Lord Christopher Monckton has been making the rounds, warning against the December Copenhagen climate change conference and their proposed legislation to succeed the 1997 Kyoto Treaty. Monckton – not only known as Margaret Thatcher’s advisor, but as a clarion skeptic on the global warming propaganda machine – appeared on Fox News Happy Hour a couple of days ago. It ended with co-host, Rebecca Diamond, subtly expressing her disbelief at the end of the interview that Obama and the world leaders could possibly be involved in such nefarious doin’s.
On the same tangent today is Jeffrey T. Kuhner of the Washington Times, with his column today, Obama’s New World Order: Redistributionist revolution vs. sovereignty.
President Obama is on a path toward establishing a one-world government. This is the warning of Christopher Monckton, a former major policy adviser to British Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher.
In December, world leaders will descend upon Copenhagen to sign a United Nations climate change treaty that will succeed the 1997 Kyoto Protocol, which is aimed at reducing greenhouse gases and set to expire in 2012. An agreement has been drafted.
The goal of the Copenhagen treaty is to erect an international cap-and-trade regime to curb carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions, said to be responsible for man-made global warming. Recently, British Prime Minister Gordon Brown warned of a “climate catastrophe” – a rising wave of floods, droughts and shrinking food crops – unless the treaty is signed. Mr. Brown even said global warming would inflict more damage than both world wars and the Great Depression combined; the world has only several weeks to save itself from impending doom.~~~
The Copenhagen treaty must still be negotiated. Final agreement is far from certain, especially from emerging industrial powers like China, India and Brazil. Yet the draft version is clear about the treaty’s essential elements.
It calls for a massive transfer of wealth from the developed world to the developing world. The United States would be forced to spend billions of dollars a year in foreign aid to pay for a so-called “climate debt” – a provision to punish wealthy countries for having historically emitted large amounts of CO2, while compensating poor ones for not contributing to greenhouse gases.
Lord Monckton, who has read the treaty preliminary draft language, states emphatically that a “world government”, with power to enforce and control the global economy via emissions, would be created.
After the March 2009 summit meeting, six key objectives as “the message” were defined.
Key Message 1: Climatic Trends
Recent observations confirm that, given high rates of observed emissions, the worst-case IPCC scenario trajectories (or even worse) are being realised. For many key parameters, the climate system is already moving beyond the patterns of natural variability within which our society and economy have developed and thrived. These parameters include global mean surface temperature, sea-level rise, ocean and ice sheet dynamics, ocean acidification, and extreme climatic events. There is a significant risk that many of the trends will accelerate, leading to an increasing risk of abrupt or irreversible climatic shifts.
Key Message 2: Social disruption
The research community is providing much more information to support discussions on “dangerous climate change”. Recent observations show that societies are highly vulnerable to even modest levels of climate change, with poor nations and communities particularly at risk. Temperature rises above 2 degrees C (*) will be very difficult for contemporary societies to cope with, and will increase the level of climate disruption through the rest of the century. [*This is 2 degrees Celsius, or 3.6 degrees Fahrenheit, above the globe’s average temperature around 1850, the organizers say. Translated, that would be about 61.6 degrees Fahrenheit. Today’s global average temperature is estimated at around 59 degrees. (This was updated after a couple of comment posters noted my funky conversion effort. Europe set its 2-degree limit from pre-industrial temperatures, making this a complicated calculation, and a source of much ongoing confusion.]
Key Message 3: Long-Term Strategy
Rapid, sustained, and effective mitigation based on coordinated global and regional action is required to avoid “dangerous climate change” regardless of how it is defined. Weaker targets for 2020 increase the risk of crossing tipping points and make the task of meeting 2050 targets more difficult. Delay in initiating effective mitigation actions increases significantly the long-term social and economic costs of both adaptation and mitigation.
Key Message 4: Equity Dimensions
Climate change is having, and will have, strongly differential effects on people within and between countries and regions, on this generation and future generations, and on human societies and the natural world. An effective, well-funded adaptation safety net is required for those people least capable of coping with climate change impacts, and a common but differentiated mitigation strategy is needed to protect the poor and most vulnerable.
Key Message 5: Inaction is Inexcusable
There is no excuse for inaction. We already have many tools and approaches – economic, technological, behavioural, management – to deal effectively with the climate change challenge. But they must be vigorously and widely implemented to achieve the societal transformation required to decarbonise economies. A wide range of benefits will flow from a concerted effort to alter our energy economy now, including sustainable energy job growth, reductions in the health and economic costs of climate change, and the restoration of ecosystems and revitalisation of ecosystem services.
Key Message 6: Meeting the Challenge
To achieve the societal transformation required to meet the climate change challenge, we must overcome a number of significant constraints and seize critical opportunities. These include reducing inertia in social and economic systems; building on a growing public desire for governments to act on climate change; removing implicit and explicit subsidies; reducing the influence of vested interests that increase emissions and reduce resilience; enabling the shifts from ineffective governance and weak institutions to innovative leadership in government, the private sector and civil society; and engaging society in the transition to norms and practices that foster sustainability.
So where does Obama fit in, you may ask? Expectations… Expectations from the Copenhagen Climate Council that started within hours (Nov 5th, 2008) after the election of “the won”.
The election of Senator Barack Obama as president of the United States on November 4 will change the strategic situation for the international climate negotiations leading up to COP15. It will also give the U.S. a leading international role in the negotiations, and it can change the way it historically has addressed – or so far largely not addressed – the climate crisis.~~~
Kammen’s optimism is founded in the energy plan put forward during the election campaign by then-Senator Obama. Under the plan, Obama aims to create a clean energy sector which will create 5 million new “cleantech” jobs, 1 million hybrid cars, and an economy-wide cap-and-trade program to reduce greenhouse gas emissions 80% by 2050.
Implementation of the Obama’s plan should help the U.S. play a more central role in the international climate negotiations, argues Kammen. “A new president has to push for the U.S. entering in a new and more leading international role when it comes to the climate negotiations.”
Domestic policy will lead the way
A change in the U.S. administration should pave the way for a sharp change in its domestic climate policies. Interest in climate change issues has clearly evolved and deepened over the last couple of years. Members of the U. S. House of Representatives and Senate, for instance, are now much more engaged with issues of energy security and climate than just a few years before.
Indeed, while the nation is focusing on family battles over health care, the media and nation seem to have little time to devote to cap and trade that has already passed the House in June to cut U.S. carbon emissions from utilities, manufacturers and others 17 percent below 2005 levels by 2020.
Reporter Kuhner says the US Senate stands as the barrier to this world government creation. Geeez… feel better already. (sarcasm button off…) So the burning question becomes… will they?
The little noticed article excerpted above cited two top Obama officials, emphasizing the need that the US needed some climate legislation to become law *prior* to December and the Copenhagen conference. Conveniently, and quietly, John Kerry’s sister bill S1733 to Henry Waxman’s to HR 2454 is scheduled for hearings Tuesday, Oct 27th, in front the Senate Environment and Public Works committee. This coming down while the nation battles over the WH and Fox, frets about Afghanistan, and is distracted by a multitude of media and WH generated beefs.
A quiet, unheralded passage of Kerry’s bill thru the Senate, the needed reconciliation, and that “US climate law” is in place… just in time for Copenhagen.
What has been eagerly anticipated out of the December conference was a legally enforceable, concrete treaty. But there is a light ray of hope on the horizon as Danish PM, Lars Løkke Rasmussen, hints at the prospect that he’ll even be happy with a “political declaration” out of the conference.
Downgrading from a treaty to a political declaration would be a bitterly disappointing result for those pinning their hopes on Copenhagen, despite all the warning signs that a meaningful deal looks perilously close to impossible.
Yet, a political declaration may still be worth having, if the detail is right.
If it includes a line committing countries to agreeing emissions cuts say by the middle of next year, then it may still be effective.
If not, then the politicians risk going home thinking they have achieved a deal, but one that proves empty and undermines the carbon price.~~~
President Barack Obama is struggling with his climate bill at home. This is in second place to getting healthcare reforms passed. And even if health goes well, and earns Obama political capital from unexpected success, hopes of formulating a meaningful US offer in time for Copenhagen – with real figures on emissions cuts – will remain on a knife-edge.
The problem is that all this “high-level” political activity has a downside as well as an upside.
If prime ministers and presidents get involved, then they can at least negotiate with real authority – without having to constantly “phone home”. But they also bring their own staff, with the risk that they edge to one side the climate negotiators with knowledge of the detail that is needed for a deal to have an impact in the real world.
No need to “phone home”? That’s smacks of that of which Lord Monckton speaks.
All the above may shed a bit more light on Obama’s remarks prior to meeting with the Danish PM Oct 2nd during his round robin Euro visit (yes, the same where he devoted about 25 minutes to McChrystal aboard AF One after public criticism of his single meeting since appointing him as the US-NATO commander). Needless to say, what can we draw from the fact that Obama spends more time chatting up climate change with the Danish PM… willing to potentially accept a lesser mandate from the COP15 in December… than his NATO top commander in the battlefield?
All that said, let’s go back to Lord Monckton… perhaps one of the lone voices crying in the dark, sounding the alarm.
The Copenhagen treaty seeks to implement a bureaucratic redistributionist agenda; it is a way for Third World kleptocracies to extort enormous sums of money from America and other rich nations.
Moreover, Mr. Monckton points out that, in paragraph 38, Annex 1, the Copenhagen draft calls for a U.N.-created “government” responsible for taxation, enforcement and redistribution. In other words, the draft treaty explicitly demands that the world body erect an international mechanism with the power to impose emission-reduction targets for each country, determine acceptable levels of CO2 and levy global taxes.
The United States would lose control over its environmental policy. Also, it would sign its death warrant as a functioning democracy, enabling the United Nations to administer a fledgling world government possessing the authority to regulate and tax the American economy. The treaty is a sword aimed at the heart of our national sovereignty.
If Mr. Obama signs the Copenhagen treaty, he “will sign your freedom, your democracy, and your prosperity away forever,” Mr. Monckton recently told an audience in Minnesota. “I read that treaty and what it says is this: that a world government is going to be created.”
If it does create a government that wields the power to control the world’s economy, it will again be done without full transparency of the US citizens, and in the dark of night. While we tilt at windmills over health care and other sundry issues, the Senate will pass the climate change legislation, and lay the groundword for the US “leading” the way to int’l government… just as Lord Monckton states.
Vietnam era Navy wife, indy/conservative, and an official California escapee now residing as a red speck in the sea of Oregon blue.
I read most of what he had to say on the Watts Up blog. One commenter there (I believe) suggested that he might be our side’s algore. Now I believe there is a Lot of bad stuff coming our way, but I do have to wonder if we shouldn’t take Lord Moncton with just the teeensiest grain of salt.
And if what he says proves out… I can only Hope that India and China blow the whole thing out of the water.
“None Dare Call it Treason” — how lond ago was that warning issued?
lond = long — duh
I’ve collected many of Lord Monckton’s written works and presentations.
Please feel free to use these resources:
It’s fortunate that the Constitution has no provision for the government to cede US sovereignty so any such act would be illegal.
Rebecca Diamond is a nitwit.
Well, he will deliver, because that’s his promise of getting the Nobel prize. That’s why he was elected.
Is there someone in DC with courage ti nip this thing in the butt, before it is too late??
It’s absolutely disgusting that Obama spends more time with the Danish PM discussing climate change than with McChrystal discussing Afghanistan. No wonder it’s been almost 2 months that he’s been sitting on a troop decision. We have to raise our voices and ensure the Senate does not pass cap and trade legislation, while we are being inundated with threats from all sides. Visit http://tiny.cc/pxIgi to let your Senators know that you do not support cap and trade legislation that will increase the price we pay on everything from energy to food and costs millions of jobs.
GuyFox – there are many things that the Congress does that are not Constitutional and therefore illegal – it has not stopped them before. I would urge you and others who also think that the Constitution is going to protect us to not be complacent on anything this administration (or any administration) does.
Also – the comments made by the newspeople make me wonder if they prepared for the interview by actually reading the document. If they did, perhaps their skepticism would be less and their concern would be greater.
We need some of the Generals to tap Obama on the shoulder and remind him that this is exactly what the Oath to the defend the Constitution was for and if he tries to cede our sovereignty, they will take action to defend the USA. On second thought, maybe they don’t need to warn him first.
I find the “Seven Days in May” scenario a bit spooky. But, if this poser in the White House is going to sell the entire country down the drain I pray to God someone in the Congress is going to blow the whistle and stop this turkey in his tracks.
me too as it sets a terrorable precident, but…this guy also scares the crap out of me. All the overt communists and anti-americans on his staff are not going to wait 3 years for the next guy to bail us out of this, they are going to poke it to us long before then if nothing slows him down.
I get a bad feeling we’re going to be cleaning up this guys horse manure long after I’m dead and gone.
Otter, thanks for the heads up to WattsUp, as they had a copy of the treaty that I was unable to find at publishing this post. I’ve added it to the post, but you all can read it here.
Also worthy of a read with some excerpts is the WattsUp post on the COP that Otter mentioned. You’ll notice that what they describe as individual States’ mandates on climate change is pretty much what Waxman/Kerry are up to in the US Congress. All of this points to the validity of the Copenhagen panel’s joy at the election of “the won”… elated that finally a POTUS will cede US authority to the int’l powers. But make no mind… he who controls the money, controls the realm. And climate change int’l law will regulate business and world economies to it’s very core. *Very* anti-American in it’s foundation.
BTW, Otter, I can’t agree that we take Monckton’s opinion with the teeniest grain of salt anymore than I can discount what Glenn Beck says much of the time. (And no, don’t think he’s 100% right, but he’s up there on much he’s reporting). Voices that point out the error of our ways, when it is contrary to the popular/media fed indoctrination, are always detested and demonized. And somehow I can’t imagine Margaret Thatcher picking a lunatic as an advisor.
It’s no secret that the UN is a body that seeks increased ruling powers… and not only in climate change. So much depends upon whether they make it a political mandate, or just another int’l resolution/suggestion. However on the latter, Obama and his Congressional progressive buddies are already bending over.
GuyFox is on the right track. But I’m going to be a little more blunt and specific about this situation.
Constitutionally ignorant US citizens deserve to shake in their boots at the thought of space-cadet Obama using the Copenhagen Treaty to prostitute US sovereignty to foreign powers. More specifically, citizens evidently don’t understand that since the federal Constitution is silent about climate issues, the 10th Amendment automatically reserves government power to deal with such issues to the states, not the Oval Office and Congress. So regardless that constitutionally clueless Obama has the power to negotiate treaties, he cannot use that power as a back door to exercise constitutionally nonexistent federal government powers.
But if you don’t believe me then perhaps you will 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. http://www.constitution.org/tj/tj-mpp.htm
Jefferson also volunteered a remedy for when misguided people like Obama exercise nonexistent powers.
“Where powers are assumed which have not been delegated, a nullification of the act is the rightful remedy.” –Thomas Jefferson: Draft Kentucky Resolutions, 1798. http://tinyurl.com/oozoo
Someone please post the exact location of the quote “world government” in the doument.
@ThomNJ: I agree with you that we can’t be complacent and that it’s because of complacency the federal government has assumed many powers it shouldn’t. I just was pointing out that the constitution does protect us in that if the government does something illegal, we have the right to remove said government. (i.e.: impeachment). Also the fact that it is so blatantly illegal may steer Obama away from it, or at least we could hope.
Mata, even if Obama signed something, would it not need to be ratified by Congress by a 2/3 vote? I hope? Similar to the Kyoto Treaty in 1997, when the Byrd-Hagel Resolution was passed by the Senate 95-0, which rejected the Kyoto Protocol before Clinton even submitted it for ratification (which he never did because he knew it wouldn’t be passed). The Senate members knew that China and India would not get on board with it, so it was a failed idea to begin with and so would result in serious economic harm to the U.S. I hope that this continues to be a strong consideration to Congress now as it was then.
I’m by far not an expert on this, so am open to correction! 🙂 This is something of concern to me, so want to get my facts straight!
Yes, SoCal Chris. It would, to my understanding. Any foreign treaty needs to be ratified by Congress.
I guess the burning question here would be, since so many so-called “conservative” Republicans support “climate change” legislation, why would you not think it would fly thru easily with the current Congressional make up of Liberal/progressives and RINOs? After all, they already passed the groundwork “climate change” legislation in the house, and the ready-and-waiting sister bill is in committee in the Senate? ( with eight Republican’s help in the House)
In other words…. how many “conservative” Republicans have you heard say they are against climate change regulations? If this bill passes in the Senate and is sent to the Oval Office desk, there is little for them to dissent against with the UN regulations. Remember, they don’t read anything, and it doesn’t take a lot of un’conservative GOP’ers to send it on it’s merry way.
You do, of course, have a point Mata, with regards to the lack of outward dissent amongst some so-called”Republicans” in Congress about the ‘climate change’ hokey pokey. I guess I’d have to bank on that they, as well as Democrats, would think twice if they know that votes in the future depend on their decisions now. And, that means that we need to contact our Senators and Congressmen and let them know how we feel. I’m sure they know this isn’t popular amongst most Americans, but it wouldn’t hurt to remind them, and in fact, we need to do just that. I want to start demanding they provide us with scientific evidence on their claims on climate change. I know it’s not about evidence to them, but some grander power grab, but there’s got to be some common sense left amongst our representatives, and I truly believe there is.
I’m removing all doubt now about my ignorance on this topic, but I don’t think anything has changed with regards to India and China, and I’d think that would still be a huge obstacle.
SC Chris, it’s always wise to let your representatives know where you stand… even when they ignore you. LOL But you have to remember most of the nation is very simplistic on their politics. If the “energy” bill gets passed, and no one is raising a stink about it now, what makes you think a Copenhagen treaty is going to cost them their re’election?
As I said in my headline…. it’s stealth political BS. No one connects the dots for Joe and Josephine Q. Public between this bill that snuck thru the House during the summer, and will now sneak thru the Senate while we’re battling over health care, Afghanistan and Fox news.
Also, if you read the treaty language, you’ll find they are creating an official advisory bond between “science” and “politics” by mandating any nation’s laws are based on “sound” science. This is a serious deviation from the very foundations of science itself, and I find it hard to believe that the industry has become so corrupt as to even consider this unholy alliance. Which, of course, brings up the second burning question… just who is it that determines just what science is “sound”? Ah, the dichotomy reigns supreme in this int’l doublespeak.
In your world, we’re hoping that China remains obstinate, and India refuses to allow the UN to quash their own rise to an economic superpower. That may be entirely possible. In which case, the treaty will become a “suggestion” (the accepted alternative by the Danish PM) instead of “international law” (which is the stated quest, along with all authority and power). If you read the treaty text, you’ll see a lot of “shall/should” choices in there. The obvious being one is another UN worthless resolution without teeth, and the other is one gifted with powers of enforcement and penalty.
I gotta tell you, Chris… I pine to live in your world INRE India and China. But the back room politics, side business deals and pressures often surmount the logical. It’s a risky bet, guy. We’re all just mushrooms, sitting in the dark under a pile of international manure with keyboards and mice in hand.
Obama wants to be king, not president. He can’t be king in a republic. We are not a democracy.
For example where I live: we (the citizens) voted down a ‘storm water’ tax. It didn’t pass. The city shortly thereafter, put it to an internal vote and decided we all needed it anyway, and made it law. So even though it didn’t go through (failed by a large margin) the politicians knew what was ‘right’ and passed it anyway. In short, they needed to expand their budget for the city, and this was one way to do so. When it got voted down, so did their funding for extravagant lunches.
Now they are coming out and saying that if we don’t vote for yet another tax increase, we loose our firemen, police officers, and the parks will start shutting down (a little exaggerated of course – but not far from the mark). They also said the same thing 2 years ago, and everything turned out great! They ended up having to budget. It actually made news. To me, I simply ask: if you can’t handle the budget that you have, what is going to happen with a bigger one? Seems all we do is fund endless waste. Once the money runs out, we apply a name to the waste (such as global warming) and then funnel in more funds to the crooks. Amazing how all the ‘enlightened’ liberals in our country are so eager to throw their money at these people. I guess when you’re spineless, your brains end up spending a lot of time on the floor in belly button lint and old macaroni and cheese.
” Amazing how all the ‘enlightened’ liberals in our country are so eager to throw their money at these people”
“Amazing how all the ‘enlightened’ liberals in our country are so eager to throw *our* money at these people”
Most of them will be exempt!
I just read the document and it is a nightmare. The world “Conference of the Parties (COP)” can legally take land, change zoning, charge penalties and override establed laws in any signing nation.
The EBT (Executive Body on Technology) will be the strong arm of the COP implementing what they’re told.
How these bodies are elected is so vague it’s frightening.
Developed nations foot the cost and pay penalties for years of being high emitters. Third World countries get the money for not polluting. The COP have vote to change any law in any country, pick on any industry if they can related it to global climate
This document is the end of democracy. Read the entire document before you support it. If Obama sign on, it’s becasue he’ll try to be the leader of the new world order!
I believe Obama wants to be KING, not president. If he helps the USA to fail and be taken over, he believes he will be crowned KING. You can’t be king in a republic. We are not a democracy. The propaganda news media calls it a democracy because they don’t want us to be reminded of the Republican party.
If the UN takes over the world this is a good thing, because than Christ will return really soon, look for George Bush and Prince Charles to take the lead.