By Cathie Adams, president Catalinas Suites Apart Hotel, Buenos Aires, Argentina, Tel. & FAX 001-54-1-314-1400
The head of the American delegation Stuart Eizenstat said last night that we have a "long night ahead with no assured results." That's been the continuing saga at the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change.
Despite of the snail's pace negotiations in Buenos Aires, Eizenstat smugly spoke about the progress being made back home citing the diminished business opposition to the Kyoto Protocol. He claims that now dozens of companies want to make it work mentioning utilities as an example. He said about the progress, "This is a sea change" and that an aggressive program of domestic outreach will "increase that significantly."
At the UN conference, Eizenstat said he wants the G77/China (132 developing countries) to agree to "meaningful participation." He explained that that would mean categorizing the nations by per capita wealth, then setting "abatement targets" for greenhouse gas emissions that would provide for "a growth target lower than business as usual."
Imagine the international bureaucracy necessary to assess, implement and oversee the different targets and the loss of national sovereignty because of penalties for non-compliance. Regardless, the Clinton Administration wants to impose the devilish Treaty.
The Kyoto Protocol was signed in New York yesterday in order to signal to the world that America is serious about climate change, but there is NOTHING to gain by impressing the UN. Chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee Jesse Helms has already taken away any wind that the signing may have put in its sails. He notified Secretary of State Madeleine K. Albright that she should "recommend to the President that he quickly submit the treaty for Senate advice and consent so that the Senate may reject the treaty and scrap the Kyoto Protocol process altogether."
The President isn't letting Senator Helms' promise slow his radical environmental agenda. Senator Joseph Lieberman is in Buenos Aires to introduce a bill being proposed in the U.S. Congress (S. 2617) that intends to be an "early credit bill that will bring in small businesses." It's as if Lieberman wants to make amends to the President for publicly rebuking him on the Senate floor for his sexual perversion.
Just as Clinton lied about committing adultery, he is lying when he tells the American people that the Kyoto Treaty would be inexpensive to implement. Clinton's own Department of Energy has produced a new study that says gas prices could raise by $.66 per gallon, electricity prices by 86% and coal prices could more than double by 2010.
The Treaty would force American industries to be gutted and/or moved to one of the 132 nations that don't have to adhere to the Treaty unless they "voluntarily" establish their own greenhouse gas emission standards. Countless American jobs would be lost and our standard of living would be drastically reduced.
Americans need to ask our Congressmen to support Senator Helms' call to "reject the Treaty and scrap the Kyoto Protocol process altogether." Furthermore, Congress must reject Senator Lieberman's bill (S. 2617) because it intends to impose the Kyoto Treaty using the legislative process.
The mainstream media claims that Americans only care about "the economy stupid." If that is true, then we'd better be concerned that the European Union labels our wealth and standard of living "immoral" to the developing world.
Americans wake up! Recognize that it is NOT IMMORAL to have freedom or ingenuity or free markets. If the rest of the world wants a higher standard of living, then let them learn from our Constitution that has granted the U.S. national sovereignty and its people the freedoms necessary to EARN our standard of living. And let's not forget that we owe the UN nothing, even though regrettably it owes the U.S. its very existence. Now is the time to dismantle the UN's global government before it is used to dismantle the U.S.
If delegates at the conference come to "consensus" on a final document, then I plan to send a final report before departing Buenos Aires on Sunday.
---END---
The last two days of negotiations are extremely important for the American people because during these waning hours, the major players will confirm that this conference has nothing to do with climate change and everything to do with economic issues.
The stage is set for the final ceremony which will lead to the U.S. signing of the Kyoto Protocol even though the Buenos Aires meeting will not appease the U.S. Senate resolution passed by 95-0 before the Kyoto conference. It called for the President not to sign any treaty that placed legally binding obligations on the U.S. to limit or reduce greenhouse gas emissions "unless the protocol or agreement also mandates new specific scheduled commitments to limit or reduce greenhouse gas emissions for Developing Country Parties within the same compliance period." Regretfully, the U.S. Senate neglected to reference scientific evidence, thereby leaving a loophole for the President to feign "meaningful participation" by the developing world and to sign the Treaty.
International courtesy and national sovereignty are foreign ideas to Mbareck Diop, President of the Senegal's National Climate Change Committee, present at the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change in Buenos Aires. He is making a "demand for equality" and the "clean development mechanism" (CDM) will padlock his demand.
The CDM would enable industrialized countries to finance emissions-avoiding projects in developing countries and receive greenhouse gas emission credits for doing so. This avenue would allow governments and private corporations to transfer and promote "clean technologies" and wealth.
Senegalese Diop prophesied, "We believe that the CDM will give us the opportunity to achieve the structural basis we need in order to attract investments?. We are attending COP4 [Conference of the Parties 4th meeting] with one idea in mind: equality. For years now, there has been only one pilot project in African territory?. We do not agree with this kind of geographic distribution?. Annex 1 countries [the U.S. included] are responsible for around 80% of the GHG [greenhouse gas] emissions?. We must find financial resources to foment such economic growth."
Diop condemns any opposition to his scheme. "Aligned behind the interests of certain governments [the U.S.] are private groupings [freedom-loving Americans]. That explains the lack of progress seen by some nations: sometimes their private sectors are not comfortable with certain positions?. This is why we consider this type of conference highly valuable," concluded Diop. He represents only one of the G77/China (132 developing) nations, but his insults toward the U.S. and expressions of class warfare are typical at UN conferences.
The G77/China group expects compliance with the Kyoto Protocol to procure world equity. In Buenos Aires, they're like bloodhounds looking for the scent and the Clinton-Gore team has granted the scent by promising to sign the Treaty before the one-year deadline of March 1999 (possibly even today). Diop has powerful help from Senators Joe Lieberman, D-Connecticut and J. Robert Kerry, D-Massachusetts who are in Buenos Aires calling on President Clinton to sign the Kyoto Climate Change Treaty Senator Lieberman says, "The Kyoto agreement is only a beginning, not a complete agreement. Kyoto set the goals and described the means of addressing climate change, and in Buenos Aires, the parties are seeking to fill in the details so we can bring the programs to life?. By signing the agreement, the Administration ensures that the U.S. will have the credibility to continue to take a leadership role in shaping and implementing these programs and in persuading the developing nations to become a part of the solution." Mr. Lieberman's "leadership role" means to rape, pillage and plunder American businesses and their associated jobs, lower our standard of living and dismantle national sovereignty granted by the U.S. Constitution.
Senator Kerry is a member of the official U.S. delegation in Buenos Aires and has met with the lead negotiators for Brazil, Argentina, Mexico and South Korea to discuss their positions on climate change and the Kyoto Protocol. He will deliver the undefined "meaningful participation" by developing nations to President Clinton.
With only two days remaining, the negotiating committees have reached no agreement on a number of issues that will now be forwarded to the COP Plenary: methodological issues on GHG inventories, technology transfers, the document preamble, the calendar of meetings, commitments, flexibility mechanisms and even whether some developing countries would make "voluntary commitments."
Yet, U.S. lead negotiator Stuart Eisenstat says that we have to meet the ambitious environmental targets set in Kyoto "with flexibility mechanisms and a compliance regime that will have us achieve these goals." He added that the final document "could very well include issues like technology transfer; the impacts of climate change on developing countries; financial mechanisms; the review of the adequacy of commitments by all parties; flexible mechanisms; compliance; and possible new pathways for developing countries to participate." Eisenstat concluded, "This is a marathon and not a sprint, and we have a long way to go."
Don't hold your breath until the Conference of the Parties produces a final document in Buenos Aires even though you'd be withholding greenhouse gases from the atmosphere. Instead, be a true American and shout from the mountaintops that global warming is a hoax intended to redistribute economic wealth around the globe.
---END---
Why is the myth of global warming taken seriously and who is driving the radical environmentalist agenda?
Money, mostly from American taxpayers, is the lifeblood of the environmentalist agenda. A 1997 article in Foreign Affairs by Jessica T. Mathews reports that the "total budget for the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) for 1996 was $7.3 million," enough to feign legitimacy for the global warming hoax.
Well-funded non-governmental organizations (NGOs) are the driving force behind the global climate policies. The Internal Revenue Service, Exempt Organization Database reveals 154 environmental NGOs that have a total annual income of more than $4 Billion and their assets are more than double that amount. Their wealth has enabled them to dominate the working groups during the 1992 Earth Summit in Rio de Janeiro, the Climate Change negotiations in Kyoto in 1997 and now in Buenos Aires.
One of the NGOs' lobbying tools is to produce a proliferation of publications. The newsletter, Hotspot, is a publication of the European office of Climate Action Network, "a global coalition of 265 NGOs that promote action to limit human induced climate change to ecologically sustainable levels." Hotspot's cover of their latest issue printed a quote in red ink: "We oppose the theory of global warming and the Kyoto agreement, says the Republican Party of Texas."
Unfamiliar with the publication, I hoped that the article would present the bountiful scientific evidence against global warming since I put that statement in the Republican Party of Texas platform when I served as sub-committee chairman last summer! Instead, Hotspot used the quote to lambaste as "a serious obstacle to further progress the persistent demand from powerful sectors in those countries with the greatest greenhouse gas emissions that developing countries should also limit their emissions, as a precondition for ratifying the Kyoto Protocol."
In other words, the NGO's demand is for the U.S. and 37 other industrialized nations to submit to the greenhouse gas emissions limits without any participation by the developing nations. Solidifying their point they wrote, "Meaningful participation by developing countries should not be a means to oblige them to take on quantitative greenhouse gas emissions reductions or limitation commitments within the first target period, except where they exercise a sovereign right to do so voluntarily."
The NGOs want industries to move from developed countries to developing countries, then after the wealth is redistributed, let developing countries decide whether they want to exercise their "sovereign right" to limit their greenhouse gas emissions voluntarily.
What's good for the goose is good for the gander! The U.S. should recognize and respect the sovereignty of the developing nations, and the developing nations should recognize and respect the sovereignty of the U.S. Neither the UN nor the NGOs have any "right" to demand that nations adopt "legally binding" emissions standards.
Maybe that's what Congressman Sensenbrenner from Wisconsin meant when he said at a press conference yesterday in Buenos Aires that the Clinton "Administration has backed itself into a corner and I don't know how we can get out of this corner."
The U.S. Congress can get us out of this corner by discontinuing funding to the UN, and investigating the tax exempt status of the NGOs that have lobbied the U.S. into that corner!
---END---
The Kyoto draft from last December's UN conference speaks to "committing the developed nations to financial aid to the others to help them inventory their emissions, utilize modern control technology, adapt to climate change, and, in general, to achieve sustainable development."
Sustainable development is repeated like a mantra at UN meetings and it prescribes how they plan to redistribute wealth. While the radical environmentalists and the G77/China group (132 developing nations) demand financial aid and the transfer of technology from the developed countries, they also contend that too many people are a stumbling block to sustainable development. Because people use the earth's resources which they believe are being depleted, environmentalists demand that man lower his standard of living and that the fewer people there are, the better it is for the earth.
Although the discussion of population control (abortion and birth control) has been kept to a whisper, it is an issue at this UN Framework Convention on Climate Change taking place in Buenos Aires.
"You're living [in] a world where fuel, food, jobs, housing and health care are at a premium, where natural resources are severely depleted and cities horribly polluted, uncomfortably crowded, and plagued by crime" writes Paul Ehrlich, honorary president of Zero Population Growth in a recent letter. "We're heading on a collision course towards a population crisis that could deepen this nightmare," he warns.
Americans are major targets because "even though Americans make up only 4.5% of world population, we consume 5 times the world's average per capita use of energy, 3 times the amount of steel, and more than 2 times the amount of grain." If we don't "take steps NOW to stabilize population growth and conserve world resources, future generations will have to wait in line for food and water. At no time have I been more concerned about the population crisis-in America and the rest of the world-then (sic) I am right now," continues Ehrlich.
The Population Action International is pushing the Ehrlich agenda in Buenos Aires. "The atmosphere is the common property of all human beings, and the impacts of human-induced climate change will ignore national borders," says Director Robert Engelman. He is pushing for the 1994 UN Cairo Population Treaty to be integrated into the Climate Change Treaty negotiations despite the fact that the "average number of children born to each woman in the world is now less than three, compared to about five in 1957."
Radical environmentalists are demanding "population control" which really means control of the population since fewer people are easier to control, "flexibility mechanisms" which are schemes intended to redistribute wealth, "technology transfers" and "financial aid" from developed to developing nations. In order to force these demands on those who enjoy a higher standard of living (Americans mostly), the environmentalists want to control the population.
Our President is a willing partner in the population control agenda as demonstrated by his two vetoes of bills that would have outlawed partial birth abortions. That is the horrible procedure whereby a "doctor" delivers a baby feet first, uses scissors to make a hole in the baby's skull, then inserts a syringe to suck out the baby's brains. Such extremists believe that people-instead of God--are the givers and takers of "life."
Americans should tell their Congressmen to reject the radical environmentalists' agenda of financial and technological transfers and population control. And we should tell our children that they are "gifts from God" not curses to the earth.
---END---
Delegates representing 161 countries gathered in Buenos Aires for the UN Conference on Climate Change don't have much to show for their first week's efforts. Only one thing has been decided: there will be no formal negotiations about whether developing countries must accept voluntary standards for greenhouse gas emissions.
Negotiations are slow because certain nations are adept at abusing the process for their own gain. They're also slow because the UN system is complicated and their meetings are closed to most observers. Imagine the chaos if the U.S. Congress would meet behind closed doors once a year in order to accomplish all their work in only two weeks! Most Americans would probably profit if Congress met so seldom, but meeting in secret would be unacceptable!
Within the UN system, the COP-4 (conference of the parties, fourth session) is the supreme body of this ongoing convention in Buenos Aires. That body elected Argentinean Maria Julia Alsogaray as president on the opening day of the conference. Her responsibility is primarily to preside over the Plenaries (group meetings where all formal decisions are made).
At last Friday's Plenary meeting, Ms. Alsogaray offered condolences to the Caribbean and Latin American countries that suffered losses due to hurricane Mitch, suggesting that "Mother Nature" was reminding delegates that urgent action was needed during this conference. Her comments, of course, assume global warming and its effects are proven scientifically, that mans' activities could cause global warming and that the UN system is the cure. She then called for a "moment of silence." In all, the purpose of the Plenary was simply to cajole those doing the negotiations.
Negotiations take place in the subsidiary bodies. There are two subsidiary bodies for this conference: the Subsidiary Body for Implementation and the Subsidiary Body for Scientific and Technological Advice. There are also contact groups that are open-ended meetings wherein Parties can negotiate before forwarding agreed text to the plenary for formal adoption.
Nations are divided into groups for the purpose of "harmonizing their negotiating positions." The G77/China group consists of 132 developing nations who are threatening to halt negotiations unless the conference addresses Kyoto's financial aid commitments for technology. The G77/China "urged developed country Parties to prioritize the implementation of the Convention over economic and political considerations."
In other words, give us the money and technology; don't let politics get in the way. That's the same jargon that President Clinton used so successfully to cover his sexual perversion by blaming the Congress for arguing about politics rather than focusing on the issues of the people! (Who learned from whom?)
If the Clinton-appointed delegates give in to G77/China, then the environmental issue will be used to transform the world's remaining superpower into a "paper tiger" under attack by nations that used to be "sleeping tigers." The last thing the U.S. should do is to provide more financial and technological aid to ravenous and greedy tigers.
---END---
"There is no convincing scientific evidence that human release of carbon dioxide, methane or other greenhouse gases is causing (or will in the foreseeable future cause) catastrophic heating of the earth's atmosphere and disruption of the earth's climate. Moreover, there IS substantial scientific evidence that increases in atmospheric carbon dioxide produce many beneficial effects upon the natural plant and animal environments of the earth," states a petition signed by nearly 17,000 U.S. scientists, half of whom are trained in the fields of physics, geophysics, climate science, meteorology, oceanography, chemistry, biology, or biochemistry. The statement abstract concludes that there is no basis for believing #1 that atmospheric CO2 is causing a dangerous climb in global temperatures, #2 that greater concentrations of CO2 would be armful or #3 that human activity leads to global warming in the first place.
Discounting science, the American delegation, after one week of talks in Buenos Aires at the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change, reports that negotiations are "progressing." Head of Delegation (until Stuart Eizenstat arrives for "high-level" talks next week) Melinda Kimble says that the U.S.' compliance with the Kyoto Protocol is contingent upon the flexibility mechanisms. Those are "emissions trading," "joint implementation" between developed countries, and "clean development mechanisms" to encourage joint emissions reduction projects between developed and developing countries. Two more "mechanisms" being discussed are financial mechanisms (redistribution of wealth schemes) and compliance mechanisms (penalties for non-compliance to the Kyoto Treaty).
The international arena is not the only place where President Clinton is forging ahead with his radical environmental agenda in keeping with last December's agreement in Kyoto to reduce greenhouse gas emissions by 7% between 2008-2012 which translates into a 30-40% reduction in industrial output. In order to comply with Kyoto, he has proposed the Climate Change Technology Initiative, "a vigorous program of tax cuts and research and development?. The package amounts to an additional $6.3 billion over 5 years ($3.6 billion in tax cuts and $2.7 billion in new investment)-over and above what was planned already for climate change-related investments. The recently signed Fiscal Year 1999 appropriations bills include over $1 billion for investments-a 26% increase over last year."
His plan also aims to build "sector-by-sector partnerships with key energy-intensive industries to encourage voluntary efforts to cut emissions." Dirk Forrister, Chairman of the White House Climate Change Task Force is in Buenos Aires. He describes his consultations with industry as a four-pronged approach: #1 measure the industry's emissions; #2 do a bottom-up review of them; #3 offer to remove government barriers and ask for commitments; and #4 make an action plan. After his consultations with corporate high level staffs, their CEOs are then sometimes invited to the White House to meet with the President in order to discuss "partnering" with the federal government.
The only difference between what history books call "fascism" and this "sector-by-sector partnership" with the federal government is that, thus far, the industrial commitments are voluntary. Once the largest industries are brought into the federal government's net, however, it would be profitable for them to support mandatory compliance in order to eliminate their small competitors.
Electricity restructuring is "another core element of the President's plan" which is supposed to reduce greenhouse gas emissions while cutting consumers' energy bills. State governments have already been told that they must either "restructure" their own electricity industry, or the federal government will do it for them. This issue should be watched closely in every state capitol.
The Clinton plan also calls for making substantial improvements in the federal government's own use and procurement of energy. However, U.S. Delegate Kimble said that the Department of Defense would be exempt from emissions reduction requirements.
The U.S. Congress should intercede in the President's initiatives to assure they are in accordance with the U.S. Constitution and that they do not harm America's free markets. Congress should demand that its law-making authorities are not usurped by the executive branch. Since the purpose of the Buenos Aires conference is to put teeth into the Kyoto Treaty, Congress should demand that the President recall his delegation.
---END---
"The task of this conference is to maintain the POLITICAL momentum generated by Kyoto. Climate change must remain high on national AGENDAS; ministers must remain committed to seeking agreement and achieving timely results," proclaimed Michael Jammit Cutajar, Executive Secretary of the Buenos Aires UN Framework Convention on Climate Change in his opening statement.
As of the end of September, 57 countries have signed the Kyoto Protocol. President Clinton has yet to submit it to the U.S. Senate, not because he is protecting American sovereignty, but because he wants developing countries to have "meaningful participation," whatever that means. Argentina proposed that developing countries adopt "voluntary commitments" to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, but the motion was withdrawn. Developing countries (G77/China as identified within the UN system) argued that "developed nations are the ones that should assume reduction commitments, and not the developing countries whose growth could be jeopardized."
Americans cannot expect such determination from the U.S. lead negotiator in both Kyoto and Buenos Aires, Stuart Eizenstat. The Under Secretary of State for Economic, Business and Agricultural Affairs, says this conference is "a significant milestone in efforts to consolidate our gains and to make concrete and operational our Kyoto achievements." In Kyoto, the U.S. agreed to reduce our "greenhouse gas" emissions by 7% by 2008-2012 even though science has yet to prove that the earth is warming or that man's activities could cause "global warming."
In Kyoto, Eizenstat agreed to the schemes: "emissions trading," "joint implementation" between developed countries, and a "clean development mechanism" to encourage joint emissions reduction projects between developed and developing countries. In Buenos Aires, how those schemes will be implemented and monitored is being discussed.
President Clinton and his appointee Stuart Eizenstat have disregarded the standards of sound science and the U.S. Constitution when dealing with the UN. The U.S. Congress should intervene. They should protect our national sovereignty as granted by the U.S. Constitution. The U.S. has no business coming to "consensus" on any "legally binding" treaty that establishes "consequences." And Americans should use this international issue as a "litmus test" for future presidential candidates.
---END---
"I want to emphasize that we cannot wait until the [Kyoto] treaty is negotiated and ratified to act [on global warming]," said President Clinton before the UN met in Kyoto last December.
Textbook publishers have heeded Mr. Clinton's plea. The textbook entitled Reading, Book I of the Kim Marshall Series (Educators Publishing Service, Cambridge and Toronto, copyrights 1998,1992, 1981) is supposed to teach reading comprehension. Instead, it teaches 9 and 10-year-olds about villagers in Japan dying or suffering horrible deformities because of mercury dumped in the ocean. The math textbooks, dubbed "Rain Forest Algebra," also teach scary environmental scenarios in lieu of math.
But scientific evidence does not support the extremist views promoted by politicians and textbook publishers. Scientists who promote such views utilize computer models that are so inept that the sun's impact on climate change cannot be factored in. They also admit that their models are in a "very rapid phase of evolution."
Evidence opposing the global warming dogma is bountiful. Climatologists report in the October 16, 1998 issue of Science magazine, that soil and vegetation in North America, about 20% of the world's vegetated land, absorbs annually as much carbon as is released into the atmosphere by North American sources. That is good news for the U.S., one of only 34 nations "legally bound" by the Treaty, if it should be ratified.
American industries and automobiles emit carbon dioxide (CO2) when they burn fossil fuels. It is the major "greenhouse gas" blamed for the supposed global warming. Natural sources that absorb the carbon, such as soil and vegetation, are called carbon "sinks." In the U.S., natural "sinks" are absorbing CO2 emissions. The climatologists in the Science magazine attribute the existence of the North American carbon "sinks" to four factors:
During the ongoing UN meeting on the Kyoto Treaty in Buenos Aires, the U.S. should argue that their ability to absorb excess CO2 in their natural "sinks" offset their emissions. Therefore, the Kyoto Treaty should be scrapped and the annual follow-up meetings should be discontinued.
--END--
I attended the "World Bank's Open House on Climate Change" today, but top Bank officials were not on hand to defend their global warming positions. They did, however, clarify their relationship with the International Monetary Fund. While they were both created at the same time and established offices adjacent to one another, their bank accounts are not commingled. The World Bank loans American taxpayers' money for projects around the globe, while the International Monetary Fund uses our money to bail out wealthy investors and failed government economies. The recent Clinton-Congress budget deal gave $18 BILLION to the International Monetary Fund, not the World Bank.
Also attending the event was Dr. Fred Singer, a preeminent authority on the global warming hoax. The UN and its World Bank do not welcome his views because his views dispel the "crisis" that is being used to force nations to globally redistribute wealth. The UN should want all sides of the issue to have a fair hearing. Furthermore, it and the participating nations should insist upon scientific evidence of global warming. Without open debate of scientific "facts," the issue becomes a matter of "faith."
Vice President Al Gore's speech in Kyoto last December reflects his disregard of scientific "facts." He said, "Nine of the ten hottest years since the measurements began have come in the last ten years. The trend is clear. The human consequences-and the economic costs-of failing to act are unthinkable. More record floods and droughts. Diseases and pests spreading to new areas. Crop failures and famines. Melting glaciers, stronger storms, and rising seas. Our fundamental challenge now is to find out whether and how we can change the behaviors that are causing the problem."
The "facts" show that the earth has been cooling since 1979. Regardless, Gore wants Americans to lower our standard of living and allow our wealth to be redistributed around the globe. It is presumptuous and arrogant for radical environmentalists to claim that when humans and animals "breathe out" and when automobiles and industries burn fossil fuels, it will alter God's sovereign plan for the earth He created.
The conclusions of this conference will either be based on "faith" in non-science or on scientific "facts."
--END--
In Buenos Aires, Argentina, representatives from some 180 governments are meeting from 2 to 13 November to develop schemes for reducing greenhouse gas emissions as required by the 1997 Kyoto Protocol to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC).
The United Nations claims that greenhouse gases--mostly carbon dioxide, the gas humans and animals "breathe out" and is also produced when burning fossil fuels--are causing the earth to warm. It ignores much scientific evidence that the earth is cooling rather than warming and even disregards the possibility that sun activity could cause fluctuating earth temperatures!
America first became involved in the global warming debate when former President Bush agreed to "voluntary" standards intended to reduce greenhouse gases at the 1992 UN conference in Rio de Janeiro. Then last December in Kyoto, Japan, the Clinton-Gore administration agreed to "legally binding" emission standards set at 7% below 1990 levels that are to be accomplished between 2008-2012. Taking into account the normal growth of U.S. industries, the Treaty would require us to reduce our industrial output by one-third even though the Treaty has yet to be presented to the Senate for ratification. Two-thirds of that body must vote in favor of it in order for it to become law.
America is one of only 34 industrialized nations required to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. Delegates at this UN meeting are to hammer out three schemes intended to reduce emissions levels. The first scheme is an "emissions trading" (redistribution of wealth) regime that would allow developed countries that reduce emissions beyond their agreed target to sell the excess emissions credits ("hot air") to others. Hotly debated will be whether to create a concrete ceiling on how many credits a country can buy or sell.
The second scheme called a "clean development mechanism" would enable industrialized countries to finance emissions-avoiding projects in developing countries and receive credit for doing so. This new avenue would allow governments and private corporations to transfer and promote "clean
technologies" and wealth.
The third scheme to redistribute wealth is called "joint implementation" which will also provide credit for investments in projects, but only in other developed countries.
The Kyoto agreement is not legally binding until 55 countries, including developed countries accounting for at least 55% of developed country emissions, have ratified it. The U.S. should tell the UN that it should take its "hot air" treaty to the nearest dumpsite and add it to the landfill.
Let them eat cake, I plan to have "coffee, cookies and conversation" ("hot air") tomorrow (November 3rd) at the "World Bank Open House on Climate Change" here in Buenos Aires. Such a deal!
Why is the World Bank involved in the Climate Change negotiations? One big reason is because the $18 BILLION gift American taxpayers just gave them in the new "budget" deal is probably burning a hole in their pockets. (I hope someone is watching out for the ozone layer!) The U.S. Congress and the Clinton Administration just gave the World Bank $18 BILLION, so they can afford to buy lots of coffee and cookies as they expel "hot air" bragging about their newfound riches. Another is because the World Bank and the New World Order crowd are using the environmental issue to globally redistribute wealth.
The World Bank is less concerned about "hot air" than about controlling every nations wealth. The UN defines "hot air" as "the concern that some governments will be able to meet their commitment targets with minimal effort and could then flood the market for emissions credits, reducing the incentive for other countries to cut their own domestic emissions." National sovereignty is anathema to the UN and its World Bank.
Those of you who received my messages from Kyoto, Japan last December probably remember the question I asked the American Congressmen there: "Is it true that this (Kyoto) conference has nothing to do with climate change and everything to do with economics?" Both Democrats and Republicans responded with a resounding "YES."
There is not adequate scientific evidence to prove that the globe is warming. And even if it was, it would be just what the environment needs. According to preeminent authority Sherwood Idso, our CO2 levels (the major "greenhouse gas" that is supposed to cause global warming) could be 10 times higher than what they are today with no adverse effects on man or animals, and with excellent effects on plants and trees.
That brings us back to why the World Bank is sharing coffee, cookies and conversation ("hot air"). Like sucking piglets, many nations cannot afford to miss the coffee, cookies and conversation ("hot air") with the mother sow, the World Bank.
I don't want to miss the show! I'll let you know tomorrow how it goes.
--END--