PRE-SUPPOSITIONS IT EMPLOYS TO DEMAND ESTABLISHMENT OF ONE-WORLD GOVERNMENT
Legal analysis John Charlton
(Nov. 9, 2009) — Last month Lord Christopher Monckton, former science adviser for the English Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher, warned that the proposed text of the Copenhagen Treaty on Climate Change was the vehicle for international marxists to establish a one-world Marxist government. Interest in this dire warning has bloomed over the internet and remains a daily leader in those arriving at The Post & Email through search engines. For this reason The Post & Email will feature a detailed analysis of the treaty text.
Background to the Treaty
First it must be understood that presently there is no such treaty; but there are several proposals on a Climate protection treaty, which were unveiled at the recent Copenhagen Conference on Climate Change, which proposals would be for a treaty signed by the members states of the United Nations as a binding document on each of them. China and India have already indicated that they are not in favor of such world-wide strictures.
The actual conference in Copenhagen was held on September 15 at Copenhagen, Denmark. It was only one meeting in a series of meetings which have and will be held on Climate Change.
The working document is termed “The Framework Convention on Climate Change“, and the recent version was approved by the “Ad-Hoc working Group on Long-Term Cooperative Action” under the U.N. Convention, at Bonn, Germany, Aug. 10-14, 2009.
The current, 181-page document is only a draft, and is not binding. It is currently available from What’s Up with This Blog, in PDF format (2.4 MB).
A General Outline of the Working Document
First let’s merely take a quick look at the contents of the document, to get an idea of its “geography”. The table of contents contains the following headers:
I. A SHARED VISION FOR LONG-TERM COOPERATIVE ACTION
II. ENHANCED ACTION ON ADAPTATION AND ITS MEANS OF IMPLEMENTATION
III. ENHANCED ACTION ON MITIGATION
A. Mitigation [commitments] by [developed country Parties]
B. Nationally appropriate mitigation actions by developing countries.
C. Policy approaches and positive incentives on issues relating to reducing emissions from deforestation and forest degradation in developing countries; and the role of conservation, sustainable management of forests and enhancement of forest carbon stocks in developing countries.
D. Cooperative sectoral approaches and sector-specific actions
E. Economic and social consequences of response measures
IV. ENHANCED ACTION ON THE PROVISION OF FINANCIAL RESOURCES AND INVESTMENT
V. ENHANCED ACTION ON DEVELOPMENT AND TRANSFER OF TECHNOLOGY
VII. CROSS-CUTTING PROPOSALS RELATED TO STRUCTURE AND PLACEMENT
We shall see from a detailed analysis of the proposal that “enhanced” means “forced”, “shared” means “imposed”, and that “provision” and “transfer” means “forced tax” and “theft”.
Now let’s take a closer look at the structure of each section. Note that text in square brackets represents proposed alterations or versions of each sentence.
In this Part I, we will consider merely the presuppositions invoke to justify the Document’s existence.
I. A SHARED VISION FOR LONG-TERM COOPERATIVE ACTION
Essential to this notion of cooperative action is the principles upon which the action is deemed necessary. However, the principles are based on historical revisionism of the first caliber, combined with pseudo-science, a result which ends up being a new religious creed.
Here are just some of the resolutions/principles upon which the “Shared Vision” is based.
First, the intention to establish world-wide control of the human race at new levels.
PP.6. Intending to renew and strengthen the global partnership through the creation of new levels of cooperation among Parties, according to the principles of the Convention.
Second, requirement to accept the “Shared Vision” as governmental policy in all members states:
PP.7 Affirming a Shared Vision of a long-term goal to equitably, successfully and coherently integrate the ambitious efforts of all Parties.
Notice the words “equitably” and “successfully”, and how they will be used further down in the document.
Third, the aim of the proposed Treaty will be the imposition of the Sustainable Development world-view, one which Mr. DeWeese, in his interview with The Post & Email, clearly indicated was the intentional destruction of Western Civilization:
PP.8 [Recognizing that] sustainable development is the first priority for developing countries. Therefore, [that] our commitment to a low carbon society would have to be linked to our development priorities, in accordance with the provisions of the Convention.
Then, that the proposed Treaty will oblige member states “fully”; “fully” is clearly a word that can have dictatorial and tyrannical significance, since it implies without holding-back, or without limitations:
PP.10 [Emphasizing that] it is fundamental that Annex I countries comply fully with the provisions as set out in 4.3, 4.4, and 4.5 as well as additional commitments on technology transfer and capacity-building.
Then comes the point which belies the proposed Treaty as a political game intended to hamper the leading economic powers (USA for example) in favor of the majority of member states:
PP.11 [Further emphasizing that] a shared vision does not include commitments for developing countries. It does, entitle technology transfer, capacity-building and financial resources for project implementation regarding mitigation national programs.
The next point, rehashes Al Gore’s Big-Fib, that sea levels will rise so significantly that entire nations and cities wil disappear:
PP.12 [Recognizing that sustainable development that ensures capacity for] [A shared vision recognizes that] [adaptation to the adverse effects of climate change is the most important issue for] [the most vulnerable countries are] all developing countries, [particularly] low-lying and other small island countries, countries with low-lying coastal, arid and semi-arid areas or areas liable to floods, drought and desertification, and developing countries with fragile mountainous ecosystems are particularly vulnerable to the adverse effects of climate change, [as stated in preambular text 19 of the UNFCCC].
The next point, openly says that the Treaty’s purpose will be to control the world economy by controlling how individuals and corporations and governments invest their monies:
PP.13 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.
You cannot have such control, without taxes, tariffs, subsidies, and the diminution of free market principles.
Next, we move into the pure realm of science-fantasy, where all CO2 has resulted from industrialization, and not biological processes:
PP.14 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.
Then, we move into the pure realm of historical revisionism, in which all the alleged excess CO2 (no excess has been proven) has resulted from 150 years of activity, when it is a known fact that China and India have dumped considerable quantities of pollutants into the atmosphere in just the last 20 years:
PP.15 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.
To hold that some coal-gas plant that burnt coal in the 1890’s may have actually contributed to current levels of CO2 is patently laughable, since it could only be reasonably sustained by assuming there are no natural processes for removing 130 year old CO2 from the atmosphere — as if there are no green plants on land, or plankton in the oceans!
When you have to justify a document on mythological assertions, you really cannot defend yourself against the claim of your critics that you have no leg to stand on.
In the next 10+ pages the working document lists the proposed text of the items of the Shared Vision, as they are to be implemented.
HOW THIS “SHARED VISION” WILL BE IMPLEMENTED
When you see that the “Shared Vision” has nothing to do with “sharing” the responsibility, you will understand better what the Copenhagen conference was all about.
This is spelled out in the next 10+ pages, wherein the working document lists the proposed text and changes to the current accepted text.
While most of these regurgitate the principles just mentioned above, some flesh out the nastiness of what is being proposed:
Here is a collection of just a few paragraphs. From pp. 7-8:
Deep cuts [by developed countries] [by all Annex I country Parties] [by all developed countries] in global emissions by Parties in accordance with their historical responsibilities, as well as the principles of equity and common but differentiated responsibilities, and realistic changes in emission patterns [will be] [are urgently] required to prevent dangerous interference with the climate system and achieve the ultimate objective of the Convention.
Notice, there is a “Shared Vision” that “deep cuts” are not going to be “shared”, but based upon the unfounded claim that the industrialized nations are principally at fault, because of what they have been doing for a century.
Next, from p. 9, when have the threat, that if developed nations don’t act to implement deep cuts on themselves that they will be responsible for larger outlays of financing for developed nations in the future:
9. The shared vision for long-term cooperative action recognizes the strong link between adaptation and mitigation as well as the cross-cutting role played by financing, technology transfer and capacity building. Failure to implement ambitious and immediate mitigation actions by developed countries will increase the need for adaptation in developing countries and therefore for financial support. At the same time, increased financial support and technology transfer to developing countries will help these countries in their implementation
Note the implicit assumption that the activities of developed nations only harm developing nations; and that those of developing nations don’t harm developed nations. This is an essential, unwritten premise of the document, to justify world-government, and unilateral financial and technological transfers from rich to poor countries.
Then the not-so-veiled insistence, on p. 10, on One-World Government as the solution to the “climate problem”:
20. In order to fulfill this shared vision, Parties have agreed to establish a coherent, cohesive and integrated system of financial and technology transfer mechanisms under the Convention and a follow-up/compliance mechanism. These institutions are robust and effective.
“Robust” means “authoritative and powerful”, and “effective” means “obligatory and penal.” That is the description of a governmental body which has authority over the entire world and every aspect of human life.
Then comes a reiteration of the 4 points of the failed Bali Plan, which the Bush administration opposed.
INSANE CONTROL OF BIOSPHERE PROPOSED
Then the document proposes the attempt to control the world environment itself, as if man could even do this:
Alternative to paragraphs 26–27:
[The objective of this Agreement is to achieve an environmentally sound response to climate change through effective implementation of the Convention, with a view to achieving its ultimate objective as provided in its Article 2, by:
(a) stabilizing atmospheric greenhouse gases at 450 parts per million carbon dioxide equivalent or lower, through unified long-term action that sets the world on a path by which global GHG emissions peak by [X] and then global GHG emissions reduce by [X] per cent by [X] on [X] levels; and
(b) galvanizing greater attention and efforts towards adaptation at all levels to minimize the adverse impacts of climate change, to assist in
You know the authors of the document are insane and irrational and power-hungry, when they propose an arbitrary level (equivalent to some pre-historical levels) as a rule to be held to: as if man alone could control this.
ONE-WORLD GOVERNMENT PROPOSED
But the real “meat” of the One-World Government proposals is found in paragraph, on pp. 18-19:
38. 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.
(b) The Convention’s financial mechanism will include a multilateral climate change fund including five windows: (a) an Adaptation window, (b) a Compensation window, to address loss and damage from climate change impacts, including insurance, rehabilitation and compensatory components, (c) a Technology window; (d) a Mitigation window; and (e) a REDD window, to support a multi-phases process for positive forest incentives relating to REDD actions.
(c) The Convention’s facilitative mechanism will include: (a) work programmes for adaptation and mitigation; (b) a long-term REDD process; (c) a short-term technology action plan; (d) an expert group on adaptation established by the subsidiary body on adaptation, and expert groups on mitigation, technologies and on monitoring, reporting and verification; and (e) an international registry for the monitoring, reporting and verification of compliance of emission reduction commitments, and the transfer of technical and financial resources from developed countries to developing countries. The secretariat will provide technical and administrative support, including a new centre for information exchange.
Liberals are claiming Lord Monckton lied, that the word “government” does not occur in the text of the proposal. As you can see from the above paragraphs, esp. (a), that it is the Liberals who have been caught lying on this one.
In Part II, we will take a look at the second of the working document: II. Enhanced action on Adaption.