Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss

Global Government

1 view
Skip to first unread message

2th

unread,
Oct 16, 2009, 2:31:23 AM10/16/09
to
According to an article I saw earlier today, a treaty is being put
forward at the UN Climate Change conference to be held in Copenhagen in
December 2009 that includes a "new institutional arrangement" which
appears to be in the form of an (unelected) global government, a global
enforcement agency, and a global financial managment institution.

The relevent sections from the treaty are included below:

38. The scheme for the new institutional arrangement under the
Convention will be based on three basic pillars: government;
facilitative mechanism; and financial mechanism, and the basic
organization of which will include the following:

(a) The government will be ruled by the COP with the support of a new
subsidiary body on adaptation, and of an Executive Board responsible for
the management of the new funds and the related facilitative processes
and bodies. The current Convention secretariat will operate as such, as
appropriate.

(b) The Convention�s financial mechanism will include a multilateral
climate change fund including five windows: (a) an Adaptation window,
(b) a Compensation window, to address loss and damage from climate
change impacts, including insurance, rehabilitation and compensatory
components, (c) a Technology window; (d) a Mitigation window; and (e) a
REDD window, to support a multi-phases process for positive forest
incentives relating to REDD actions.

(c) The Convention�s facilitative mechanism will include: (a) work
programmes for adaptation and mitigation; (b) a long-term REDD process;
(c) a short-term technology action plan; (d) an expert group on
adaptation established by the subsidiary body on adaptation, and expert
groups on mitigation, technologies and on monitoring, reporting and
verification; and (e) an international registry for the monitoring,
reporting and verification of compliance of emission reduction
commitments, and the transfer of technical and financial resources from
developed countries to developing countries. The secretariat will
provide technical and administrative support, including a new centre for
information exchange.

The full treaty can be found here:
http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2009/10/un-fccc-copenhagen-2009.pdf

I do not support the push for a single global entity to be in control of
all other entities, be it political, financial, enforcement, religious,
or legal.

-2th

Benway (original non-Zionist)

unread,
Oct 17, 2009, 7:47:20 AM10/17/09
to
*************************************

Everybody knows that there is no salvation in
becoming adapted to a world which is sick with
globalization.
By suggesting that migrants should have unimpeded
rights to arrive and settle in another country
(even against the wishes of its existing citizens)
they effectively end national sovereignty, and any
nation's power to protect its own environment.

***********************

Ördög Belphegor Mephisto Satan etc...

unread,
Mar 5, 2012, 4:11:04 AM3/5/12
to
2th <2...@inbox.com> posted the following:

> According to an article I saw earlier today, a treaty is being put
> forward at the UN Climate Change conference to be held in Copenhagen in
> December 2009 that includes a "new institutional arrangement" which
> appears to be in the form of an (unelected) global government, a global
> enforcement agency, and a global financial managment institution.
>
> The relevent sections from the treaty are included below:

/snip for brevity/

> The full treaty can be found here:
> http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2009/10/un-fccc-
copenhagen-2009.pdf
>
> I do not support the push for a single global entity to be in control of
> all other entities, be it political, financial, enforcement, religious,
> or legal.

I think it is not the entity that is important but the degree of control
it wields and even more importantly the checks and balances that keeps
such control entity honest to its purpose.
Believe me, multiple entities can be just as bad as one single unit but
in all likelihood they'll cost the community even more through the
inefficiencies inherent to all fragmented systems.

Specially environmental problems can add up to major global effects which
are best handled on a global scale by a unified entity. After all, if we
screw up this planet for good were else can humanity find sanctuary.

--
Ördög --- Always ready to help you build your personal Hell on Earth
0 new messages