The United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change formed a Green Climate Fund at the Conference of the Parties16 (COP) held in 2010 in Cancún (Mexico). The UN bills COP as “the highest body of the UNFCCC.” That body comprises environment ministers from 193 countries.
If all the UN plans are successful, the Conference on Sustainable Development scheduled for Rio de Janeiro (Brazil) in June could have a severe impact on U.S. lifestyles.
A major concern about the Green Climate Fund for fiscal conservatives lies in the potential for the type of corruption that occurred with the UN Oil for Food scandal. That scandal reached all the way to the top of the UN, embroiling then Sec. Kofi Annan’s son in controversies about corruption. The investigation of Oil for Food was consistently obstructed by the UN.
The underlying principle of climate change policy is to realign the world’s wealth in order to reduce carbon emissions globally. However, developed countries like the U.S. will be hardest hit, with robust economies like that of China labeled “emerging.”
Alarms about climate change were first raised in the 1970s, but different terminology was used. NASA, President Barack Obama’s current science czar and even the CIA believed the world would cool.
Policy wonks predicted a Little Ice Age. Some media now claim this was not widespread, but the opposite is true. Anyone who watched news on TV or read newspapers in the 1970s will remember this. As a matter of fact, on the first Earth Day celebration held in 1970, some organizers claimed global cooling would be a “likely source of wholesale death and misery for mankind…”
Marc Morano details the development of these theories at the site Climate Depot. Conservatives view Morano as a climate realist; global warmists view Morano as a thorn in their sides.
By the 1990s, theories tilted towards global warming, with then Vice President Al Gore leading efforts to reduce carbon emissions. The theory was hard to sell to the public, however, so federal agencies like the Environmental Protection Agency opted to educate people about climate change. That concept is actually a more logical approach to dealing with environmental issues.
However, by focusing on emissions rather than physical attributes like habitat, watersheds and landscapes, it is likely the UN's efforts will do nothing for the environment.
For instance, in areas of the world where herding animals is a staple in the economy, overgrazing occurs. In Somalia, trees are routinely clear-cut for the black market in charcoal, a crisis covered by National Geographic in 2009. Cocaine production is devastating the environment, so much so that the government of Colombia shared figures with media in 2008:
“The Colombian government says four sq. meters (4.8 sq. yards) of rain forest have to be cleared to produce a gram of cocaine—and 2.2 million hectares (5.44 million acres) of Colombian tropical forest have been cut down to grow coca in the last twenty years.”
How do you curtail practices in other countries where cultures have been doing things in a particular way, sometimes for centuries?
For the UN, the answer lies in paying countries not to do things in a manner that harms the environment. Realists believe the answer lies in educating cultures about their own possible demise if changes aren't made.
The solution, for the UN, appears to be the Green Climate Fund. A report created by the transitional committee asked for “juridical personality and legal capacity,” a move that certainly raises red flags in light of the afore-mentioned Oil for Food debacle. Such latitude for a global body presents a troubling conflict with U.S. sovereignty.
Some of the numerous directives listed by the UN committee include “reducing farm-to-table transport distances, reduced use of chemical fertilisers and pesticides and promotion of organic agriculture, intensifying transformational landscape interventions including through climate smart agriculture [and]reducing food waste at final sale and consumer levels.”
Plans also include “full cost pricing” to offset the cost of food from seed to delivery, and one factor in the price hikes will be the cost of carbon emissions.
The UN, led by Sec. Ban Ki-moon, anticipates in excess of “$2.1 trillion a year in wealth transfers from rich countries to poorer ones…”
After COP16 in Cancún, videos were leaked showing media and global warming advocates partying and celebrating covered by tax dollars with no expense spared. Representatives from Bolivia delivered scathing criticism of U.S. consumers. What few media reported regarding Bolivia is the country’s rate of cocaine production. That country ranked 3rd in the world for production, with output estimated at 120 metric tons of potential pure cocaine in 2007.
COP16 attendees also called for global rationing of food and other resources.
Countries like China would not be impacted by carbon limits on the level the U.S. would experience. Climate emissions are gauged on a per capita basis and China’s population, like that of India, will provide a cushion.