Day 2

Day 3

Day 4

Day 5

Day 6

Day 7

 Day 8

Day 9

Day 10

Why is the myth of global warming taken seriously and who is driving the radical environmentalist agenda?

Money, mostly from American taxpayers, is the lifeblood of the environmentalist agenda. A 1997 article in Foreign Affairs by Jessica T. Mathews reports that the "total budget for the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) for 1996 was $7.3 million," enough to feign legitimacy for the global warming hoax.

Well-funded non-governmental organizations (NGOs) are the driving force behind the global climate policies. The Internal Revenue Service, Exempt Organization Database reveals 154 environmental NGOs that have a total annual income of more than $4 Billion and their assets are more than double that amount. Their wealth has enabled them to dominate the working groups during the 1992 Earth Summit in Rio de Janeiro, the Climate Change negotiations in Kyoto in 1997 and now in Buenos Aires.

One of the NGOs' lobbying tools is to produce a proliferation of publications. The newsletter, Hotspot, is a publication of the European office of Climate Action Network, "a global coalition of 265 NGOs that promote action to limit human induced climate change to ecologically sustainable levels." Hotspot's cover of their latest issue printed a quote in red ink: "We oppose the theory of global warming and the Kyoto agreement, says the Republican Party of Texas."

Unfamiliar with the publication, I hoped that the article would present the bountiful scientific evidence against global warming since I put that statement in the Republican Party of Texas platform when I served as sub-committee chairman last summer! Instead, Hotspot used the quote to lambaste as "a serious obstacle to further progress the persistent demand from powerful sectors in those countries with the greatest greenhouse gas emissions that developing countries should also limit their emissions, as a precondition for ratifying the Kyoto Protocol."

In other words, the NGO's demand is for the U.S. and 37 other industrialized nations to submit to the greenhouse gas emissions limits without any participation by the developing nations. Solidifying their point they wrote, "Meaningful participation by developing countries should not be a means to oblige them to take on quantitative greenhouse gas emissions reductions or limitation commitments within the first target period, except where they exercise a sovereign right to do so voluntarily."

The NGOs want industries to move from developed countries to developing countries, then after the wealth is redistributed, let developing countries decide whether they want to exercise their "sovereign right" to limit their greenhouse gas emissions voluntarily.

What's good for the goose is good for the gander! The U.S. should recognize and respect the sovereignty of the developing nations, and the developing nations should recognize and respect the sovereignty of the U.S. Neither the UN nor the NGOs have any "right" to demand that nations adopt "legally binding" emissions standards.

Maybe that's what Congressman Sensenbrenner from Wisconsin meant when he said at a press conference yesterday in Buenos Aires that the Clinton "Administration has backed itself into a corner and I don't know how we can get out of this corner."

Additional Reading

• The Costs of Trading in the Global Economy • Global Goals: Bailouts, Bosnia, Lies, and Hot Air • Global Goals of the Clinton Administration • Will Treaties Rule America's Future?

The U.S. Congress can get us out of this corner by discontinuing funding to the UN, and investigating the tax exempt status of the NGOs that have lobbied the U.S. into that corner!