Cathie Adams, Texas Eagle Forum President
Such data is a prelude to implementing a massive redistribution of global wealth.
Will the United Nations wield its unproven claim that greenhouse gas emissions cause climate change to require each of its 193 member nations to measure and report GHG emissions — a prerequisite for a global carbon tax?
Does it really matter whether next year’s meeting in Paris produces a treaty, or a “soft law” document, or both?
Todd Stern, head of the American delegation at the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change meeting in Lima, Peru, said the U.S. is “perfectly happy to have an assessment process.” He said this would produce “clear and understandable” Intended Nationally Determined Contributions (INDCs) “so that everybody knows what others are doing.”
Stern added that all American actions are to “transform our economy.”
Measuring and reporting GHG emissions would indeed transform our economy by providing the UN with the criteria needed to create a carbon taxing scheme. They intend to use this to amass trillions of dollars to redistribute around the globe. After all, a carbon tax was a recommendation to UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon from the High-Level Advisory Group on Climate Change Financing.
The UN wants a carbon tax to implement sustainable development, which is environmental, social, and economic equity, or “justice.” Social justice, climate/environmental justice, and economic justice are alluring terms that promise absolute equity to the masses.
Politically speaking, this is Marxist. And it would kill the geese that lay golden eggs, deconstructing national economies by phasing out the use of all fossil fuels by 2050 at the latest — a provision currently in the Lima draft.
The UN’s non-governmental organizations refuse to acknowledge that the Earth has not warmed since 1998 as they relentlessly rabble-rouse for global governance. The NGOs expect the INDCs to do more than mitigate GHG emissions — they are calling for “adequate and fair contributions with a science-based equity review.”
The key word is “equity”: they complain that nations have only given about $10 billion to the Green Climate Fund established by the UNFCCC in 2009 to redistribute $100 billion annually by 2020 from rich to poor nations. This is supposed to increase to $500 billion annually by 2050.
The NGOs also refuse to acknowledge that energy sources like wind and solar are wholly inadequate replacements for fossil fuels that create abundant, clean energy so that all people can attain a healthy standard of living.
Americans started down this road in 1992 at the Earth Summit in Rio de Janeiro. President George H.W. Bush signed both the “soft law” document called Agenda 21 and the UNFCCC treaty that was ratified by the Senate the same year.
It may be deja vu in Paris if the UN produces not only a new treaty, but also a “soft law” document. The danger of “soft law” documents is that they do not require congressional approval. Agenda 21 was implemented by Clinton’s 1993 executive order that created the “President’s Council on Sustainable Development”; today it continues to wreak havoc on communities across America.
Stern explained: “Some agreements do and some agreements don’t [require congressional approval]. … So it’s going to depend entirely on how this agreement is written, how it is framed, what is or isn’t legally binding and so on. … We don’t know yet.”
As the UNFCCC concludes its work in Lima on December 12, we will learn whether the Obama administration commits to measuring and reporting GHG emissions, the necessary measurements to create a carbon-taxing scheme. At next year’s meeting in Paris, we will learn whether the UNFCCC will produce either a treaty or a “soft law” document, or both, and we will understand the immeasurable impact of both on our liberties.
Cathie Adams is the President of Texas Eagle Forum, and former Chairman of the Republican Party of Texas.
