*************************************EXCERPT***************************************
kramer says:
I’ve been saying this for years. These “greens” want to use AGW to redistribute wealth, both within and between nations, they want us to transfer our technology and tech know-how to the world, they are using AGW to help start a global government that will manage the world’s resources, and they expect our standard of living to be significantly lowered in order so that there’s more oil and other natural resources for the rest of the world to use.
AGW probably really means (in the inner green circles)
********************************EXCERPT**********************************************
galileonardo says:
Betsy says: “I think you all are missing something here. The AGW folks want to keep Africa as poor as possible, other than various oligarchies, so that Africa won’t emit any ‘evil CO2′.”
Bingo, despite some of the protests I see. I was reading through the comments waiting for someone to point out what is the real goal of the global governance/redistribution agenda. The agenda isn’t about helping the poor. It is about the effort to “make sure there is not another United States.” I wrote about this at length a while back on The Air Vent (thanks Jeff):
http://noconsensus.wordpress.com/2010/08/27/uns-ideal-global-government/#more-10157
A few comments here have touched upon the real agenda, but I am surprised at how many of the posters here are surprised. I’m sorry to echo crosspatch’s comment right out of the gate, but DUH! None of this was conspiracy theory or far-fetched in any way and the UN’s Emissions Scenarios was written a decade ago. As I point out in my article, this information is all out there in their own words! This might have been a hint:
“Massive income redistribution and presumably high taxation levels may adversely affect the economic efficiency and functioning of world markets.”
Whodathunkit. Using their own figures, the dent in global GDP by 2100 following their Sustainable Development B1 Scenario will be $200 trillion annually! The annual per capita income among the poor will be $35,000 instead of $70,000. Those are their numbers folks.
So, as Betsy points out, this is about controlling the world’s resources, stifling development in Annex 2 countries, and “de-developing,” as John Holdren calls it, the U.S. and other Annex 1 countries. As I note in the article, the only things sustained under SD B1 are misery and poverty, and that prolonging of poverty will be a death sentence for millions. As others have pointed out, the climate agreements transparently reflect this agenda. The only conspiracy involved was the conspiracy of not admitting to the real global governance agenda despite the readily-available evidence to the contrary.
I cannot tell you how many times I was called a conspiracy theorist, involved in black helicopter talk, wearing a tin-foil hat, etc. when bringing this up. Always the response was the same old nothing to see here with a “crackpot” thrown in for good measure. Well I’ll be sure to share Edenhofer’s admissions with the next AGW zealot who tries to claim that the IPCC is all about the science. The claim is right but they have the wrong scientific field in mind. These puppets are activist scientists engaged in wholly political science. Thanks for yet another exoneration AGW cultists, not that any skeptic needed it.
And the thing that angers me to no end is Edenhofer’s admission that this is not about the real environmental issues facing the planet. As an environmentalist myself, this diversion of resources, attention, and, last but not least, scientific credibility, has been one of my primary bones with these AGW control freaks all along. This “movement” has set back real climate science and true environmentalism for who knows how long.
While Hansen, Mann et al were pre-occupied with their misguided AGW advocacy, the last white rhino in Krugersdorp was killed, ridiculously huge areas of habitat was destroyed to make way for ends-justify-the-means biofuels and solar arrays, and many other environmental/humanitarian issues that could have been directly affected with proven results were put on the back burner to focus on the CO2 phantom menace. By-and-large the real environmental degradation taking place worldwide remains largely unaddressed. It is a travesty. Thanks for nothing. Since many of you are surprised and most might miss this in the article I reference above, here are some of the terms/phrases from the Copenhagen negotiating text I gathered that you should familiarize yourself with:
Historical climate debt; transparent system of governance; compensate for lost opportunities, resources, lives, land and dignity; environmental justice; green fund; levies on CO2 emissions; taxes on carbon-intensive products and services; levies on international and maritime transport; levies on international transactions; penalties or fines for non-compliance; ODA additional to ODA targets; adaptation debt; 2 per cent of gross national product; and uniform global levy.
Open up your wallets folks. Oh, I almost forgot. As Doug says, this won’t go down without a fight. I’d say it’s high time to put up your dukes if you haven’t already. I hate to keep quoting myself, but the fastest way to true environmental stewardship is wealth. Get out of the world’s way or, quite simply, you’ll be pushed out of the way. I sure intend on fighting this fight until this people-punishing agenda in dead and buried. Ding. Ding. Cheers!