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.