UN’s “Climate Change” to Transform the Economic Structure of the World

Exclusive Report:

UN’s “Climate Change” to Transform the Economic Structure of the World

COP19
by Cathie Adams
Eagle Forum International Issues Chairman
972-523-8551 cellular

Further Reading: United Nations / Global Warming

November 12, 2013

The United Nations’ climate change meeting began Monday in Warsaw, Poland, to discuss “global warming,” but when the globe stopped warming 16 years ago, the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change was forced to reveal its real agenda.

Last year in Doha, Qatar, the treaty’s Executive Secretary Christiana Figueres told the world that the purpose of the UNFCCC is a “complete transformation of the economic structure of the world.” The scheme is to use the eternally unpredictable weather that affects everyone to manipulate a transfer of wealth from rich to poor nations, which in turn degrades every nation’s standard of living.

Rather than serving as a warning to Americans, President Obama’s delegation in Warsaw is steadfastly supporting the development of funding mechanisms for the transfer of wealth scheme through the Green Climate Fund, although it is somewhat reluctant to support its proposed new mechanism for “loss and damages.” A new treaty to replace the redistributionist Kyoto Protocol is in the works and set for completion in 2015 in Paris, France, to go into affect in 2020.

Americans are paying for the rope to hang ourselves. We pay nearly $567 million a year while two dozen countries of the 193 UN members pay only about $1,000 or less, yet have the same voting privileges as the U.S. (http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2012/09/us-should-challenge-huge-un-funding-disparities).

Worse than one nation, one vote is that voting rarely happens at the UN. Instead, consensus is the UN’s preferred process. Consensus is unilaterally determined by a facilitator leading a meeting. It lacks transparency and allows the UN to manipulate for predetermined outcomes. Former Prime Minister of the UK Margaret Thatcher defined consensus stating, “To me, consensus seems to be: the process of abandoning all beliefs, principles, values, and policies in search of something in which no one believes, but to which no one objects; the process of avoiding the very issues that need to be solved, merely because you cannot get agreement on the way ahead. What great cause would have been fought and won under the banner ‘I stand for consensus’?”

Regardless, consensus is the way major decisions are made by the UN, not votes. In Warsaw, the UN is seeking consensus on three objectives before the meeting concludes on November 22 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DPQMV4XZZ54):

  • Clarification of finance for its Green Climate Fund, which could mean a global tax scheme to transfer wealth from rich to poor countries.
  • Creation of a “loss and damage” mechanism to compensate poor nations that suffer climate-related tragedies like the typhoon that just happened in the Philippines and is the focal point for funding pleas in Warsaw. Americans have already sent at least $100 million, plus food, medicine and troops.
  • Clarification of elements for a draft of next year’s meeting document in Lima, Peru. The UN has predetermined that a new legally binding treaty to replace the 1997 Kyoto Protocol will be completed in Paris, France in 2015 and will go into affect in 2020.

One nation is taking issue with the consensus process by demanding that it be defined. Russia, not America, balked at the unilateral decision-making consensus process and is demanding transparency. The reason for the Russians’ demands is that at last year’s meeting in Doha, Qatar, the UN took away its greenhouse gas credits accrued before the fall of communism. That means that Russia would “supposedly” be on an even playing field in this proposed new economic order being built under the treaty to replace the Kyoto Protocol.

The U.S. is a party to the UNFCCC, but not its Kyoto Protocol that was ratified by 192 of the UNFCCC Parties. The U.S. declined to be one of the 37 nations to be legally bound to Kyoto’s emission limitation and reduction commitments. In Doha in 2012, a second commitment period was created for the Kyoto Protocol, with the U.S. remaining out. However, the U.S. is looking favorably at joining the 2015 treaty. More than 100 Heads of State of the 195 Parties to the treaty are scheduled to attend the high-level segment of the meeting, which concludes on November 22.

I plan to keep you posted concerning the funding proposals for the Green Climate Fund and “loss and damages” over the next two weeks.