Another perspective

http://www.examiner.com/

Kyoto Climate Treaty was nothing compared to the proposed Copenhagen Treaty, new draft
October 9, 9:00 AMNew Haven County Environmental Policy ExaminerKirtland Griffin
Previous
Subscribe
Get alerts when there is a new article from the New Haven County Environmental Policy Examiner. Read Examiner.com's terms of use.
Email Address Include other special offers from Examiner.comTerms of Use


The Kyoto Treaty called for emissions reductions for all its signers and was legally binding...sort of. The truth was that none of the countries met their obligations for carbon reduction except for a few whose economies were in a state of ruin. Any country that met the targets of that treaty, as well as the new Copenhagen Treaty, would end up in that same sorry state. As I have stated previously, that is the unstated goal of the environmentalists that support the preposterous notion of man-made global warming regardless of the name you put on it. A disclaimer here... although I browsed through the Treaty rather carefully, it would be unfair to claim I read it. I sampled extensively, random portions of the document, reading everything in the samples. I certainly got the flavor and it wasn't very tasty.

A draft, with many options included, has been made available by Lord Christopher Monckton of Scotland who is currently on a cross Canada speaking tour. It clearly was not intended to be distributed freely and they are not happy people like myself are writing about it and informing the public. The UN does it’s best work under the cover of secrecy. The implications of the treaty according to the document in it's present form, are outside anything I could have imagined and are enough to make any freedom loving American cringe. As one person stated, "It is the end of freedom as we know it." The treaty is under the United Nation’s Framework Convention on Climate Change.

So what are the specifics of the treaty that are so onerous? Four words are oft repeated throughout the 800-plus page document and they are "financial and technology mechanism". What this means to us is a big bill... a really big bill! Let me list just some of the ways in which the UN and this treaty will drain our wealth.

First, there is no mention that I saw as to how the "financial mechanism" will be administered. If past practices are any indication there is a high probability that the World Bank will be in the middle of it. They were involved with Kyoto and are just the kind of organization one would expect to be involved in any UN scheme. As some of you may remember, the World Bank was criticized for holding onto monies collected under Kyoto and not dispensing them to the projects in the underdeveloped countries. They took the money and kept it far longer than was reasonable, according to some, reaping huge profits. You may recall an article I wrote here discussing the tie between former VP Al Gore and his business partner Maurice Strong where Gore nominated Strong to a position on the World Bank where he now sits. Mr. Strong is stuck in China pending a possible implication regarding a financial scandal associated with the UN's Oil for Food program. GE, which supports the idea of man-made climate change and is positioned to reap huge benefits with its solar panels and wind turbines, is jockeying to become a holder of the money marked for use in fighting, mitigation and adaptation of climate change. Apparently they saw what the World Bank was doing and want in on the profits.

The money would be collected by the "financial mechanism" from developed countries, read as the United States, as well as others. Signatories of the treaty would be "legally bound" to pay, irrespective of their contribution to global warming. It would be their "fair share". Sounds like socialism, doesn't it? But what would they be paying for?

The possibilities, as spelled out in the treaty, are almost endless but some examples are levies to hold back rising sea levels, which lately aren't rising. They would pay for a sort of no premium insurance policy to developing countries for damages due to intense storms and hurricanes resulting from climate change which, by the way, it has been determined to have no effect on these events. Take a look at the predictions of hurricane activity since 2005 and you will see what I mean. Record low activity has been the norm. The storms will happen whether warming happens or not. They would also pay for installation of environmentally friendly power supply stations and water purification plants. They would plant trees and stop desertification despite studies that show deserts are getting smaller although some are moving. All these programs and more would be paid for by us and installed in the developing countries.

The "technology mechanism" involves the developed countries giving climate technology to the developing countries. There is even a provision where developing countries are exempt from patent protections. They can use patented developments without restriction and the poor sap that discovered the technology is just out of luck. So if we sign onto this treaty our entire climate related, and that could mean anything, discoveries would be free for the taking. That couldn't be a good thing for us. The downside of that is that development would likely cease since there would be no financial incentives. Companies generally do not create new technologies just to give them away.

In short, this treaty is utterly and completely insane and anyone who would sign it is a complete idiot. Want to bet that there are many in our political system that would do it in a minute if they thought they could still get re-elected. Please! Let them know that is not possible

save store warn
Truthseeker