Beware the UN’s Copenhagen plot
z1
http://blogs.theaustralian.news.com.au/janetalbrechtsen/index.php/
theaustralian/comments/beware_the_uns_copenhagen_plot/
Beware the UN�s Copenhagen plot
Janet Albrechtsen Blog | October 28, 2009 | 35 Comments
SHAME on us all: on us in the media and on our politicians. Despite
thousands of news reports, interviews, analyses, critiques and
commentaries from journalists, what has the inquiring, intellectually
sceptical media told us about the potential details of a Copenhagen
treaty? And despite countless speeches, addresses, interviews,
doorstops, moralising sermons from government ministers, pleas from
Canberra for an outcome at Copenhagen, opposition criticism of
government policy, what have our elected representatives told us about
the potential details of a Copenhagen treaty?
With just over 40 days until more than 15,000 officials, advisers,
diplomats, activists and journalists from more than 190 countries attend
the UN climate change conference in Copenhagen, we know nothing. Nothing
about a climate change treaty that the Rudd government is keen to sign
and one that will bind this country for years to come.
Of course, there is no final treaty as yet. That is what they are hoping
to finalise in Copenhagen. But there are 181 pages that make up the UN
Framework Convention on Climate Change dated September 15, 2009: a rough
draft of what could be signed in Copenhagen. And yet, not one member of
the media or political class has bothered to inform us about its
contents as an important clue to what may happen in Copenhagen. The
shame of that state of affairs started to trickle in last week.
Emails started arriving telling me about a speech given by Christopher
Monckton, a former adviser to Margaret Thatcher, at Bethel University in
St Paul, Minnesota, on October 14. Monckton talked about something that
no one has talked about in the lead-up to Copenhagen: the text of the
draft Copenhagen treaty.
Even after Monckton�s speech, most of the media has duly ignored the
substance of what he said. You don�t need me to find his St Paul address
on YouTube. Interviewed on Monday morning by Alan Jones on Sydney radio
station 2GB, Monckton warned that the aim of the Copenhagen draft treaty
was to set up a transnational government on a scale the world has never
before seen. Listening to the interview, my teenage daughters asked me
whether this was true.
So I read the draft treaty. The word government appears on page 18.
Monckton says: �This is the first time I�ve ever seen any transnational
treaty referring to a new body to be set up under that treaty as a
government. But it�s the powers that are going to be given to this
entirely unelected government that are so frightening.�
Monckton became aware of the extraordinary powers to be vested in this
new world government only when a friend of his found an obscure UN
website and hacked his way through several layers of complications
before coming across a document that isn�t even called the draft treaty.
It�s called a �note by the secretariat�. The moment he saw it, he went
public and said: �Look, this is an outrage ... they have kept the sheer
scope of this treaty quiet.�
Monckton says the aim of this new government is to have power to
directly intervene in the financial, economic, tax and environmental
affairs of all the nations that sign the Copenhagen treaty.
In a sense, countries that sign international treaties always cede
powers to a UN body responsible for implementing the treaty obligations.
But the difference is that we usually understand the details of the
obligations and the power ceded.
Now read the 181-page draft treaty. It is impossible to fully understand
the convoluted UN verbiage. Yet even those incomprehensible clauses
point to some nasty surprises that no politician has told us about. For
example, Monckton says the drafters want this new world government to
have control over once free markets: the financial and trading markets
of nation-states. �The sheer ambition of this new world government is
enormous right from the start; that�s even before it starts accreting
powers to itself in the way that these entities inevitably always do,�
he says.
The reason for that power grab is clear enough from the draft treaty.
Clause after complicated clause sets out the requirement that developed
countries such as Australia pay their �adaptation debt� to developing
countries. Clause 33 on page 39 says that by 2020 the scale of financial
flows to support adaptation in developing countries must be at least
$US67 billion ($73bn), or in the range of $US70bn to $US140bn a year.
How developed countries will pay is far from clear. The draft text sets
out various alternatives, including Option 7 on page 135, which provides
for �a (global) levy of 2 per cent on international financial market
(monetary) transactions to Annex I Parties�. This means industrialised
countries such as Australia, if we sign.
Monckton�s warning to Americans that �in the next few weeks, unless you
stop it, your President will sign your freedom, your democracy and your
prosperity away forever� is colourful. But no more colourful than the
language used by those who preach about the perils of climate change and
the virtues of a hard-hitting Copenhagen treaty.
Put aside Monckton�s comments. Ask yourself this: why has our government
failed to explain the possible text of a treaty it wants Australia to
sign? There has been no address from any Rudd minister to explain the
draft treaty. No 3000-word essay from the thoughtful PM. No speech in
parliament. No interview. No press release. Nothing.
Presumably the hard-working Climate Change Minister Penny Wong has read
the 181-page draft text. Presumably our central control and command PM
has been briefed about the draft text. In Germany a few months ago,
Kevin Rudd complained about the lack of �detailed programmatic
specificity� going into the Copenhagen talks. Yet the draft text
provides much detailed specificity about obligations on developed
nations to transfer millions of dollars to developing countries under
formulas to be set down by an unelected body. So why the silence? Are
they hiding the details of this deal from us because most of the polls
now suggest that action on climate change is becoming politically
unpalatable?
And what explains the media�s failure to report and analyse the only
source document that offers any idea of what may happen in Copenhagen?
Ignorance? Laziness? Stubborn adherence to the orthodox government line
that a deal in Copenhagen is critical? An obsession with the politics of
climate change rather than policy?
At least we have heard from Monckton. He told Jones there had already
been a million hits on the link to his St Paul address. �So the message
in America is now out ... Now you know about it and you need to spread
the word.�
Perhaps now our PM and our Climate Change Minister can spare a few
moments to tell us about the details they know about but have so far
chosen not to tell us about.
kangarooistan
> http://blogs.theaustralian.news.com.au/janetalbrechtsen/index.php/
> theaustralian/comments/beware_the_uns_copenhagen_plot/
>
>
> Janet Albrechtsen Blog | October 28, 2009 | 35 Comments
>
> SHAME on us all: on us in the media and on our politicians. Despite
> thousands of news reports, interviews, analyses, critiques and
> commentaries from journalists, what has the inquiring, intellectually
> sceptical media told us about the potential details of aCopenhagen
> treaty? And despite countless speeches, addresses, interviews,
> doorstops, moralising sermons from government ministers, pleas from
> government policy, what have our elected representatives told us about
> the potential details of aCopenhagentreaty?
>
> With just over 40 days until more than 15,000 officials, advisers,
> diplomats, activists and journalists from more than 190 countries attend
> about a climate change treaty that the Rudd government is keen to sign
> and one that will bind this country for years to come.
>
> Of course, there is no final treaty as yet. That is what they are hoping
> Framework Convention on Climate Change dated September 15, 2009: a rough
> the media or political class has bothered to inform us about its
> shame of that state of affairs started to trickle in last week.
>
> Emails started arriving telling me about a speech given by Christopher
> Monckton, a former adviser to Margaret Thatcher, at Bethel University in
> St Paul, Minnesota, on October 14. Monckton talked about something that
> no one has talked about in the lead-up toCopenhagen: the text of the
> draftCopenhagentreaty.
>
> substance of what he said. You don’t need me to find his St Paul address
> on YouTube. Interviewed on Monday morning by Alan Jones on Sydney radio
> station 2GB,
Monckton warned that the aim of theCopenhagendraft treaty
was to set up a transnational government on a scale the world has
never
before seen. Listening to the interview, my teenage daughters asked
me
> whether this was true.
>
So I read the draft treaty. The word government appears on page 18.
Monckton says: “This is the first time I’ve ever seen any
transnational
treaty referring to a new body to be set up under that treaty as a
government. But it’s the powers that are going to be given to this
entirely unelected government that are so frightening.”
>
> Monckton became aware of the extraordinary powers to be vested in this
> new world government only when a friend of his found an obscure UN
> website and hacked his way through several layers of complications
> before coming across a document that isn’t even called the draft treaty.
> It’s called a “note by the secretariat”. The moment he saw it, he went
> public and said: “Look, this is an outrage ... they have kept the sheer
> scope of this treaty quiet.”
>
Monckton says the aim of this new government is to have power to
directly intervene in the financial, economic, tax and environmental
affairs of all the nations that sign theCopenhagentreaty.
>
> In a sense, countries that sign international treaties always cede
> powers to a UN body responsible for implementing the treaty obligations.
> But the difference is that we usually understand the details of the
> obligations and the power ceded.
>
> Now read the 181-page draft treaty. It is impossible to fully understand
> the convoluted UN verbiage. Yet even those incomprehensible clauses
> point to some nasty surprises that no politician has told us about. For
> example, Monckton says the drafters want this new world government to
> have control over once free markets: the financial and trading markets
> of nation-states. “The sheer ambition of this new world government is
> enormous right from the start; that’s even before it starts accreting
> powers to itself in the way that these entities inevitably always do,”
> he says.
>
> The reason for that power grab is clear enough from the draft treaty.
> Clause after complicated clause sets out the requirement that developed
> countries such as Australia pay their “adaptation debt” to developing
> countries. Clause 33 on page 39 says that by 2020 the scale of financial
> flows to support adaptation in developing countries must be at least
> $US67 billion ($73bn), or in the range of $US70bn to $US140bn a year.
>
> How developed countries will pay is far from clear. The draft text sets
> out various alternatives, including Option 7 on page 135, which provides
> for “a (global) levy of 2 per cent on international financial market
> (monetary) transactions to Annex I Parties”. This means industrialised
> countries such as Australia, if we sign.
>
> Monckton’s warning to Americans that “in the next few weeks, unless you
> stop it, your President will sign your freedom, your democracy and your
> prosperity away forever” is colourful. But no more colourful than the
> language used by those who preach about the perils of climate change and
> the virtues of a hard-hittingCopenhagentreaty.
>
> Put aside Monckton’s comments. Ask yourself this: why has our government
> failed to explain the possible text of a treaty it wants Australia to
> sign? There has been no address from any Rudd minister to explain the
> draft treaty. No 3000-word essay from the thoughtful PM. No speech in
> parliament. No interview. No press release. Nothing.
>
> Presumably the hard-working Climate Change Minister Penny Wong has read
> the 181-page draft text. Presumably our central control and command PM
> has been briefed about the draft text. In Germany a few months ago,
> Kevin Rudd complained about the lack of “detailed programmatic
> specificity” going into theCopenhagentalks. Yet the draft text
> provides much detailed specificity about obligations on developed
> nations to transfer millions of dollars to developing countries under
> formulas to be set down by an unelected body. So why the silence? Are
> they hiding the details of this deal from us because most of the polls
> now suggest that action on climate change is becoming politically
> unpalatable?
>
> And what explains the media’s failure to report and analyse the only
> source document that offers any idea of what may happen inCopenhagen?
> Ignorance? Laziness? Stubborn adherence to the orthodox government line
> that a deal inCopenhagenis critical? An obsession with the politics of
> climate change rather than policy?
>
> At least we have heard from Monckton. He told Jones there had already
> been a million hits on the link to his St Paul address. “So the message
> in America is now out ... Now you know about it and you need to spread
> the word.”
>
> Perhaps now our PM and our Climate Change Minister can spare a few
> moments to tell us about the details they know about but have so far
> chosen not to tell us about.
Thanks for TRYING to inform the sheeple mate
We all KNOW climate change / global warming must be addressed
BUT giving away total control of every country to a UN body like
theIMF is suicidal
WHY our governments want us to ALL be enslaved for life to obey
orders from a UN body can only be labeled as TREASON
we must at least TRY and warn the sheeple so OUR KIDS can see we at
least TRIED to save them from enslavement
We ALL KNOW who controls the IMF and World bank and who WILL control
the new carbon Trading monopoly
kangarooistan
> theaustralian/comments/beware_the_uns_copenhagen_plot/
>
Beware the USA Copenhagen plot
>
> Perhaps now our PM and our Climate Change Minister can spare a few
> moments to tell us about the details they know about but have so far
> chosen not to tell us about.
One of the strongest criticisms of the World Bank has been the way in
which it is governed. While the World Bank represents 184 countries,
it is run by a small number of economically powerful countries. These
countries choose the leadership and senior management of the World
Bank and as such, their interests are dominant within the bank.[23]
It has also been suggested that the World Bank is an instrument for
the promotion of US or Western interests in certain regions of the
world. .[29]
Criticisms of the structure of the World Bank refer to the fact that
the President of the Bank is always a citizen of the United States,
nominated by the President of the United States (though subject to the
approval of the other member countries).
There have been accusations that the decision-making structure is
undemocratic, as the US effectively has a veto on some constitutional
decisions with just over 16% of the shares in the bank;[30] moreover,
decisions can only be passed with votes from countries whose shares
total more than 85% of the bank's shares.[31]
as the USA owns 16% of the shares in the world Bank and it needs over
85% to over turn a decision , AND the USA has the right to choose its
leader
CLEARLY the World Bank is completely under FULL control of the USA
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_Bank
Clean Technology Fund management
The World Bank has been assigned temporary management responsibility
of the Clean Technology Fund (CTF), focused on making renewable energy
cost-competitive with coal-fired power as quickly as possible, but
this may not continue after UN's Copenhagen climate change conference
in December, 2009, because of the Bank's continued investment in coal-
fired power plants.[18]
In the 1990s the World Bank and the IMF forged the Washington
Consensus, a set of policies which included deregulation and
liberalization of markets, privatization and the downscaling of
government.
viewable at: http://docs.google.com/View?id=dcgk9t7p_190cd2vfsdg
======================================================
About the World Bank Carbon Finance Unit
http://web.worldbank.org/WBSITE/EXTERNAL/TOPICS/ENVIRONMENT/EXTCARBONFINANCE/0,,contentMDK:21841841~menuPK:4125909~pagePK:64168445~piPK:64168309~theSitePK:4125853,00.html