UN Takes Concrete Steps Toward Global Tax

December 11, 2012

Next year the UNFCCC’s Executive Secretary Christiana Figueres will call a “significant number of meetings and workshops…to prepare the new agreement.” Then in 2014, UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon will “convene leaders to mobilize the political will to ensure the 2015 deadline is met.”

The new treaty would be destructive to the American economy by capping greenhouse gases, primarily carbon dioxide, the gas emitted when fossil fuels are burned. The UN insists that fossil fuels be replaced with solar, wind and other renewable energy sources, but even with billions of stimulus dollars and taxpayer subsidies, those sources produce woefully inadequate amounts of energy.

Rather than an environmental outcome, the new treaty is more likely to produce an economic windfall for Figueres, as the green economy has done for former VP Al Gore. Her brother, a former President of Costa Rica, is heavily invested in sustainable development, the green economy.

The UN’s only legally binding treaty to cap greenhouse gas emissions, the Kyoto Protocol, was extended even though it will only address about 15% of the world’s greenhouse gas emissions. The U.S. Senate has never ratified the Kyoto Protocol, while Canada and Japan have withdrawn from the treaty.

The UN claims that the 2015 treaty will be applied to all nations, but its “common but differentiated” rules will force rich nations to send their wealth to poor nations. Likewise, rich nations will develop and transfer technologies to poor nations.

It was also decided in Doha to give the Green Climate Fund a new home in the Republic of Korea. The GCF will “launch [its yet to be defined] activities in 2014.” To fill the $100 billion annual fund with private and public money by 2020, the UN wants a first-ever global tax — on international monetary transactions, or on international shipping and airlines, or on carbon emissions.

Another new fund was created to pay for “loss and damages” caused by climate change. Island states were adamant about its creation because they have been convinced that glacial melting will sink their islands. The Obama administration agreed to the new fund that amounts to a blank check to Third World countries.

The U.S. Congress must cut off all funding to the UN to prevent it from transforming the economic structure of the world.

CFACT Press Conference in Doha, Qatar

December 6, 2012

She remarked that the United Nations first “paperless” meeting allowed the negotiations to take place in smoke-filled rooms with absolutely no transparency, adding that it was the most secretive meeting since her first meeting in Beijing, China in 1995.

“Paperless” is scandalous considering the Executive Secretary of the meeting in Qatar proclaimed that the climate change process is to fundamentally transform the global economic system,

The legally binding treaty on greenhouse gas emissions, the Kyoto Protocol, sunsets at the end of 2012, yet whether it is extended is unknown as of late Thursday.

Whether nations decided on funding sources for the global tax scheme called the Green Climate Fund is also unknown, in spite of the whining by the majority of nations that the U.S.A. owes them funding for “loss and damage” due to its greenhouse gas emissions.

From left to right: Lord Christopher Monckton of the UK, Craig Rucker of CFACT and Cathie Adams of Eagle Forum

It is noteworthy that like the 1997 Kyoto treaty that was to be implemented by 2012, after both Bill Clinton and Al Gore tenures, the 2020 deadline would be after Barak Obama’s tenure.

Look for a final report on the two-week Doha conference after it concludes on Friday, December 7.

“Complete Transformation of the
Economic Structure of the World”

December 3, 2012

“What is occurring here, not just in Doha, but in the whole climate change process is the complete transformation of the economic structure of the world. It should happen much quicker, but it cannot happen overnight,” she added.

Figueres concluded, “This Conference of the Parties will produce a second commitment period to the Kyoto Protocol, the only legally binding agreement. It will have the necessary amendments to go into a second commitment period as of January 1, 2013…. We are also moving toward a universal legally based agreement by 2015 to go into effect in 2020.”

The U.S. delegation leader in Doha, Todd Stern, did not balk at the UN’s blatant plan to fundamentally transform the global economy, rather he crowed about the 16.5% reduction in greenhouse gas emissions in the U.S. over the past four years under President Obama. It is to appease the UN that Obama has placed excessive regulations on automobile emissions, power plants and appliances, as they destroy the American economy.

This economically destructive and sovereignty destroying global agenda has been building since the UN’s 1992 Earth Summit when President George H.W. Bush signed the climate change treaty in Rio de Janeiro, Brazil.

We can and must defeat this UN agenda. As negotiations continue at an ever faster pace over the next four years under Obama for a new universally applied legally binding greenhouse gas emissions limiting treaty to produce a “complete transformation of the economic structure of the world,” we must also understand that it will have no effect on the climate. Its purpose is to destroy the U.S. economy.

The U.S. Senate must pass a resolution opposing the unilateral climate change commitments made by Obama. Then in 2016, Americans must elect a president who has the courage to drive a stake through the heart of this “complete transformation of the economic structure of the world.”

International Revolution to Create a Global Tax Scheme

November 30, 2012

The UNFCCC Executive Secretary Christiana Figueres says a “revolution, the largest, most deeply rooted revolution mankind has ever seen, a deep transformation,” will be required to create sustainable development, adding, “Not one aspect of human life would not be touched by this international action.”

It is noteworthy that Ms. Figueres’ brother, a former president of Costa Rica, is heavily involved in funding schemes for sustainable development, the reason the GCF was created in 2009.

If former President Ronald Reagan was right that, “Socialism only works in two places: Heaven where they don’t need it and hell where they already have it,” then the UN is trying to create hell on earth called sustainable development, funded by the GCF.

Sustainable development was described by 12-year-old Severn Cullis-Suzuki at the 1992 UN Earth Summit in Rio de Janeiro, “We buy and throw away…yet northern countries will not share with the needy…. Why are we who have everything still so greedy?… If all the money spent on war was spent on finding environmental answers, ending poverty and finding treaties, what a wonderful place this would be.” This is more than the rambling of a 12-year-old, it is the UN impetus to globally redistribute wealth.

During the first week of the 2012 UNFCCC meeting in Doha, Qatar, the University of California’s John Foran harkened back to Ms. Suzuki’s rant adding a demand for a new treaty to produce “climate justice” by lowering greenhouse gas emissions by 70% below 1990 levels by 2015. Why should he care that sustainable development — social, economic and environmental justice — would destroy the global economy? His salary is guaranteed by taxpayers!

The GCF will transfer wealth from rich to poor nations to ostensibly green Third World economies. Initially, it is to raise $100 billion annually, but that would escalate to as much as $1.2 to $1.6 trillion from American taxpayers alone, depending on the source of funding chosen by the UNFCCC.

Former VP Al Gore has a funding idea for the GCF: “The most direct policy solution to the climate crisis is a carbon tax, offset by reductions in taxes on wages.” He added, “By including the carbon tax in the solution to the fiscal cliff, we can [get] away from the climate cliff.”

Gore’s math is like fiddling while the U.S. economy burns, yet his investments in smart meters, carbon trading markets, solar power, bio fuels, electric vehicles, sustainable fish farming and waterless lavatories have profited at taxpayer expense. When challenged by Congress, he arrogantly stated, “I am proud to put my money where my mouth is for the past 30 years.”

In the 2009 stimulus, the government’s investment of $80 billion taxpayer dollars in energy projects led to 1,900 investigations, rendering 600 convictions. One such enterprise, the Chicago Climate Exchange (CCX), was the brainchild of Richard Sandor, an economist and professor at Chicago’s Northwestern University. Sandor and Gore both profited when the CCX was sold to commodity traders. Sandor cashed in $90 million for his 16% stake in the exchange.

This comparatively small example should end all notions for a GCF to pay for an elusive green economy. Unfathomable corruption would surround the trillions of dollars the GCF would amass with Gore’s carbon tax or by diverting subsidies from oil and gas or from international development bank loans or from the Tobin Tax, a tax on international monetary transactions.

The GCF is set to have its own Secretariat in Songdo, Incheon, South Korea. The city boasts that the epic fund will bring economic benefits, influence and status far beyond those from other international organizations located in Korea.

If the UNFCCC approves a global tax scheme to fill the GCF, then the U.S. Congress must eliminate all funding to the UN.

Doha, Qatar: Perfect Laboratory to Study Climate Change

November 27, 2012

Since 1997, the U.S. has wrestled with a proposed GHG cap of 7% below 1990 levels by 2012. The U.S. Senate never ratified that treaty, called the Kyoto Protocol, which expires this year. In 2009, President Obama updated the U.S. target to 17% below 2005 levels by 2020, in keeping with discussions in Doha.

Qatar is a perfect laboratory for scientists to study climate change because the three primary factors that cause climate change are solar activity, ocean currents and winds.

Qatar is a desert nation bordering Saudi Arabia, so there is plenty of intense sunlight with scorching heat reaching as high as 122 degrees from May through September with less than four inches of rain annually. It is surrounded by the Persian Gulf, so ocean currents can be observed. Violent dust storms periodically descend on the peninsula, blocking the sun and causing wind damage.

Studying climate change, however, is not the reason the UN meets annually; instead, it is to discuss the politics of climate change, which disses science in favor of a political agenda in which free market principles are replaced with redistributionist utopian ideals. It is called sustainable development, which demands social, economic and environmental “justice.”

“Justice” can be interchanged with “equity.” At last year’s UNFCCC meeting in Durban, South Africa, India tried to insert the word “equity” in the conference document. China, India, Saudi Arabia, Sudan, Egypt, Thailand, Malaysia, Argentina, about 40 countries in all, joined India’s failed effort. We can expect much debate in Qatar to revolve around “equity.”

At the 2012 UNFCCC’s opening on Monday, former Qatari oil minister Abdullah Bin Hamad al-Attiyah tried to deflect the criticism that his nation is the world’s largest per capita GHG emitter stating, “We should not concentrate on the per capita [emissions]. We should concentrate on the amount from each country.”

The oil minister’s statement essentially redirected the critics to sustainable development’s call for “equity.” Is this what you would expect from an ally that hosts the U.S. Central Command’s Forward Headquarters and Combined Air Operations Center? So goes the merry-go-round of climate change negotiations.

Jonathan Pershing, the American negotiator this first week, claims that America deserves more credit for “enormous” efforts. Indeed, President Obama has thrown billions of taxpayer dollars to not only Solyndra, but to more than a dozen solar companies that went bankrupt last year. It is “enormous” too that a new CAFE standard of 35 miles per gallon by 2016 was set in 2008, when the auto industry was in a compliant mood after a $50 billion government bailout. The aspirational 54.5 miles per gallon by 2025 will “enormously” affect our families’ safety too.

In spite of global temperatures falling for the past two years, it remains to be seen if cooler heads will prevail in Qatar or whether environmental and redistributionist zealots will agree to a new legally binding treaty to replace the Kyoto Protocol.