Globalcrats Aim to Lower Your Standard of Living
by Cathie Adams on May 16, 2011 at 10:11 AM
What is so important to the United Nations that its Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon repeated it seven times in a half-page letter to a UN bureaucracy?
The UN is using it to agitate class warfare among nations with the goal of creating a scheme to redistribute wealth from rich to poor nations. Poor nations are rightly unwilling to pull the plug on their fossil fuel based economies, yet they insist that rich nations do just that. Since rich nations burn more fossil fuels that supposedly cause climate change, then the UN dogma is that the rich are making poor nations more vulnerable to floods, landslides, extreme weather events and other natural disasters.
Climate Change became a major issue for Americans when the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) was created at the 1992 Earth Summit in Rio de Janeiro, Brazil, and the U.S. Senate ratified the treaty the same year.
It is fascinating to watch the UN prepare for its 2012 Earth Summit, Rio+20, as they build upon all three 1992 Earth Summit treaties and plan of action called “Agenda 21.” This month the UN hosted three simultaneous climate change events: the UN Commission on Sustainable Development (CSD-19) in New York City, the UN International Strategy for Disaster Reduction in Geneva, Switzerland, and the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) in Abu Dhabi, U.A.E.
The IPCC shared the 2007 Nobel Peace Prize with former VP Al Gore and is the UN’s quasi scientific arm that does no research, but “reviews and assesses” climate change. It was created by the UN Environment Program and the World Meteorological Organization in 1988, then endorsed by the UN.
On May 9, the IPCC released a 1000-page report entitled, Special Report on Renewable Energy Sources and Climate Change Mitigation, that claims nations “can collectively realize a low carbon, far more resource efficient and equitable development path based not on availability of [natural] resources, but on public policies for a low carbon, far more resource efficient and equitable development path.” An “equitable development path” means that all nations would be forced to settle for the same low standard of living, unless of course, you are a member of the ruling elite.
The report claims that 80% of the world’s energy could be produced by six renewable energy technologies by 2050, although some think 20% may be more realistic:
- Bioenergy, including energy crops; forest, agricultural and livestock residues and so-called second generation biofuels
- Direct solar energy including photovoltaics and concentrating solar power
- Geothermal energy, based on heat extraction from the Earth‘s interior
- Hydropower, including run-of-river, in-stream or dam projects with reservoirs
- Ocean energy, ranging from barrages to ocean currents and ones which harness temperature differences in the marine realm
- Wind energy, including on- and offshore systems
Many of these green economy recommendations were implemented with huge government subsidies in Spain, which had a devastating impact on its economy, according to Economics Professor Gabriel Calzada. The country’s unemployment rate skyrocketed to over 18%, when the creation of jobs in alternative energy subtracted about 110,000 jobs from elsewhere in Spain's economy.
Nonetheless, the UN wants every nation to implement sustainable development to allegedly prevent climate change. Delegates at the CSD-19 meeting spent two weeks tweaking language aimed at creating “a green economy in the context of sustainable development and poverty eradication, and institutional framework for sustainable development.”
Sustainable development was first coined in the Brundtland Commission’s 1987 report called, Our Common Future. Although the UN’s definition for sustainable development sounds rather innocent, “development that meets the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs,” the way it works is insidious. It replaces individual liberty with government dominion over the behavior of individuals, businesses and organizations.
There is no clear definition for a green economy, but IPCC Vice Chair Mohan Munasinghe, a Sri Lankan physicist and economist, told delegates that a green economy is “the peak covered in clouds and taking one step up at a time might be the way to bring clarity.” In other words, the UN thinks all nations should ignore the science of climate change, which is inconclusive, and implement green economies that would devastate their standards of living.
The UNFCCC Executive Secretary Christiana Figures bluntly stated at CSD-19 that a new $100 billion a year Green Climate Fund (GCF) to help poor countries implement sustainable development was already agreed to at previous conferences, so there was no need to discuss them--just a need to design them. The GCF is the UN scheme to redistribute wealth from rich to poor nations. It is being designed in time for approval at the UNFCCC meeting in Durban, South Africa, in December.
The UN’s schemes are only successful if nations embrace them, which is why It is imperative that Americans elect a president and a congress in 2012 with the political courage to call for withdrawal of the U.S. from the UNFCCC, on its way to complete withdrawal from the UN.