|EXCLUSIVE!||October 29, 1999|
|REPORTS: Oct. 25 Oct. 29 Oct. 30 Nov. 1 Nov. 3 Nov. 5|
UN Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) Fifth Session of the Conference of the Parties (COP 5)BONN, GERMANY, October 29, 1999 -- United Nations bureaucrats commonly pervert words in order to manipulate unsuspecting people. Take "capacity-building" for example, a double-barreled word used in the UN's Agenda 21 written in Rio de Janeiro in 1992 and currently at the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change in Bonn, Germany.
The United Nations Pushes Economic Equalization
Under the Guise of "Capacity-building"
Report by Eagle Forum Correspondent Cathie Adams.
How might Americans interpret "capacity-building"? American parents send their children to schools in order to "build their capacities" to be all they can be. A builder increases his "capacity to build" by purchasing more properties on which to build more houses. A baker buys a new oven to "capacity-build" quality and quantity of his baked goods.
The UN has yet another meaning for "capacity-building" revealed at a UN Development Program workshop entitled "Capacity-building for sustainable development and climate change policies."
A panelist from Red China focused on building self-reliance. The Chinese are indeed becoming self-reliant by buying political favors from President Clinton in order to obtain some of America's most sensitive technologies; they have hood-winked American industries into abusing Chinese citizens for slave labor; and they have secured both ends of the world's most important waterway, the Panama Canal. The Chinese are "capacity-building" at America's expense.
A panelist from an African country mumbled a few words about sustainability and that the 38 nations bound by the Kyoto Protocol (the balance of the countries are exempt) must assist developing countries in "capacity-building." Then he confessed that he really didn't know what he was supposed to talk about!
Finally, a presentation by a panelist from Columbia described how "capacity-building" is to be used in this "radically different approach to pollution control": the Kyoto Protocol. The representative, Thomas Black Arbelaez, interpreted the Kyoto Protocol to mean "international capacity-building" in which "national institutions must be developed" in order to trade greenhouse gases.
The UN contends that greenhouse gases, mostly carbon dioxide, the gas produced by burning fossil fuels AND by humans when we breathe out, are warming the globe. If ratified by the U.S. Senate, the Kyoto Protocol would limit America's greenhouse gas emissions to 7% below 1990 levels by 2008-2012. Since American industries have grown since 1990, it would mean a reduction in our industrial strength by 25%! Science has not proven that the globe is warming or that industrial burning of fossil fuels (or humans breathing out) could cause it if it does exist. Science has yet to figure out how to measure greenhouse gases or how to measure "carbon sinks" such as trees that remove carbon dioxide from the air. Regardless, President Clinton signed the Kyoto Protocol last year during another "global warming" meeting in Buenos Aires, Argentina. He has yet to send it to the Senate for ratification.
Arbelaez said that, using the White House's own numbers, Columbia could probably export $450 million per year in carbon dioxide credits. That means that in order for the U.S. to meet her requirements under the Kyoto Protocol, at least in part, American taxpayers could send $450 million annually to Columbia to buy the "right" to operate carbon dioxide producing industries within our borders. He said that that would be higher than Columbia's exports in gold, emeralds, bananas and coffee. No wonder he said it would be "worth working towards." He complained, however, that if the U.S. does not ratify the Kyoto Protocol, then carbon dioxide trading would only be worth $1 or $2 per ton rather than the $15 to $30 if we do ratify the boondoggle.
The Columbian also warned that if governments build bureaucracies that support big industries while neglecting middle and small ones, then this greenhouse gas trading system would impose a big stumbling block. He rightly fears that corrupt government officials will hijack the greenhouse gas trading system. The world has already witnessed such "capacity-building" abuses in Russia.
The bottom line of "capacity-building" is that it grants developing countries the tool with which to demand more funds from U.S. taxpayers, while developing countries must build their own bureaucracies charged with distributing our "gifts." In other words, the UN Kyoto Protocol's greenhouse gas trading system would "build the capacity" of the UN to become the global economic equalizer.
When former President Bush signed the original Climate Change Treaty in 1992 and the Democrat-controlled Senate ratified it, America became entangled in the UN web that intends to redistribute wealth globally. The Clinton-Gore administration has enhanced it by committing to legally-binding targets. Now, the UN is discussing what "consequences" will be applied to the 38 nations that must adhere to the Climate Change Treaty follow-up called the Kyoto Protocol. If America, however, wants to retain her "capacity to build" the greatest nation on earth, then citizens must ask their U.S. Senators to demand that Clinton-Gore send the Kyoto Protocol to them. Then Senators must "build the capacity" to vote NO.