Friday, December 19, 2014

UN Greenhouse Gas Tax Ahead


A Global Tax? UN Debates Requiring Members to Report ‘GHG’ Emissions Posted on December 18, 2014 Written by Cathie Adams, pjmedia.com
Such data is a pre­lude to imple­ment­ing a mas­sive redis­tri­b­u­tion of global wealth.
Will the United Nations wield its unproven claim that green­house gas emis­sions cause cli­mate change to require each of its 193 mem­ber nations to mea­sure and report GHG emis­sions — a pre­req­ui­site for a global car­bon tax?
Does it really mat­ter whether next year’s meet­ing in Paris pro­duces a treaty, or a “soft law” doc­u­ment, or both?
Todd Stern, head of the Amer­i­can del­e­ga­tion at the UN Frame­work Con­ven­tion on Cli­mate Change meet­ing in Lima, Peru, said the U.S. is “per­fectly happy to have an assess­ment process.” He said this would pro­duce “clear and under­stand­able” Intended Nation­ally Deter­mined Con­tri­bu­tions (INDCs) “so that every­body knows what oth­ers are doing.”
Stern added that all Amer­i­can actions are to “trans­form our econ­omy.”
Mea­sur­ing and report­ing GHG emis­sions would indeed trans­form our econ­omy by pro­vid­ing the UN with the cri­te­ria needed to cre­ate a car­bon tax­ing scheme. They intend to use this to amass tril­lions of dol­lars to redis­trib­ute around the globe. After all, a car­bon tax was a rec­om­men­da­tion to UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon from the High-Level Advi­sory Group on Cli­mate Change Financ­ing.
The UN wants a car­bon tax to imple­ment sus­tain­able devel­op­ment, which is envi­ron­men­tal, social, and eco­nomic equity, or “jus­tice.” Social jus­tice, climate/environmental jus­tice, and eco­nomic jus­tice are allur­ing terms that promise absolute equity to the masses.
Polit­i­cally speak­ing, this is Marx­ist. And it would kill the geese that lay golden eggs, decon­struct­ing national economies by phas­ing out the use of all fos­sil fuels by 2050 at the lat­est — a pro­vi­sion cur­rently in the Lima draft.
The UN’s non-governmental orga­ni­za­tions refuse to acknowl­edge that the Earth has not warmed since 1998 as they relent­lessly rabble-rouse for global gov­er­nance. The NGOs expect the INDCs to do more than mit­i­gate GHG emis­sions — they are call­ing for “ade­quate and fair con­tri­bu­tions with a science-based equity review.”
The key word is “equity”: they com­plain that nations have only given about $10 bil­lion to the Green Cli­mate Fund estab­lished by the UNFCCC in 2009 to redis­trib­ute $100 bil­lion annu­ally by 2020 from rich to poor nations. This is sup­posed to increase to $500 bil­lion annu­ally by 2050.
The NGOs also refuse to acknowl­edge that energy sources like wind and solar are wholly inad­e­quate replace­ments for fos­sil fuels that cre­ate abun­dant, clean energy so that all peo­ple can attain a healthy stan­dard of living.
Amer­i­cans started down this road in 1992 at the Earth Sum­mit in Rio de Janeiro. Pres­i­dent George H.W. Bush signed both the “soft law” doc­u­ment called Agenda 21 and the UNFCCC treaty that was rat­i­fied by the Sen­ate the same year.
It may be deja vu in Paris if the UN pro­duces not only a new treaty, but also a “soft law” doc­u­ment. The dan­ger of “soft law” doc­u­ments is that they do not require con­gres­sional approval. Agenda 21 was imple­mented by Clinton’s 1993 exec­u­tive order that cre­ated the “President’s Coun­cil on Sus­tain­able Devel­op­ment”; today it con­tin­ues to wreak havoc on com­mu­ni­ties across America.
Stern explained: “Some agree­ments do and some agree­ments don’t [require con­gres­sional approval]. … So it’s going to depend entirely on how this agree­ment is writ­ten, how it is framed, what is or isn’t legally bind­ing and so on. … We don’t know yet.”
As the UNFCCC con­cludes its work in Lima on Decem­ber 12, we will learn whether the Obama admin­is­tra­tion com­mits to mea­sur­ing and report­ing GHG emis­sions, the nec­es­sary mea­sure­ments to cre­ate a carbon-taxing scheme. At next year’s meet­ing in Paris, we will learn whether the UNFCCC will pro­duce either a treaty or a “soft law” doc­u­ment, or both, and we will under­stand the immea­sur­able impact of both on our lib­er­ties.
Cathie Adams is the Pres­i­dent of Texas Eagle Forum, and for­mer Chair­man of the Repub­li­can Party of Texas.
Related Posts

1 comment:

Anonymous said...

sad perspective and way overblown / inconsiderate thoughts