Week #1 at the U.N. Framework Convention on Climate Change: Conference of the Parties 16
by Cathie Adams on December 4, 2010 at 11:18 AM
Cathie Adams reporting from Cancun, MX -- Discussions the first week of the two-week UNFCCC COP 16 centered around a global taxing scheme and continuation of greenhouse gas commitments beyond the Kyoto Protocol’s expiration in 2012.
Japan fired the first shot across the U.N. bow announcing it “will not inscribe its target in a second commitment period of the Kyoto Protocol under any conditions or circumstances.” As a result, it received the infamous “Fossil of the Day” recognition from Climate Action Network, a coalition of 500+ radical environmental organizations. Russia and Canada joined Japan, and others are rumored to be considering that option.
Poor nations are demanding the Kyoto extension claiming that rich nations caused “global warming,” therefore they owe reparations to the poor nations. Rich countries on the other hand, 37 of 192 U.N. member states, know that Kyoto’s legally binding greenhouse gas emission limits would devastate their economies.
While wealth redistribution has been somewhat successful through the Kyoto Protocol, it has failed to adequately fulfill the Marxist demand. So, following last year’s grandiose announcement of a $30 billion Fast Start Fund by 2012 and a $100 billion Green Fund by 2020, the U.N. seized the opportunity in Cancun to call for a global tax.
Radical environmentalists at the World Wildlife Fund are pushing the taxing scheme calling for “wealthy and poor governments [to] unite on [a] new source of funding to fight climate change” because it is a key component that would “unlock the financing puzzle at the center of the negotiations” by unlocking “major flows of climate finance.”
The U.N.’s taxing scheme would be unlimited in scope and unlinked from national treasuries. Last month the U.N. Secretary General’s High Level Advisory Group confirmed taxes on international shipping and aviation could raise at least $100 billion. The International Maritime Organization would be the tax assessor-collector charging for emission permits and/or fuel taxes. The revenue would be channeled through a fund under the UNFCCC, a scheme the IMO and the UNFCCC are already discussing.
Only the rich nations would pay the taxes; poor nations would receive rebates for their portion of goods shipped.
The bottom line is that the UNFCCC COP 16 has nothing to do with the environment, but everything to do with global taxation. U.N. created Marxist class warfare has succeeded in pitting poor nations against rich nations, now it must convince both that a global tax is the only solution.