Any country that builds a new coal fire power stations will not be allowed to trade.

How much that will not happen?

Reply to  Dave Keys
December 7, 2018 8:50 am

This is likely what they want to do, but they have an easy workaround that’s already been implemented which is to exclude China, India and other ‘developing’ economies from being punished for being successful.

December 7, 2018 7:42 am

Goreites want to skip the defining-the-problem and proving-the-problem steps, and skip straight to the fun global slavery step.

December 7, 2018 7:45 am

‘A kind of dark realism’: Why the climate change marxist-takeover problem is starting to look too big to solve.

Fixed it for the stooge.

December 7, 2018 7:56 am

Won’t work because a strong military can only enforce such craziness.

Jean Parisot
Reply to  stevek
December 7, 2018 8:39 am

And they like cheap fuel.

Clyde Spencer
Reply to  Jean Parisot
December 7, 2018 12:44 pm

Jean Parisot
The UN ‘Peace Keeping’ forces would be better leveraged if the US citizen were disarmed in the same manner as happened in the UK and Australia.

December 7, 2018 7:59 am

Hi Steve Case
Re: the famous Orwell quote about the “boot stamping on a human face”
Pulease-the quote should be updated to:

“A Gucci loafer stamping on a human face.”

steve case
Reply to  Bob Hoye
December 7, 2018 9:51 am

Bob, the ruling class has a secret police force to do the dirty work, and they wear boots.

December 7, 2018 7:59 am

On a smaller scale I always thought this is how the EU will end up with its army, used to put down rebelious ex-countries.

Reply to  Julian
December 7, 2018 9:35 am

Even better, recruits from the country being invaded can serve as hostages.

Moderately Cross of East Anglia
December 7, 2018 8:02 am

At least it reveals the ambitions that they harbour, world government without a semblance of democratic legitimacy. That’s just NGO’s which astoundingly are accorded charitable tax break status in the U.K. but are chain most cases (Greedpeace, WWF) political organisations whose unelected, unaccountable ever more extreme inner circle leadership happily put any dopey green initiative ahead of human progress.

We should seriously consider defunding the UN if it carries on like this. When they devise a uniform for themselves to wear it will be too late. Even if it looks smart.

Reply to  Moderately Cross of East Anglia
December 7, 2018 6:02 pm

You should defund the UN regardless. Heck, you should have defunded it 30 years ago when we were warning you of what was coming.

Maybe a few things of value came from the UN fifty years ago, but nothing does today. At least, nothing that couldn’t be better done without it.

Peter Pearson
December 7, 2018 8:04 am

The title of this post is undermined by the fact that the word “enforcement” never appears in the selected quotations.

Reply to  Peter Pearson
December 7, 2018 9:44 am

Lack of a particular word undermines nothing. Did Hitler include ‘massenmord’ in the Nazi Party’s 25 points? A thorough reading of the Copenhagen draft agreement reveals that it calls for “consequences” for violations, as well as an enforcement arm. They’re not stupid enough to call it that, but it’s very clear that any and all means necessary to wreak “consequences” upon individual countries are included in the scope.

Joel Snider
December 7, 2018 8:09 am

Well, they keep edging towards their real goal, don’t they? Steady ratcheting.

Paul Stevens
December 7, 2018 8:19 am

Carbon taxes won’t hurt, even though they will increase the cost of everything in society, because we will give you a rebate at the end of the year. Because passing all of this through a government mandated process will be frictionless and cost free you will feel no pain. And buying your brand new electric vehicle will make your life better despite you having to pay 20% more than an ICE vehicle would cost, and pay more for electricity that is green power based.

And public transit will make traveling to work and shopping better, because you will be rubbing shoulders with your fellow citizens, and you can engage with them while you jointly complain about the weight of the shopping bags you are holding onto as you stand swaying back and forth in the crowded aisle between the packed seats during you hour long trip to your destination.

It is amazing we don’t all rush forward to embrace this glorious future envisioned for us by the talking heads.

Reply to  Paul Stevens
December 7, 2018 8:42 am

Our public transit is falling apart–the East Coast’s famed “Acela Corridor” is running on a roadbed laid in 1845 with sections of 100-year-old catenaries. Much of the rolling stock dates from the Nixon administration. The NYC subways’ switching and signal system, also over 100 years old, would take more money than anyone has to upgrade, and would have to be shut down while the work is going on. Meanwhile, the tunnel under the Hudson is about to collapse into the drink. Uber and medallion taxi drivers are committing suicide weekly because they can’t feed their families on what they make. So good luck with that public transit thing . . .

Meanwhile, the Great God Bezos just bought a very large piece of waterfront property in Queens, only a few feet above present sea level, to build Amazon’s new auxiliary corporate headquarters. If he REALLY believed the Seas are about to Rise, would they be building there?

Watch what they DO–always very different from what they SAY.

Reply to  Paul Stevens
December 7, 2018 9:49 am

‘It is amazing we don’t all rush forward to embrace this glorious future envisioned for us by the talking heads.’

I know – isn’t a shame all us knuckle-draggers don’t just do what we’re told?
I guess they didn’t start teaching that sort acquiesce compliance until our generation was already out of school.

Reply to  Paul Stevens
December 7, 2018 10:25 am

We have a very good, very reliable public transit system where I live. But they don’t come to my door. The nearest bus stop is a mile away. I don’t fancy walking home from the bus stop with 15 shopping bags of groceries on a blisteringly cold winter day, nor would I look forward to doing that on a hot summer day while my ice cream melts.

Reply to  Sara
December 7, 2018 12:27 pm

But Sara, isn’t that a small price to pay for saving the planet?

John Endicott
Reply to  Joel Snider
December 7, 2018 12:50 pm

Joel you forgot to implore her to “think of the children”.

Reply to  Joel Snider
December 7, 2018 5:05 pm

My ice cream is more important than the planet, which can take quite good care of itself. 🙂 So, NO, no!!!!

michael hart
Reply to  Sara
December 9, 2018 4:58 am

Sara, you won’t be able to afford ice cream anyway after their plan is implemented.

Reply to  Sara
December 7, 2018 9:57 pm

In the future Sara, you won’t be allowed frozen foods like ice cream. Too much CO2 generated making it. And why do you think you will be allowed 15 shopping bags. In Communist Russia, they got by with just half a pound of sandwich meat per month, and had to queue for two hours to get it.

Ben Gunn
December 7, 2018 8:24 am

My family has an old saying that is used in response to encroaching despots, carpetbaggers and snollygosters, “Over my dead body.”

John Endicott
Reply to  Ben Gunn
December 7, 2018 12:49 pm

I never heard of snollygosters before. After looking it up, I rather like that word. Will have to find a chance to use it in the future. thanks.

Reply to  John Endicott
December 7, 2018 9:58 pm

It’s perfect. Describes these warmists to a tee.

Larry Hamlin
December 7, 2018 8:24 am

The UN tried to establish mandated commitments for greenhouse gas emissions reductions in the Paris agreement. The world’s governments told the UN to take a hike.

michael hart
Reply to  Larry Hamlin
December 9, 2018 5:13 am

The BBC is now in the pits of despair, reporting: “Climate change: COP24 fails to adopt key scientific report” https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-46496967
They love the bureaucratic dream of ruling the planet, but still don’t understand that most of the people alongside them never actually mean the things they mouth-off about. Those are just platitudes for the media and public consumption.

The entitled hand-wringing from the people they quote is really quite something to behold.

December 7, 2018 8:31 am

“A United Nations armed with “enforcement” powers could send an international army”

Wait until they get a taste of our artillery fire. That will be an education for them.

Jon Scott
December 7, 2018 8:44 am

Lord Monkton has been pointing to this obscenity as the basis of climate fraud. That they are brave enough to speak. directly suggests either over confidence or desperation. The recent outrageous level of media climate propaganda suggests the latter.

December 7, 2018 8:54 am

The main problem with most liberals is that they really, honestly, believe that somebody, somewhere actually knows what the hell they’re doing, and if you just put them in charge, everything will be just fine. They’ve given up on God, but they still believe in government.

Quote for the day:

“You keep using that word Scientist. I don’t think it means what you think it means.”

Reply to  Lokki
December 7, 2018 2:24 pm

What the progs don’t get is that we now see the cracks in The Matrix.

Tom in Florida
December 7, 2018 9:08 am

What the foolish bureaucrats do not seem to understand is that after creating this army who will stop the leaders of that army from killing them and taking over everything?

F. Ross
December 7, 2018 9:12 am

For the US >>> UNexit

December 7, 2018 9:14 am

Delete the UN!

December 7, 2018 9:32 am

Now that all the promises have been made and virtue signaling actions have taken place the reality sets in. The world is addicted to fossil fuels for all the right reasons and just telling people to do without them isn’t going to work. The harder they push the divorce the more people realize it isn’t going to happen until/if we run out. I’m just surprised more effort isn’t being put into delegitimatizing the AGW meme.

D Anderson
December 7, 2018 9:33 am

The fascists keep knocking on the door. How long till they kick the door down and take over.

Reply to  D Anderson
December 7, 2018 9:44 am

The very second they CAN.

That’s why they’re so mad at the Trump election – they were ALMOST THERE.

Pat Frank
Reply to  Joel Snider
December 7, 2018 3:30 pm

I agree Joel. The non-Hillary outcome was defeat snatched from the jaws of victory.

Eight years of Hillary would have been 16 years of Barack Obama and the fade-out of America. The dream outcome of the anti-American left.

Reply to  Joel Snider
December 7, 2018 6:09 pm

Yes. If Clinton had won, it would have been game over. WWIII followed by the ‘elites’ crawling out of their bunkers to take their rightful place on the throne of the world, telling the survivors what to do.

Except that billionaire bankers and politicians wouldn’t last long in a post-apocalyptic world where their money was worthless and there was little call for stocks and shares.

Trump gave us a brief breathing space to try to prevent that disastrous outcome.

December 7, 2018 9:47 am

Let’s list all the crises solved by the UN in the last 60+ years.

December 7, 2018 9:50 am


December 7, 2018 9:57 am

It would look very much like Cuba. Even the Cubans don’t like it.

Coeur de Lion
December 7, 2018 10:02 am

The reason why yellow vests are so
readily available is that the French nanny state requires them for all in your car – thus I have three and am ready to march

Bruce Cobb
Reply to  Coeur de Lion
December 7, 2018 2:34 pm

Thus, they are hoist by their own petard. Oh, the ironing.

December 7, 2018 10:20 am

No, not war. Waste of time and resources.

Disband the UN, and kick them out of New York City.

The UN was supposed to be a peacemaking council. It has NO authority to do anything. Gotten too big for its britches when this kind of thing is being suggested.


Paul Penrose
December 7, 2018 10:26 am

Crisis is the rallying cry of the tyrant. Never forget that their end goal is to crush individual freedom because they don’t believe you deserve it (not born to the correct parents, not smart enough, not educated enough, etc.).

Robert of Texas
December 7, 2018 10:47 am

What a great idea… We just proved in France that eventually, given a high enough burden in taxes and lack of say in the matter, people will riot (Great Britain already learned this in the 1700’s). So lets create a NEW layer of government that is even MORE elitist and LESS eager to listen, and THEY can raise taxes to huge unsustainable amounts, and then watch the people riot about THAT.

Then, they need to form a “police force” to control these rioters, so even more taxes (and more rioters). Then grant themselves special powers to declare martial law. Then build huge prison camps to keep the unruly in. Then we can just rename Earth to Valenzuela, as they have managed to already test this political model.

YEAH. This is a GREAT idea. Just the kind of thinking a liberal elitist mind would come up with.

Geoff Sherrington
Reply to  Robert of Texas
December 7, 2018 2:18 pm

Well stated, Robert. Geoff

December 7, 2018 10:58 am

Green saber rattling

Reply to  ResourceGuy
December 7, 2018 5:23 pm

The ‘greens’ of today are clearly ideological b@stard-children of the ‘Unabomber’s manifesto’.

December 7, 2018 11:26 am

The best solution: Tax the Warmunists at COP 24 the IPCC recommended $8/gallon they propose as a their starter-tax on transits fuels to fly home from Poland as a pilot project to text the viability of proposal. This way they can walk their talk in a experience-based leadership position to take this back to their local governments.

Schrodinger's Cat
December 7, 2018 11:30 am

At some point the action by governments to meet alarmist demands will exceed the ability of consumers and taxpayers to keep paying. This point may already have been reached in France, but I suspect that other governments will dismiss that as a typical over-reaction by the volatile French.

When such a point is reached, governments will have to assess what options they have to save the planet without driving their citizens into poverty or causing them to riot. It seems to me that questioning the robustness of the science that underpins the science would be another good option.

But they have no reason to do that. They have been aware of scepticism for years but have learned to ignore it. The vast global warming industry has made sure of that. Yet I am sure that we have a good case to present. There are observational results such as the satellite record which can be compared with the model predictions, the same with sea levels and extreme weather frequencies. We need a coordinated effort to gather evidence, present the evidence and spread the word.

Even sowing doubt in the minds of those in government would be a worthwhile start. But do we have any organised movement capable of organising such a exercise?

As a starting point, I am sure that many of us would welcome a review of the facts concerning climate change monitoring points – data that is valid to use to argue that the claims used by the MSM is wrong. Getting an agreed common argument would be a very good start.

Surveys show that the public are growing weary of alarmist claims and have doubts about them. Armed with verifiable data we could build on that.

Pat Frank
Reply to  Schrodinger's Cat
December 7, 2018 3:18 pm

All the things you recommend have already been done, SC.

But journals resist publication, the AGW-committed who have betrayed science loudly and publicly protest skepticism as persecution, the science establishment has rolled over, green environmental groups insistently lie and distort, and the press is either cortexually challenged or basely motivated and both wings are fully committed to the narrative.

Russell Johnson
December 7, 2018 11:47 am

First they crush your wealth, next they crush your freedom, then they crush you.

Tom in Florida
Reply to  Russell Johnson
December 7, 2018 12:34 pm

First they take your guns, then…….

Clay Sanborn
Reply to  Tom in Florida
December 7, 2018 7:12 pm

Remember how the U.N. in 2013 tried to establish some degree of gun registration in the United States. Imagine what a horror story that would have been.

Wiliam Haas
December 7, 2018 11:54 am

But there is no climate crisis. Climate change is currently so slow that it takes a network of sophisticated sensors decades to even detect it. Do not mix up true global climate change with weather cycles that are part of the current climate. Extreme weather events are part of the current climate and are not indicative of climate change. Based on the paleoclimate record and the work done with models, one can conclude that the current climate change is caused by the sun and the oceans over which mankind has no control. Despite the hype, there is no real evidence that CO2 has any effect on climate and plenty of scientific rationale to support the idea that the climate sensitivity of CO2 is zero. Even if the UN had all the resources of mankind available to “fight climate change” they would still have no power to stop the Earth’s climate from changing. It is all a matter of science.

Clyde Spencer
December 7, 2018 12:50 pm

I’m reminded of the old joke, “Trust us! We’re from the government and we’re here to help you.”

Greg Cavanagh
Reply to  Clyde Spencer
December 7, 2018 1:49 pm

Where’s the punch line? *WHACK* Oh, there it is… &*#$@!

John Bell
December 7, 2018 2:10 pm

I am surprised the UN does not organize mass tree plantings.

Tom in Florida
Reply to  John Bell
December 7, 2018 2:21 pm

They cannot collect bribe money from tree plantings. Besides, they would screw that up also.

December 7, 2018 3:18 pm

Bezos is really not very different from Henry Ford, who bought a Detroit newspaper from which to protect his money and promote his bigotry.
Only Bezos is even richer than Ford ever dreamed about, and has much less regard for his workers. Ford, in his early years, was famous for good treatment and high pay for his workers. So even though he was a bigot he cared for America
Bezos is a bigot who despises both his workers and the United States.
His paper, the Amazon Post reeks of its owner’s self seeking oligarchical prejudice and arrogance.
In the not too distant past journalists recognized that having a nation’s decisions controlled by the selfish greed of a guy worth about $80 billion might not be a good thing. Now journalists are just part of if the Amazon Borg.

Michael S. Kelly, LS, BSA, Ret.
December 7, 2018 3:47 pm

I just have to shake my head in wonderment at this. To see how effective the UN would be in doing anything to help anyone under any circumstances, please see the amazing film Hotel Rwanda. The UN “peacekeepers” were enjoined from doing anything to prevent the mass slaughter of the Tutsi tribe in Rwanda by political types living comfortably half a world away.

As for what would happen if the UN attempted military action against the US, we would respond the same way Switzerland did: “When the German Kaiser asked in 1912 what the quarter of a million Swiss militiamen would do if invaded by a half million German soldiers, a Swiss replied: shoot twice and go home. (http://davekopel.org/2A/OthWr/Target_Switzerland.htm)” Except in our case, the militia amounts to 90 million people.

Gunga Din
December 7, 2018 4:38 pm

The League of Nations. Formed after WW1. It was supposed to prevent another such outbreak by giving the nations a “neutral” forum to air their grievances short of war.
The United Nations. Formed after WW2. It was supposed to prevent another such outbreak by giving the nations a “neutral” forum to air their grievances short of war.
Wars continued during and after the formation of both.
(I read an article from a 1932 article in an magazine about “International News” and the League of Nations. (no mention of Germany) It had to do with the Chinese representative trying call the body’s attention to information he had via a radio message (no internet then) that the Japanese had landed several thousand troops at Shanghai and were moving toward Nanjing.
Then the Japanese representative was quoted as saying that such a thing had never happened.
“The Rape of Nanjing” followed. And worse.
Has the UN done better?
Now the UN wants actual authority over other nations’ laws and constitutions to continue to make nothing good happen?!?! Because of CO2 and a tree ring!?!?!?
LONG past the time the US should send them out of the US. Move their HQ to the Hague. Then quit.

Gunga Din
Reply to  Gunga Din
December 7, 2018 8:22 pm

Today is December 7th.
We were caught by surprise once.
Lets not be blind sided again…from within.

Michael Jankowski
December 7, 2018 4:58 pm

“…Congress hasn’t shown any appetite for a carbon tax, either. A proposal to impose a $US40-per-tonne carbon tax and return the revenue to people in dividends has not caught fire yet…”

Either this guy is clueless or hopes readers are.

December 7, 2018 5:16 pm

But how will they know when the great calamity is over? How will they tell when weather extremism has finally been conquered and dispatched from heaven and Earth? And the great war against natural-variability has been finally won, and the Earth converted to a perfectly serene heavenly blue-green marble, where lion doth lay down with the lamb?

Can the UN General Assembly rise to their feet in unison, raise their fingers to heaven like times of old, and simply tell the sky, “Be still”.

Or will they need our extracted precious bodily fluids to help make wallets out of our firstborn’s foreskins, to help stuff our cash into their pockets, before that great and wondrous day cometh, which day arrives like a UN thief-in-the-night, the time of which no man knoweth?

I’m pretty sure it’ll be the later.

December 7, 2018 7:06 pm

The UN put together a peacekeeping force for Rwanda which stood by while the massacres of fellow Rwandan citizens took place. The Dutch stood by in Srebrenica. It was the Us not the UN that stopped that.

the human rights commentariat is staffed by human rights violators. How can Saudi Arabia head a UN Human rights organisation .

the thought of giving them enforcement powers should make our blood run cold. Mind you, I dont think the outcome would be good if they tried enforcement action in the USA. The Russians have never been that stupid.

Ronald Ginzler
December 7, 2018 7:10 pm

“We need to institute World Government so we can address Climate Change,” started as “We need to create Climate Change so we can institute World Government.”

Gunga Din
Reply to  Ronald Ginzler
December 7, 2018 7:41 pm


December 8, 2018 12:53 am

The UN could be a positive force if it stuck to its original mandate but like all governments
as long as there is some fool to pay them they just need to grow .
As Steve pointed out , Maurice Strong UN bureaucrat and reformed fossil fuel executive , called for the collapse of industrialized civilisation . Now that’s an organization you would not want to trust
expanding their reach . Collapse civilization and put billions into poverty . Maybe a few big wars to
cull the herd while pretending to set the earths thermostat .
The global warming con game was their virtue signaling taxing authority . Hollow out the middle class
and return to the days of yore where a few rich run the slaves . Oh give them a vote to create the illusion of
democracy but don’t get carried away . Screw up the Universities and own the media . Just all part of the plan .

Trump bought time for normal people to fight back . Bye bye Macron . Trudeau is on deck .

Lance of BC
Reply to  Amber
December 8, 2018 2:44 am

Damn straight Trump bought us time(I’m Canadian)and Macron is the poster child for what’s wrong with the Paris accord….Trudeau said we have to except the CHANGE, translation= get used to less and spend more and deeper the soon to be signed (5 days?)agreement through the UN for full rights for migrants showing up at your borders to be ok’d by Macron, Merkel, Trudeau, etc. OPEN BORDERS!?!>?

When/where was the vote takin on this? Who dreamed this up and who agreed? How many and from where, how much will this cost me? What about the people who have been waiting in line for a year to get here legally? Maybe they should just declare themselves migrants?

Can I just become a migrant to ANY country? !?! Cuzzzzz Canada sucks. Hmmm looking around..!

December 8, 2018 7:46 am

I remember reading about a climate “scientist” calling for a climate dictator to set things straight. I recall Bill Gates saying we need to get away from representational government to solve this so-called problem. I also recall the Bible talking about an anti-Christ world dictator that will take over the world and begin a time of tribulation. I’m not a Christian but damn it all seems to be falling into place!

Linda Goodman
December 8, 2018 1:19 pm

It’s the oldest trick in the book to mask fascist plans with utopian lies. And everyone is pretending right along with them, like the Emperor’s New Clothes. Debating the junk climate science is like debating the Emperor’s fashion style, and if no one calls it what it is and soon – A NAKED POWER GRAB – we’ll be marched into a totalitarian system the likes of which the world has never seen before.

December 8, 2018 2:03 pm

Maybe those who attend UN conferences and meetings are just looking to see how they can cash in on the UN global agenda?

December 8, 2018 5:46 pm

Speaking of Trudeau lite , China owns him .
10 to 1 he knew about the arrest of Meng Wanzhou because it was cleared through
his pals ahead of time .
China has a top 100 in Canada who have stolen billions yet Canada doesn’t turn them over . Hmm ?
Marcon and Trudeau are the poster boys for virtue signalers that people have quickly gotten sick of .

Set the earth’s temperature by pretending a trace gas is the control knob ? Now that’s a real denier .

Louis Hunt
December 8, 2018 6:15 pm

Why does the Pope also want a “world political authority” empowered to “impose sanctions” to protect the environment and regulate migration amount other things? Doesn’t he know that such a world authority would impose all sorts of restrictions on the church if not ban it outright?

From the Encyclical Letter of Pope Francis:
175 “…To manage the global economy; to revive economies hit by the crisis; to avoid any deterioration of the present crisis and the greater imbalances that would result; to bring about integral and timely disarmament, food security and peace; to guarantee the protection of the environment and to regulate migration: for all this, there is urgent need of a true world political authority, as my predecessor Blessed John XXIII indicated some years ago”.

Verified by MonsterInsights