The United Nations climate change summit will take place from November 30—December 11. More than just a gathering to exchange ideas, it seeks to impose a global framework to enforce views, many unproven and intended largely to facilitate the transfer of wealth from developed nations to the third world, in a manner enforced by international law.
According to numerous sources, the establishment of an “International Tribunal of Climate Justice” will be established. The Daily Mail reports that the tribunal “could see states who fail to uphold the international deal to tackle climate change brought before a court…” If agreed to by the Obama Administration, as appears likely, it would represent yet another major international treaty called by an alternate title for the purpose of bypassing Senate approval.
Once again, as has been seen before in international agreements entered into by the Obama Administration, a distinction is made between “developed” and third world countries:
“Developed country Parties shall undertake nationally determined mitigation commitments while developing country Parties should undertake nationally determined mitigation contributions/actions.”
A framework for penalizing developed nations is established:
“Parties acknowledge the importance of addressing loss and damage associated with climate change impacts and recognize the need for international cooperation and solidarity, including through the institutional arrangements as defined in this Agreement.”
A WND analysis concludes that “Congress would be bypassed – left out in the cold – by this climate deal, critics say…Policies once left to sovereign nations could be turned over to a U.N. body… According to the proposed draft text of the climate treaty, the tribunal would take up issues such as “climate justice,” “climate finance,” “technology transfers,” and “climate debt.”
The implications for the United States could be staggering. A New American review of the negotiations leading up to the conference reveals that “Each Party to the Convention whose per capita greenhouse gas emissions exceed the global average per capita greenhouse gas emissions” shall be listed as an ‘Annex I’ nation,’ which means its citizens will be assigned a 300-year ‘carbon debt’ for the period 1750-2050. And called on to pay it. We’re not talking mere hundreds of billions of dollars here. As we have reported previously, various UN proposals have demanded tens of trillions of dollars as ‘climate reparations.’ ”
Bloomberg News reports “As part of any agreement, poor nations, such as Brazil and India, want wealthier countries to pay them a lot of money, both for scaling back their emissions and for adapting to a warming climate. Their argument has traction. Wealthy nations have agreed, in principle, to provide $100 billion by 2020 to the United Nations’ Green Climate Fund. Last year, President Barack Obama pledged to give $3 billion…poor countries have a second and perhaps more compelling idea: corrective justice. In particular, they call for “reparations…”
The United Nations Regional Information Center for Western Europe notes that Christiana Figueres, the Executive Secretary of UN Framework Convention on Climate Change, stated in February that “the fight against climate change is a process and that the necessary transformation of the world economy will not be decided at one conference or in one agreement.” Once again, the emphasis appears less on dealing with unsubstantiated claims of man-made climate change than in establishing a scheme to massively transfer wealth from developed nations to undeveloped nations.
In addition to the inappropriate move to base a major international agreement (one that would literally transform the world economy and notions of sovereignty on unproven theories) the concept of diverting wealth from nations with generally stable economies and governments to governments that adhere to failed economic theories and practices can only lead to massive fraud and waste. The end result will be a drain on the prosperity of the nations that are leading the world out of poverty, with no viable gain for those nations receiving the transferred funds.