For years, climate realists around the world have been warning the international community that the entire man-made global warming myth and resulting hysteria is all a scheme to redistribute wealth under the pretense of saving the planet.
In a document obtained by FOX News, the United Nations has made it official.
As FOX News executive editor George Russell reported Friday:
A United Nations document on "climate change" that will be distributed to a major environmental conclave next week envisions a huge reordering of the world economy, likely involving trillions of dollars in wealth transfer, millions of job losses and gains, new taxes, industrial relocations, new tariffs and subsidies, and complicated payments for greenhouse gas abatement schemes and carbon taxes -- all under the supervision of the world body.
Those and other results are blandly discussed in a discretely worded United Nations "information note" on potential consequences of the measures that industrialized countries will likely have to take to implement the Copenhagen Accord, the successor to the Kyoto Treaty, after it is negotiated and signed by December 2009. [...]
The 16-page note, obtained by FOX News, will be distributed to participants at a mammoth negotiating session that starts on March 29 in Bonn, Germany, the first of three sessions intended to hammer out the actual commitments involved in the new deal.
Some of the ideas discussed in this document eerily resembled what NASA's James Hansen wrote to Barack Obama last December:
A rising carbon price is essential to "decarbonize" the economy, i.e., to move the nation toward the era beyond fossil fuels. The most effective way to achieve this is a carbon tax (on oil, gas, and coal) at the well-head or port of entry. The tax will then appropriately affect all products and activities that use fossil fuels. The public's near-term, mid-term, and long-term lifestyle choices will be affected by knowledge that the carbon tax rate will be rising.
The public will support the tax if it is returned to them, equal shares on a per capita basis (half shares for children up to a maximum of two child-shares per family), deposited monthly in bank accounts. No large bureaucracy is needed. A person reducing his carbon footprint more than average makes money. A person with large cars and a big house will pay a tax much higher than the dividend.
Maybe more concerning, Obama's 2010 budget proposal includes a carbon cap-and-trade scheme, although there is some question as to whether this will survive the coming battle on Capitol Hill. ABC's George Stephanopoulos reported last Friday that cap-and-trade will likely be sacrificed this year as Obama and Congressional Democrats focus attention on health care.
Beyond this, recent polls have revealed an increasing skepticism by the public concerning the veracity of media reports regarding global warming. These same polls also find that the appetite for expensive solutions during a recession is waning.
Add to this the recent findings which suggest the current cooling trend that began in 1998 could last for at least another decade; the folks looking to use this manufactured crisis as a means of redistributing wealth must be realizing that the window of opportunity is starting to close.
As such, they may believe this upcoming December meeting in Copenhagen is their last chance, thereby making this 16-page document a formal game plan for what is likely the beginning of a nine month full-court press.
Let's be honest, folks like Nobel laureate Al Gore have their reputations and their very fortunes on the line here, so we should all expect a great deal of hysterical media coverage in the near future -- especially after the hurricane season begins in May.
Here's my advice, America: Prepare now for the coming storm.
Noel Sheppard is associate editor of the Media Research Center's NewsBusters.org. He welcomes feedback at nsheppard@newbusters.org.
You're funny, maybe you should go work for Saturday night live. Why is it that you only give one source of information? And of course its a Fox link. Because its stupid to politicize the weather, why don't you delete the whole article then? You are the alarmist wealth transfer is completely normal.
I am trying to unpoliticize the weather by pointing out that none of these programs are actually going to change the climate but rather they serve as an excuse to further Tax and Regulate every aspect of our lives.
The Government is telling us what kind of light bulbs we should buy, how many kids we should have, what our Thermostat should be set at.
They're telling you that energy costs more than you thought. The betrayal you feel seems directed more toward your parents and grandparents for not being able to tell you this when you were a wee tyke than the reflexively bristling government-aware caution of a Daughter or Son of the American Revolution.
Time wears on, and humans get collectively and individually smarter. That includes learning that we're now grown up enough to control the weather without even meaning to. CO2 is only the tip of an iceberg of responsibility that no one in our respective upbringings even hinted was owned by us. I do respect and understand your pain - but I also live near a coast and would like to keep breathing air instead of seawater for the foreseeable future.
You're focused on the politics, but politics is a side effect here, not a root cause.
I agree with you on the that we are grown up enough to control the weather and we probably do (Google Climate Control) and we could very well kill all life on earth accidentally because of Genetically Modifying our food (Google Monsanto).
My whole point is that CO2 is not a problem, plants need CO2 to grow, if there was no CO2 there would be no life. A Blue Whale emits 87 Tons of CO2 annually should we kill the whales? Trees also emit CO2 should we chop down all the trees?
AGW is a made up distraction to keep us preoccupied so we will miss the real ecological disasters brewing and it is also an excuse to put a One World Government into place.
You should watch these.
The Great Global Warming Swindle
The World According To Manseanto
I'm not sure I can agree about the made-up distraction, mostly because I've never observed this planet full of primates to be quite that intentionally self-organised. Plus I work in information security, and have always found that secrets are sufficiently difficult and expensive to keep - especially damaging, valuable ones - that effective conspiracies are nearly impossible to maintain for long. It's just worth too much to sell what you know.
Plants do need CO2 and so, in fact, do we - but just as too much of it in your tissues and bloodstream will lead to your death of acidosis (something that's coincidentally happening to someone I know), too much of any good thing is invariably a bad thing. A gas is a gas - it's not a bogeyman, just a resource. Getting it out of balance requires a sustained effort, and that's what we've been doing for a couple hundred years now. To pretty good effect too, since I enjoy having these kinds of conversations and really couldn't without an Internet. Now I just need to find a way of supporting that that also reflects the responsibility to stewardship that comes with the privilege to communicate.
I would respecfully suggest that focusing on individual carbon emitters and sinks is literally missing the forest for the trees - it's the ongoing dynamic process that's out of balance. We've never yet built a technology that we didn't use to the point of excess, so I don't find it surprising that we used fossil fuels right up to the point where the planet started to reject us for not paying attention to our own consequences.
As for Earth Hour, it's obviously a bit silly, but that's because it's just a symbol - like waving a flag or wearing a ring. It's not the hour that matters, but the awareness it spreads. Does the way we use energy matter? You and I know it always did, but for a lot of people that's a pretty new concept. Let them have their party in the dark if it helps them see what their world really looks like at night.
Socially this battle is already past the tipping point and I have no personal need to convince you, but I am interested in your viewpoint simply because it's not the same as mine. Thanks for taking the time to reply.
Marc
You're right you can get too much of a good thing, but you can also have too little of a good thing. Green houses typically are set at about 1000 parts per million CO2, which is 3 times the atmospheric level, for maximum plant growth.
In 2003 Nature Magazine did an experiment where they planted trees in New York City and trees way out in the country. The Trees in the city grew twice as fast as the trees in the country, because of the increased CO2.
missingextension writes:
"You are the alarmist wealth transfer is completely normal."
Yeah, so are corruption and totalitarianism.