According to current documents the Copenhagen Treaty, if signed by President Obama in December, will ultimately make the U.S., along with other "developed nations", financially responsible for the CO2 emissions of "developing nations". Read the document here.
"Recognizing that current and potential climate change impacts require a shift in the global investment patterns and that criteria for financing allocation shall clearly respond to the priorities identified by the international community, with climate change stabilization being one of these priorities."
What does this mean? Essentially, the treaty would mandate that the U.S. and other developed nations share there wealth with developing nations to make an equal distribution of wealth. In other words, we the people of the United States would be required to give our hard earned money to countries like Zimbabwe through a forced global tax above and beyond all the taxes we already pay. This would increase the wealth of the developing countries while decreasing the wealth of developed countries, making the United States dependant on the global government for everything we would need to sustain our very lives.
"Any lack of full scientific certainty should not be used as a reason to postpone or scale down action on adaptation."
This means that despite the fact that over 30,000 scientists debate that CO2 emissions are the cause of global warming, or that global warming is even a threat to the environment, the world governing body will still move forward with their objective.
"In order to fulfill this shared vision, Parties have agreed to establish a coherent, cohesive and integrated system of financial and technology transfer mechanisms under the Convention and a follow up/compliance mechanism. These institutions are robust and effective."
These appears to mean that there will be a single, global monetary unit. No dollars, no Euros, no Pesos. Just some other kind of unit of money. With the dollar in a steep decline over the last 2 years, this would seem probable and called on as a way to save the U.S. economy.
But will it be worth saving? The entire plan of global wealth sharing is socialistic in nature. Socialism is simply the idea of everyone puts everything they have into one big pot, and the wealth is distributed equally among the people, or in this case, the governments.
Cap and Trade is a highly endorsed tax which President Obama calls his own. The Copenhagen Treaty, which will likely be signed by President Obama will be another tax. What is this tax taxing? Literally, the air that we breath.
As of right now, we have just 40 days before this assembly begins. (the link has a clock which shows exactly how much time there is before the assembly, also there is a YouTube video of Democrat Congressmen saying no to Cap and Trade)
Comments
What will the funds go into for these developing countries? I would hope it would be developing these countries to be much more energy efficient than the western world.
What will the funds go into for these developing countries? I would hope it would be developing these countries to be much more energy efficient than the western world.
Ben, I believe that is the point of the money. But is it really right to take money from one person to give it to another? If you made $100,000 a year, and someone came and said "I'm taking $45,000 right now to give to this other guy, that way you don't have more money them him. He didn't do anything to deserve this, but I think he should have it, so I'm taking it from you."
That is what is happening on a gobal scale with this treaty.
I think something must be done to slow down carbon emissions and the development of 3rd world countries is the biggest threat toward the warming of the planet...Also, apart from the worldwide disappearance of fresh water, the western world has had direct effects on people in 3rd world countries...E-waste villages of China and SA come to my mind right away...So we can either give them economic incentive to develop green or we can mandate it by force, which not including loss of life, would probably cost the western world more...Of course, if you are part of the 41% of people who believe that global warming is being exaggerated, then what I just wrote wont hold water with you :-)
(the 41% is from a recent gallop poll...I believe that 41% is the highest that number has been in a decade www.businessinsider.com/majority-of-people-dont-consider-global-warming-a-serious-threat-2009-3)
I don't believe that global warming is as big a threat to the world. So yeah, I guess I would be one of those 41%. But then, I've always had that stand. I've always thought it was a joke. I do believe that we can be "greener", and the free market is doing just that. People want green stuff. Because people want it, the market has no choice but to create it. I do have one question though, where did you get the info about the loss of fresh water?
One of the biggest problems I have with all of this is the word could. Everyone keeps saying "this could happen", but there is no real proof. Its all hypothesis. And sure, they might have computer models, but what is a computer anyway, but a tool that only does what the operator tells it to do. I just don't trust computer models as proof of anything.
With all due respect to Mr. Wagner, constitutionally ignorant US citizens deserve to shake in their boots at the thought of being forced to comply with foreign laws where things like the Copenhagen Treaty are concerned.
The truth of the matter is, that given that the federal Constitution says nothing about climate issues, the 10th Amendment automatically reserves government power to regulate such issues to the states, not the Oval Office and the Senate. So regardless of Obama's power to negotiate treaties, he cannot use that power as a back door to exercise constitutionally nonexistent federal government powers, forcing US citizens to comply with foreign laws dealing with climate issues in this case.
But if you don't believe me then perhaps you'll believe a constitutional expert.
"Surely the President and Senate cannot do by treaty what the whole government is interdicted from doing in any way." --Thomas Jefferson: Parliamentary Manual, 1800.
www.marketskeptics.com/2009/02/2009-global-food-catastrophe.html
Mr. Johnson. I am fully aware of the 10th ammendment, and states rights, and all of that. I fully believe in and support the Constitution with my entire being. That's why every time the government violates the Constitution, it makes me madder than hell.
To Ben, While I haven't looked at your link yet, I can tell you this. This article is more about the legality of what the President will likely be doing in December, not the argument of whether global warming is an actual threat. A treaty can easily be made that does not grant enforceable authority of the US to another governing body. The US pumps out more money we don't have to help more people in more countries under the guise of humanitarianism then any other. But that money does no good. Further more, we may be a developed nation, but with a deficit well into the trillions of dollars, we are far from rich. We are broke. And the only way to not be broke anymore, is to stop spending money, pay off our debts, and then let the people donate money to these other nations as they will.
Got something to say?
Examiner.com is looking for writers, photographers, and videographers to join the fastest growing group of local insiders. If you are interested in growing your online rep apply to be an Examiner today!