UN’s Ideal – Global Government

Occasionally there is a comment left which deserves as much notice as possible.   Unfortunately Bart get’s picked again but you could replace his name with Gavin or Mike Mann or really with Ben Santer just as easily.  There were a couple of items which looked like links from the comment but weren’t.  I’ve removed them.

This is the link to the leaked Copenhagen document.

And never forget the standing ovations received at Copenhagen by Hugo Chavez’s Marxist rant against Capitailism and freedom ,  the most dramatic parts of the video have been deleted from youTube maybe someone else can find it but the words still exist.  When crowds containing global politicians and climatologists stand and applaud for Marx quotes, and evil capitalism quotes, it’s pretty clear what you’re dealing with.

News flash geniuses, Marxism and socialism didn’t work as intended.
——————

galileonardo said

August 26, 2010 at 9:27 pm e

Jeff, I was leaving for vacation when you ran your “Id’s Crazy” post but unfortunately did not have the time to respond (though I desperately wanted to). I am thus glad to see you are on the subject again and I now welcome the opportunity to chime in and hopefully dispel the false Bartish feel-good notions about helping the poor nations (Bart, if you care to see how the proposed CO2 mitigation will be “very disruptive to the global economy” just keep reading – I even use the UN’s own projections).

I can’t claim to be the friendliest of debaters when going up against what I have at various times called AGW cultists, zealots, control freaks, Luddites, sheep, totalitarians, fraud deniers, etc., but I am a father as well (of a 4-year-old boy) and I’ll be damned if I don’t fight their vision of my son’s future.

Bottom line Jeff: Global wealth will essentially be cut in half under the Copenhagen plan.

If we go the CO2-mitigation UNFCCC/IPCC B1 Sustainable Development (SD) path, your great-grandson will retire in the year 2100 with just a $60k per capita income (and have a lot less personal freedom). Contrast that with the A1 Golden Economic Age (GEA) path, the path we coincidentally are already naturally taking, where he would retire with a $100k per capita income in a world of unprecedented prosperity. Under B1 SD he’ll be rewarded with a shorter life expectancy too. Splendid.

And I can back that up using their data. I have been commenting about this in other venues for some time now, and I apologize for the length of this post (especially since a lot of it is rehash), but my hope is that the message spreads. I am also new to the hand-coding scene so hopefully I didn’t hack it up here – sorry if I did. In your “crazy” post, some commenters touched upon a lot of what I have said (and a few posters are clearly in denial of the “conspiracy” that is “hidden in plain sight”), but I think I can add a few numbers and sources to the mix, and hopefully some perspective.

Regarding your previous post, there is nothing crazy about exposing the global governance angle and in that post you made some key points that, rather than crazy, are absolutely validated by open evidence. IMO you have done a fine job of helping to expose the Neo-Inquisitors and their political science, but I think it would be excellent for you to comment more frequently about the larger picture UN agenda and their puppet masters. This malicious and inhumane movement absolutely needs to be stopped and they have had quite the head start. You are one of the few that isn’t afraid to speak to the politics of all this, but ironically that is the 10,000-pound elephant in the room, so before going forward I wanted to say that I for one welcome further discussion of this topic by you in future posts.

There are many documents spanning over four decades that transparently promote global governance. I’d say the 1995 report by the UN-sponsored Commission on Global Governance (that might be a tipoff) titled Our Global Neighborhood is pretty transparent. But the best examples for me at least are the negotiating text for Copenhagen, the not-mentioned-enough UEA email that presented the draft document of the IPCC special report Emissions Scenarios, and the final report itself. Here’s a gem for starters from that final report describing the B1 Sustainable Development scenario:

Massive income redistribution and presumably high taxation levels may adversely affect the economic efficiency and functioning of world markets.

Read that again Bart (and since you comment on population trends, please note that in both the A1 GEA and B1 SD scenarios population is expected to peak at 9 billion by 2050 and drop to 7 billion by 2100). There is no arguing that Sustainable Development is the UN’s Golden Child. It appears in the IPCC’s AR4 297 times (no mention BTW of the Golden Economic Age – the term was predictably purged from the draft). When combining the figures used in that draft email and the final report, the economic damage wrought by SD is devastating. Here is how it breaks down for the world:

A1 Golden Economic Age (GEA) global GDP by 2100 = $550 trillion
B1 Sustainable Development (SD) global GDP by 2100 = $350 trillion

Conclusion: using the UN’s numbers, by 2100 the global economy will be less wealthy to the tune of $200 trillion per year going the SD route. Does that qualify as “very disruptive to the global economy” Bart?

Here’s how the numbers break down for individuals in both Annex 1 countries (the 20% of the world with relative wealth) and Annex 2 countries (the 80% of the world that are relatively poor):

2100 A1 Golden Economic Age (GEA)
Annex 1 per capita income = $100,000
Annex 2 per capita income = $70,000
Average global per capita income = $76,000

2100 B1 Sustainable Development (SD)
Annex 1 per capita income = $60,000
Annex 2 per capita income = $35,000
Average global per capita income = $40,000

So for all the Barts out there thinking they are trying to help the world’s poor and saying things like “it is not a workable strategy to tell the have-nots that they can’t have any more” and that it’s “morally wrong to not allow others what we allow ourselves,” you do just that with your supposedly good intentions by getting on board the economy-punishing, poverty-prolonging, global-taxation CO2 mitigation bandwagon. You would think with all of that redistribution planned the poor would fare better but they do not. Look at those figures again. The world’s poor will have a 2100 PCI of $35,000 under B1 vs. $70,000 under A1. So I ask you again Bart, does that qualify as “very disruptive to the global economy?”

I wonder if halving wealth will have any negative effects on poverty. Duh! Let’s get real. Prolonged poverty is an absolute death sentence for millions. Poverty currently kills about 18 million people per year in mostly the poor nations, and a majority of them are children. So for every year that economic growth is slowed you can be ensured that the poverty rate will be unforgivably elevated.

Put it in perspective. About one-quarter of the world’s population still has no electricity at all; 1 billion people still have inadequate access to water; 2.6 billion still lack basic sanitation; and 2.5 billion still use biomass to cook. And about nine million children under the age of five die each year from largely preventable causes, and the overarching cause of most of those deaths is poverty. Six million children die annually of hunger alone. That sounds compassionate. Let’s build some wind farms and call it a job well done.

The fastest way to true environmental stewardship is wealth and that makes this “save the world” notion all the more abominable. I consider myself a long-time environmentalist and these folks have hijacked movements that are important to me all in the name of AGW and false prophets. The resources diverted to their wholly political cause is the true “travesty” here. Meanwhile, combatting true environmental degradation has become all the more difficult since funding has been shifted to fighting the phantom menace of climate change. It truly angers me.

For those of you who might claim that that IPCC report was just a brainstorming session or no longer relevant, bring the conversation up to last December in Copenhagen. If you didn’t read the negotiating text for Copenhagen, have at it. There are over 60 references to the AGW dream scenario Sustainable Development, and you do not have to look far to find it. It rears its ugly head twice in the preambular paragraphs on page 6, and not just in passing. Here’s the first:

PP.8 [Recognizing that] sustainable development is the first priority for developing countries. Therefore, [that] our commitment to a low carbon society would have to be linked to our development priorities, in accordance with the provisions of the Convention.

It just can’t be argued. B1 SD is the path they are trying to shepherd us toward. It leads to the slaughterhouse. It is their first priority. There is nothing conspiratorial in nature about their plans because they put them right out there for all to read. Here are some of my favorite terms/phrases from the negotiating draft you should familiarize yourself with: historical climate debt; transparent system of governance; compensate for lost opportunities, resources, lives, land and dignity; environmental justice; green fund; levies on CO2 emissions; taxes on carbon-intensive products and services; levies on international and maritime transport; levies on international transactions; penalties or fines for non-compliance; ODA additional to ODA targets; adaptation debt; 2 per cent of gross national product; and uniform global levy.

What a wonderful world the AGW control freaks have in store for us. This movement in its current form is less concerned with environmental issues than it is with power and control. Not me. Not my son. Free will is a damned thing, isn’t it? Why is it so difficult for these folks to admit that this is far less a scientific endeavor than a political one? Why do they find it so hard to admit that this is more about control of humanity than it is about saving the world? It’s a simple equation: AGW = political movement. AGW fraud deniers can lobby for superficial groupthink and cry heretic and big oil and conspiracy all they want, but the evidence speaks for itself.

I guess that’s why they screech so loudly against the prominent skeptics and even the ordinary skeptics like me. CO2 mitigation was their pot of gold, their path to Utopia, and the rainbow is disappearing. Scientist vs. activist can be a tough proposition, but it is awesome to see that the worm has turned. The agenda is so apparent to anyone not tainted by the AGW scripture so I for one will keep at it. Simply put, global wealth is expedited with A1. The only things sustained under B1 are misery and poverty. We need to continue to go A1 and allow the world to get wealthy at the faster rate. The rest will naturally follow. We have been going that direction for a century so to all of the ideologically-driven AGW zealots, get out of our way, or be prepared to be bowled over. Your approach is economic suicide. No thanks. I have lifted this often, but I have not yet begun to fight.

I’ll part with some more relevant quotes from the IPCC Emissions Scenarios report. Jeff, keep up the great work. Bart, dig a little deeper into what is driving you.

Discussing correlation of wealth to environmental stewardship:

Pollution abatement efforts appear to increase with income, growing willingness to pay for a clean environment, and progress in the development of clean technology. Thus, as incomes rise, pollution should increase initially and later decline, a relationship often referred to as the “environmental Kuznets curve.”

Discussing A1 Golden Economic Age:

The global economy expands at an average annual rate of about 3% to 2100, reaching around US$550 trillion (all dollar amounts herein are expressed in 1990 dollars, unless stated otherwise). This is approximately the same as average global growth since 1850, although the conditions that lead to this global growth in productivity and per capita incomes in the scenario are unparalleled in history.

Discussing B1 Sustainable Development:

A higher proportion of this income is spent on services rather than on material goods, and on quality rather than quantity, because the emphasis on material goods is less and also resource prices are increased by environmental taxation.

Cities are compact and designed for public and non-motorized transport, with suburban developments tightly controlled. Strong incentives for low-input, low-impact agriculture, along with maintenance of large areas of wilderness, contribute to high food prices with much lower levels of meat consumption than those in A1.

Discussing impact of wealth on fertility rates, life expectancy and infant and child (and mother) mortality:

[There is a] long-established negative correlation between fertility rates and per capita income. Clearly, richer countries uniformly have a relatively low fertility rate. Poorer countries, on average, have a higher fertility rate.

Barro (1997) reports a statistically significant correlation between per capita GDP growth and the variables life expectancy and fertility in his analysis of post-1960 growth performance of 100 countries. Other things being equal, growth rates correlate positively (higher) with increasing life expectancy and negatively (lower) with high fertility, which confirms the view that the affluent live longer and have fewer children.

From a demographic point of view, the primary effect seen in [the figure showing the ‘negative correlation’] is interpreted as infant and child mortality decline with increasing affluence.

And a few from the Copenhagen negotiating text.

Page 43: 41. [Providing financial support shall be additional to developed countries’ ODA targets.] [Mandatory contributions from developed country Parties and other developed Parties included in Annex II should form the core revenue stream for meeting the cost of adaptation in conjunction with additional sources including share of proceeds from flexible mechanisms.] [This finance should come from the payment of the adaptation debt by developed country Parties and be based principally on public-sector funding, while other alternative sources could be considered.] [[Sources of new and additional financial support for adaptation] [Financial resources of the “Convention Adaptation Fund”] [may] [shall] include:
(a) [Assessed contributions [of at least 0.7% of the annual GDP of developed country Parties] [from developed country Parties and other developed Parties included in Annex II to the Convention] [taking into account historical contribution to concentrations of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere];]
(b) [Auctioning of assigned amounts and/or emission allowances [from developed country Parties];]
(c) [Levies on CO2 emissions [from Annex-I Parties [in a position to do so]];]
(d) [Taxes on carbon-intensive products and services from Annex I Parties;]
(e) [[Levies on] [Shares of proceeds from measures to limit or reduce emissions from] international [aviation] and maritime transport;]
(f) Shares of proceeds on the clean development mechanism (CDM), [extension of shares of proceeds to] joint implementation and emissions trading;
(g) [Levies on international transactions [among Annex I Parties];]
(h) [Fines for non-compliance [of Annex I Parties and] with commitments of Annex I Parties and Parties with commitments inscribed in Annex B to the Kyoto Protocol (Annex B Parties);]
(i) [[Additional ODA] [ODA additional to ODA targets] provided through bilateral, regional and other multilateral channels (in accordance with Article 11.5 of the Convention).]]

Pages 18-19: 38. The scheme for the new institutional arrangement under the Convention will be based on three basic pillars: government; facilitative mechanism; and financial mechanism, and the basic organization of which will include the following:
(a) The government will be ruled by the COP with the support of a new subsidiary body on adaptation, and of an Executive Board responsible for the management of the new funds and the related facilitative processes and bodies. The current Convention secretariat will operate as such, as appropriate.
(b) The Convention’s financial mechanism will include a multilateral climate change fund including five windows: (a) an Adaptation window, (b) a Compensation window, to address loss and damage from climate change impacts, including insurance, rehabilitation and compensatory components, (c) a Technology window; (d) a Mitigation window; and (e) a REDD window, to support a multi-phases process for positive forest incentives relating to REDD actions.
(c) The Convention’s facilitative mechanism will include: (a) work programmes for adaptation and mitigation; (b) a long-term REDD process; (c) a short-term technology action plan; (d) an expert group on adaptation established by the subsidiary body on adaptation, and expert groups on mitigation, technologies and on monitoring, reporting and verification; and (e) an international registry for the monitoring, reporting and verification of compliance of emission reduction commitments, and the transfer of technical and financial resources from developed countries to developing countries. The secretariat will provide technical and administrative support, including a new centre for information exchange.

Page 122: 17. [[Developed [and developing] countries] [Developed and developing country Parties] [All Parties] [shall] [should]:] (a) Compensate for damage to the LDCs economy and also compensate for lost opportunities, resources, lives, land and dignity, as many will become environmental refugees; (b) Africa, in the context of environmental justice, should be equitably compensated for environmental, social and economic losses arising from the implementation of response measures.