Of course he did.  But it does not change the basic facts.

The erudite, articulate British lord has an ax to grind. He is a high profile spokesman for those who believe that mankind flatters itself by taking credit or blame for climate change.  The facts were obviously “spun” to make the points he wanted to emphasize, but that does not change the facts.  Lord Monckton got the facts right even if his opinions are subject to debate.

I believe, as Lord Monckton apparently does, that the science being cited and manipulated to establish the urgency of  “global warming” is flawed. It is being used to further agendas that have nothing to do with global climate concerns.  But that is not the point either.

The point is simply this. The basic tenants of the treaty are clear in the limited documentation that exists at this writing.  This actual treaty is a work in progress and we will not know the final proposed language until the negotiations are finished, probably just prior to the actual meeting in Copenhagen in December of this year.  The existing documents make clear these foundational points:

• Developed countries such as the USA bear the responsibility for climate change and owe a “climate debt”, “environmental debt” and an “emissions debt” to the developing countries of the world.  We are responsible for paying in full for these countries to develop economically, technologically, environmentally and to do so in an environmentally friendly way.  This will result in a vast shifting of wealth from the developed nations to the developing nations, many of which are considered “developing” due to corrupt governments.
• The USA and other participating countries will be required to cede some portion of their sovereignty to a newly established world governing body under the auspices of the United Nations, that has the power to make financial demands, levy taxes on our citizens and will have the power of enforcement behind their demands and assessments.  It is not certain how far this goes initially, but any ceding of our sovereignty is too much.  Conceivably this world governing body would have the power to demand huge reductions in greenhouse gas emissions to the extent it would dramatically affect our quality of life and standard of living, and then to impose severe  penalties should we fail to do so.
• The treaty will establish something akin to a global “cap and trade” scheme in which initial carbon emissions caps will be established for each participating country, to be ratcheted down over time.  Countries can purchase the right to exceed these “carbon budgets” by purchasing the rights of other countries that are not using them.  The deck is stacked in favor of developing countries who will have excess carbon budget to sell, thus raising additional funds for their development, mitigation and adaptation.

There seems to be two primary documents existing at this writing regarding this treaty, both produced by United Nations organizations.  They are both exceeding long and tedious.  I have selected text from each document for your review so you don’t have to plow through several hundred pages like I did.  There are links at the bottom of this article should you want to see everything in context.

The first document is  ”A Copenhagen Climate Treaty Version 1.0 A proposal for an amended Kyoto Protocol and a new Copenhagen Protocol by members of the NGO community” (Non-governmental organizations associated with the United Nations).  Here are some quotes from that document:

Recognizing that the wealthiest and most capable countries should substantially contribute to the financial and technological support required to enable developing countries to pursue a low-carbon development path, stop deforestation and adapt to the inevitable impacts of climate change,

~~~~~

Developed countries and other countries with the capacity to do so shall support the building of adaptive capacity and climate resilience in developing countries, particularly the most vulnerable.

~~~~~

The carbon budget and emissions reduction targets shall be reviewed at regular intervals and in a timely manner, continually strengthened and revised in light of the best available science. Should new and emerging science suggest that more stringent budgets and targets are required to avoid dangerous climate change and ensure the right of all peoples, cultures and nations to survive, these budgets and targets shall be adjusted immediately.

(who determines this?  The world governing body, of course.)

~~~~~

A massive scaling up of financial resources, from both the public and private sources, is required in order to adequately, sufficiently and swiftly reduce anthropogenic GHG emissions, ~~~These financial resources should primarily be raised through the auctioning of assigned amount units in a predictable and timely manner.

(This means the US will have to pay the newly established global authority for permission to exceed the carbon budget unilaterally established for them by this global authority thus transferring wealth to the developing nations.)

~~~~~

All institutions, instruments, mechanisms and policies and actions developed
pursuant to this Protocol shall be governed in an open, transparent, fair and effective system under the ultimate authority of the Conference of the Parties serving as the meeting of the Parties.

(how is that for the name of the supreme world governing body?)

~~~~~

All industrialized country Parties shall commit to emission pathways that are in
line with limiting global temperature rise to as far below 2° C above pre-industrial levels
as necessary, peaking global GHG emissions in the 2013-2017 commitment period
and staying within the global carbon budget, and to deliver finance and technology
according to their responsibilities and respective capabilities and the needs of
developing country Parties pursuant to the principles and provisions of Article 2.

(Shared Vision). (Hmmm, that sounds familiar “From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs” is a slogan popularized by Karl Marx in his 1875 Critique of the Gotha Program.

~~~~~

Any lack of full scientific certainty should not be used as a reason to postpone or scale down action on adaptation.

(yes, let’s ignore the science that fails to support the plan that gives us power)

~~~~~

If the 10% auctioning of AAUs and the levies on international transport prove insufficient
to raise the level of financing required, industrialized countries would be required
to make up the difference in order to ensure that developing countries receive the stable, consistent and predictable financial resources they need.

(blank check!)

The second document is from the UNFGGG entitled:  “Reordering and Consolidation of Text in the Revised Negotiating Text”  Some pertinent quotes from that document:

Recognizing that current and potential climate change impacts require a shift in the global investment patterns and that criteria for financing allocation shall clearly respond to the priorities identified by the international community, with climate change stabilization being one of these priorities.

(does “shift in global investment patterns” mean a transfer of wealth?)

~~~~~

Acknowledging that current atmospheric concentrations are principally the result of
historical emissions of greenhouse gases, the most significant share of which has originated in developed countries.

(Must be true, Al Gore says the science is settled)

The guiding principles of the Convention should support items b) and c) of the previous paragraph, in terms of common but differentiated responsibilities and respective capabilities; historical responsibilities in greenhouse gas emissions and the related historical ecological debt generated by the cumulative greenhouse gas emissions since 1750 and the most recent scientific information.

(Ahh a debt to be paid)

~~~~~

Further acknowledging that developed countries have a historical responsibility for their disproportionate contribution to the causes and consequences of climate change, reflecting their disproportionate historical use of a shared global carbon space since 1850 as well as their proposed continuing disproportionate use of the remaining global carbon space.

As assessed by the IPCC in its Fourth Assessment Report Warming of the climate system, as a consequence of human activity, is unequivocal. [Global atmospheric concentrations of greenhouse gases have increased significantly because of human activities since 1750.]

(you tens of thousands of lunatic scientists who disagree, shut up and get out of here!)

Current atmospheric concentrations are principally the result of historical emissions of
greenhouse gases, [the largest share of which has originated in] [originating from] developed countries [Parties].

Early and urgent action by all countries on the basis of equity and according to their common but differentiated responsibilities and respective capabilities is necessary. [A] [Further] delay by Parties [in implementing their commitments to reduce] [reducing] emissions will increase their climate debt to the developing countries and significantly constrain opportunities to achieve lower stabilization levels of greenhouse gases (GHGs) and increase the risk of more severe climate change impacts.

(Sounds like a credit scam where the debt never gets paid because it keeps increasing the more you pay)

[Those Parties] whose national circumstances reflect greater [responsibility] and [capability] (USA)  [should make a greater contribution to the global effort] to address climate change.

(that pesky Marx again!)

~~~~~

[Recalling Article 3, paragraphs 1 and 5, and Article 4, paragraphs 3 and 7 of the Convention, developed country Parties shall not resort to any form of unilateral measures, including countervailing border measures, against goods and services imported from developing countries on the grounds of protection and stabilization of climate.]

(hey, I thought your new world governing body had authority only to meddle in emissions!)

~~~~~

[Mandatory contributions from developed country Parties (USA) and other developed Parties included in Annex II should form the core revenue stream for meeting the cost of adaptation.

(You mean no choice for the "sovereign" nations who sign?)

~~~~~

The scheme for the new institutional arrangement under the Convention will be based on three basic pillars: government; facilitative mechanism; and financial mechanism, and the basic organization of which will include the following:

(a) The GOVERNMENT will be RULED by the COP with the support of a new subsidiary body on adaptation, and of an Executive Board responsible for the management of the new funds and the related facilitative processes and bodies. The current Convention secretariat will operate as such, as appropriate.

(GOVERNMENT?  RULED? DOES THAT INCLUDE ENFORCEMENT BY CHANCE?)

Establishing systems of accountability such as institutional checks and balances and
open administrative systems. Establishing the rule of law through means and processes for enforcement;

(Ahh there it is  I know it had to be here somewhere, ENFORCEMENT)

~~~~~

In the light of a shared vision based on historic responsibility/emissions, debt/per-capita emissions convergence/an equitable allocation of a shared atmospheric resource, [and in accordance with the provisions of the Convention,] Annex I Parties shall provide new and additional financial resources to meet the full costs incurred by developing country Parties.

(Another blank check!)

The bottom line is that this treaty is intended to require the signing “Developed Countries” to cede an initial portion of their sovereignty to a global government and confess a debt to the world for all their carbon emissions since 1750.  It will require the US to commit to a blank check for whatever it costs to bring the developing nations out of poverty and into developed status.  As I mentioned, most of these nations are considered “developing” because of their corrupt governments.  We are expected to fund these governments with no way to see that the corrupt governments don’t appropriate this great wealth transfer unto the corrupt souls in power.

We don’t yet know what rules will govern extracting ourselves from the treaty once it is ratified.  I imagine it will be next to impossible and there will be large sanctions attached to the exit, if exit is indeed possible.

We must not sign this treaty

Full text of the documents can be found at the following links:

“A Copenhagen Climate Treaty Version 1.0. A proposal for an amended Kyoto Protocol and a new Copenhagen Protocol by members of the NGO community”

“Reordering and consolidation of text in the revised negotiating text”

~~~~~

Contact Your U.S. Representative

Contact Your U.S. Senators

{ 1 comment }