Skip to main content

Climate change is not the issue in Copenhagen

As is often the case, the mainstream media has been framing the Copenhagen debate in the context of left versus right, with the "Conservatives" saying it will cost workers their jobs, and the "Liberals" saying it will create them. While it might be worth mentioning how small government conservatism and classical liberalism have both been pushed out of the mainstream dialogue by philosophies which advocate an ever-increasing centralization and expansion of State powers, that is something I will mention in Another article perhaps. The fact is, the economic impact of the Copenhagen treaty is not limited to the impact on employment, nor should the debate be limited to economic ramifications. Ignoring “climategate” and assuming that global warming is a peril which must be tackled, There are issues of sovereignty, morality, accountability, and posterity at stake while the United Nations Climate Change Convention of 2009 is convened behind closed doors by officials who do not answer to the people of the countries they represent by direct representation.

While there has been discussion of jobs being created or destroyed, a mere glance at the discussions shows there will be other economic impact upon this Nation already in a severe recession. On page 48 of the public release of the document “NGO Copenhagen Treaty – Legal Text” one finds the following sentence: “As outlined in the Finance Article, industrialized countries should provide at least
42 billion USD per year to support REDD activities, with the urgent need for immediate funding to build capacity to enable developing countries to meet a high level of MRV and to implement effective national REDD strategies.”
(REDD stands for “reduce emissions from deforestation and forest degradation”. Apparently, if you're going to cut down rainforests which convert co2 to oxygen, it's important not to emit co2 in the process.) and on page 52 of the same document, we read “It is the sovereign prerogative to decide how to address REDD, however if countries chose to access international financial support for these activities they should be required to meet international standards ”. This is actually a somewhat amusing case of doublespeak. In other words, while National Sovereignty should be respected, it's sufficient to force obligations retroactively on anyone who accepted the filthy lucre of the UN.

In a summary released by the German website of the organization Greenpeace, the following assertions are made:

“Finance Implementation of the Copenhagen Climate Treaty will need significant financial resources. These resources should be new and additional. A substantial portion of them should be channeled through the Copenhagen Climate Facility and used – particularly with respect to mitigation – to catalyze private investment. “ ...“Overall industrialized countries should provide at least 160 billion US$ per year forthe period 2013-2017” … “The main source of revenue should be through the auctioning of roughly 10% of industrialized countries emissions allocation with additional financing from international levies” ...” A limited share could come from other means if they fulfill criteria.”

In other words, the Copenhagen Agreement doesn't even pretend that it's objective is the elimination of all factors at fault for global warming. What it does propose is restrictions on the expansion of industry, international taxation, and a bureaucracy which, like the united nations itself, is not composed of direct representatives of the people, but rather bureaucrats appointed undemocratically by whomever happens to lead the member nations. Further, while the Copenhagen treaty speaks of “guaranteeing representation of developing nations”, there is a rather grim reality implied by that – unlike the UN as a whole, the CMCP will not represent all the nations of the earth equally. In effect, the Copenhagen treaty is an attempt to lock into place the power balance between nations, with a token nod to those poorer nations who might have military power enough to resist policies they did not have a say in, and while it admits that is merely lays a framework, thus absolving itself of any accountability for the reduced emissions it purports to seek, it will beyond any doubt have one result: the entering into policies whereby money will be channeled into a vague bureaucracy without the consent of those who will be taxed. To a nation whose birth was heralded with cries of “no taxation without representation”, the consent by our leaders to such a mechanism, without a popular vote, or any guarantee that this treaty will solve any problem, should be seen as nothing short of treason.


  • DeeFromSeattle 5 years ago

    You have spelled this out very clearly. Our "leaders" have led us astray many times before and I'm sure that nothing good will come of this summit. Wake up, citizens of the US and around the world!! Bait and switch tactics only work on those who are sheep. Thanks for the article.

  • Matt 5 years ago

    I have rarey seen a smilar sum of ignorance in a journal article. This is mere demagogy, the arguments old and unjustified. It is evident that the author has no idea of what he's talking about (see how he describes REDD for instance, or the alleged "double speaking" on national sovereignty...what!?). The only point that is clearly made is that a small white and rich minority wants to blackmail the entire world population by refusing on curbing its own ridiculously high emissions.
    Pathetic and shameful.

  • enemyartistkristofeR 5 years ago

    Copenhagen will undoubtably lead to the end of individual sovereignty for the participating nations, especially those on the higher economic food chain. This is a consolidation of power which will ultimately lead to more wrong than good. Like the writer of this fine article states, the treaty is packed with doublethink and oxymoronic solutions, at best. I especially enjoyed the line about REDD, " Apparently, if you're going to cut down rainforests which convert co2 to oxygen, it's important not to emit co2 in the process".
    Great article through and through.
    Wake up Americans. It is time to start acting like Free Americans who really do care about both their country and the world in which actions do affect. We have to stop blindly giving over our power to Statist politicians who only care about advancing their careers and financial footings in the world, while leaving the rest of us in a cloud of dust, confusion and chains.

  • Pinky LA 5 years ago

    Great article!!! for further great news

  • Westcoast 5 years ago

    This is a well-written article. We know the implications and much of the motivation behind this movement but it's nice to see it succinctly stated, without hyperbole, letting the actual abominable policy directive speak for themselves. This monster needs to be harpooned... quickly.

  • Juliet Annerino 5 years ago

    Very thoughtful article actually examining in-depth the ramifications of the Copenhagen treaty, which to most Americans might seem like an innocuous little meeting of world leaders who are concerned about our environment. It goes so much deeper and into a very irresponsible terrain of pernicious "foreign entanglements" (George Washington's phrase) that will only lead in deeper debt, a worse economy and wealthier corrupt politicians in various third world countries. Great job, Mr. Lenaburg! The American people deserve to know the truth. Looks like you're the man to bring it.

  • Shaun Cusack 5 years ago

    You're going to put off some of the idiots who worship Al Gore and his new religion of "Global Warming" but who cares. Absolutely right this was never about any climate problem ( which has never been proven I might add) it has all been about the money and power. This is more about greed than green, and about control freaks in the U.N telling small nations what to do. The U.N. and summits like this are nothing more than a bunch of bullies gathered together to pick on the weak little countries and demand a tribute tax and fines if they disobey our orders. Proponents say the larger member nation pay too, yes but it is easier for a wealthy nations to pay a paltry sum than a poor nations to pay. I say why should any nations pay for this nonsense anyway? It has never yet been proven there is any climate problem remember. Most people like Matt there will never get it. There is no such thing as "Global Warming".