09.13.2010 0

UN: “International Community Needs to Go Beyond Political Solutions” on Capping Carbon Emissions

Last week, an exclusive report by FOXNews.com’s George Russell uncovered a startling series of background papers that were distributed at United Nations (UN) Secretary General Ban ki-Moon’s retreat in Alpbach, Austria over Labor Day weekend.

The papers reveal an agenda to direct global affairs, including the implementation of restrictive caps on carbon emissions that will devastate economies across the planet. The UN has also begun to openly question whether the treaty-making process is sufficient to achieve its ends.

“The international community needs to go beyond political solutions,” the first paper startlingly declares, on “the climate change issue.” What is that supposed to mean? This language used is extremely provocative.

By implication, it suggests that either economic or military means would be necessary in order for the Greens to save the world from the alleged dangers of climate change.

In the least, if agreement cannot be reached amongst nations, the papers appear to suggest that other means would be employed. For example, by recruiting citizens in member states through the “clever use of technologies to enhance civil society’s interaction with multilateral bodies.” Infiltration may be a better word here. But, basically, the means would include attempting to persuade citizens one by one to accept submission to the radical environmentalist agenda.

The paper laments the “disappointing” progress that has been made implementing carbon caps. It cited that since the Copenhagen Summit, there is an “overarching sense of pessimism on the part of all actors that solutions, especially political ones, are elusive. Yet emissions continue to rise…”

The biggest impediment? Sovereignty. The first paper states, “A lack of commitment on behalf of governments is certainly an enormous obstacle.” You think?

The second paper, “Latest Trends in International Negotiations and Processes: The Climate Change’s Challenge,” openly questions, “Is the global governance structure, still dominated by national sovereignty, capable of responding with the coherence and speed needed?”

The paper answers that it is not. Because “[n]ational sovereignty remains supreme.”

The Climate Change Support Team, which prepared the second paper, cannot appear to come to grips with the lack of support for reducing energy consumption — which powers economies. “[T]he scientific and economic case for action has never been stronger,” the paper declares.

Of course, the UN explicitly ignores the recent Climategate scandal that has greatly called into question that science. Also, simply pronouncing the strength of the economic case for energy use restrictions hardly makes it so.

Consider the group’s description of the so-called 50-50-50 problem: “By 2050, when global population growth is expected to crest, an estimated 9 billion people will inhabit our planet… How will the world provide clean water, food, shelter, energy, and other resources needed by up to fifty percent more people, while simultaneously reducing global emissions by at least fifty percent?”

It’s a very good question.

The rise of the world’s population has largely been fueled by the increased production of food, infrastructure, transportation, medical advances, and robust trade brought on by the Industrial Revolution — which was powered by fossil fuels.

Thus, removing the energy needed to continue those activities can only have one impact: A significant reduction in the world’s population. To answer the question: We cannot expect to meet the needs of a growing population with 50 percent less energy. People would die from starvation, from malnutrition, from disease, and from wars over restricted resources.

The UN does not appear to consider these potential negative downsides. It simply remains single-mindedly focused on achieving its goals.

The paper asks, “do we need to push the ‘reset’ button and rethink global governance to meet the ‘50-50-50 challenge’?”

The “reset” button? “Rethink global governance”? What’s that supposed to mean? A new international body with more power than the UN? A world government, perhaps, to impose the radical environmentalist agenda? This is alarming to most Americans.

The first paper suggests a wider goal than simply saving the planet from “harmful” emissions when it calls for going “beyond political solutions.” It suggests that “Even if implemented, currently negotiated sanctions and green house gas emissions cuts will not guarantee the solution to the problem.”

That’s quite an admission. Why won’t the sanctions and emissions cuts on their own work to “solve” the problem? Because emissions are not the true problem identified by the UN.

What is? “The real challenge comes from the exponential growth of the global consumerist society driven by ever higher aspirations of the upper and middle layers in rich countries as well as expanding demand of emerging middle-class in developing countries.”

Alarmingly, the paper states, “Our true ambition should be therefore creating incentives for the profound transformation of attitudes and consumption styles.” In other words, a complete transformation of the entire global economy, the way societies are structured, and even the way people think and what they aspire to achieve.

Those are very dangerous ambitions. Not only do they threaten population sustainability worldwide this century if energy resources are restricted, they hint at a wider context for the implementation of this agenda. George Russell, in his story, writes that one of the goals is to “make global redistribution of wealth the real basis of [the] climate agenda”.

While wealth redistribution may be a part of the wider context, and certainly is problematic enough, overall these sound like totalitarian goals. Besides total government control over everything and everyone, plus aggressive use of state-sanctioned propaganda, how else to halt the way free markets operate, transform “consumption styles,” and even change how individuals think and attempt to better their lives?

The talking points used by the UN Secretary General at a seemingly innocuous “retreat” over Labor Day weekend should be cause for grave concern by Americans who want to keep their liberty and defend their nation’s independence. They give good reason for the people to question just what is being planned at Turtle Bay.

Robert Romano is the Senior Editor of Americans for Limited Government.

Copyright © 2008-2021 Americans for Limited Government