On the back of COP15

The commonly unknowns of COP15

A little known and published aspect of the COP15 agreement is the talks of a new world government. run by a UN subsidiary.

If it sounds scary, it probably does so, because it is.

A new world government?

Page 18 in the [UN Framework for COP15 agreement]:

“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.”

As you can read in the subtexts of paragraph 38 and onwards, these proposals will effectively create a superstate run by a sub-organisation of UN, of which no individual country will be in control of, and they will have the rights to make up new international laws, add penalties for non-conformance, add new levies, as well as apply compensations from developed countries towards “victims” of the natural climate change.

It also includes “mitigation actions”, which in practice means among other things the proposed and currently researched methods for sequestration of atmospheric CO2 – or in SCI-FI terms – The UN is effectively drawing up plans to terraform the planet, and change the atmospheric composition, and place it underground in either liquid form or chemically bound.

Wait a minute – Do we actually know what effects this will have on our climate?

Is there ANY available science that shows what effects this will have?

Are the UN sub-committes about to play roulette with everyones lives?

We know by now that CO2 is NOT the enemy, but absolutely necessary for plant life, and if we start reducing the atmospheric contents of the CO2, we will effectively remove plant food, which in turn will reduce the amount of plant growth.
This is not limited to pot-plants or forrests, but food production.

As this world has ever increasing needs for food production by the day, does a reduction of one of the critical components for this make sense?
Of course not.

The planned active “mitigation” of the “CO2 problem” poses the risk of eventual mass starvation, and as a result of this, to war, if we are not able to cope with increasing demands for food.

An article in NY Times put the effects on plant life quite well, and shows that they way forward to combat the growing needs for food, is not to reduce the CO2, and that increased levels has a very beneficial effect on plant life.  The article is quite neutral in that it argues both con’s and pro’s, and allows you to make up your own mind.

UN’s draft, is potentially a very dangerous document, that places the future of the world in a few hands, that are not elected, and since there are little or no transparency, we will not know what the motives are for their future actions are, or what they will be.
It will be the same as handing over the control to a disclosed group acting as a world government, that can at will penalize anyone for anything, as this group will only be responsible to themselves.

This is a truly frightening concept.

How is this to be funded?

You can find these things in the [UN Framework for COP15 agreement].

One interesting note about the whole thing is that while there are “alternatives” or “options”, there are no “and’s” or “or’s” in the text, and this seems to allow for an arbitrary “pick and mix”.

Clause 33 on page 39 outlines the minimum cash flow from industrialized countries to underdeveloped countries;

“33. By 2020 the scale of financial flows to support adaptation in developing countries must be [at
least USD 67 billion] [in the range of USD 70–140 billion] per year. [Sources of new and additional
financial support for adaptation [must meet the full agreed incremental costs of adaptation and initially
be within a minimum range of USD 50–86 billion per annum and regularly updated in the light of new
emerging science, financial estimates and the degree of emission reductions achieved.] [will be needed to
scale-up adaptation activities at the country level in developing country Parties].]”

Add to this, suggestions of a global levy of 2% on fiunancial transactions on page 135 of the same;

“Option 7
A [global] levy of 2 per cent on international financial market [monetary] transactions to Annex I Parties.”

Annex 1 countries are industrialized countries, which include among others the U.S., Australia, Britain and Canada.

The last one, essentially means 2% of each signatory nations GDP.

Europe’s GDP is roughly $18,400,000 millions ($18.4 trillion), and the US GDP is $14,450,000 millions.

If we take 2% of those two alone, we get $658,000 million, or $658 bn.
Add in a few other nations or regions, and we will soon pass $1 trillion dollars.

If you add up Northern America, Europe, Oceania, and eastern Asia, you will end up with a figure that according to the 2004 figures amounts to appx $2 trillion, or the same as the entire current GDP of Africa.

The GDP is calculated as:

GDP = C + G + I + NX


C” is equal to all private consumption, or consumer spending, in a nation’s economy
G” is the sum of government spending
I” is the sum of all the country’s businesses spending on capital
NX” is the nation’s total net exports, calculated as total exports minus total imports. (NX = Exports – Imports)

Note that C and G is all based on the individuals (C’s) income and taxation of the same, so therefore, the source is essentially the same pot of money – C, as the money that G has available to spend, almost entirely comes directly out of C’s pocket. They can therefore largely be treated as if the same.
I is largely based on C’s and G’s consumption, and can therefore be said to be based on C, so therefore, a simple removal of 2% of the GDP, will result in removing assets directly from C.

C will have to fork out the difference on top of what he or she is already paying.

If GDP is going to be charged 2% of GDP, and C is the common carrier of the burden, we could theoretically say that:

C is being charged 2% on their individual part of the GDP, G is hit with 2% on their part, I is equally hit, and NX is hit in part locally, part elsewhere, and if we assume that the NX part is in half carried locally, and C is the common source of the economy, C will be hit with 2+2+2+1%, or 7% in directly increased costs.

As a side effect, I will have to counter these 2% by increasing their margin by at least the double to maintain status quo after costs and taxes, and the same goes for G, so the real term will more likely be 2+4+4+2, or a 12% bill that C will be hit with.

This, in turn, effectively means that C will have a wage reduction of 12%.
Not many people have room for this in their budget, and we will see a lot of people breaking under the pressure, especially low-income takers, and the costs to the states will increase, and in turn lead to increased amounts of social benefits for a large group of people, something that in turn, (sorry, long sentence) will have to be countered by G, so the final cost, will more likely have to be a general increase of closer to 15-18%, than the 12%.

This is why this “tiny” 2% levy on the GDP will have more far-reaching impact on the individual people than it seems capable of, where the people is the ones that has to pay for the IPCC’s alleged CO2 impact – an impact that has yet to be seen scientifically proven and shown in practical life, outside of  natural climate cycles.

Add to this the latest news that Africa now demands to get a 5% cut of what is essentially the rest of the worlds GDP.
2% of Europe’s, North America’s, Oceanias and eastern Asia’s GDP is the same thing as the African continents entire GDP.

Please see the previous article about this.

I doubt that the UN drafters really thought about this, and considered the real effects of their proposals, but then, that would not unbe a new phenomenon on the political sky, but on the other hand, if they did, and this is what they had in mind, then this amounts to nothing but modern economic slavery and  penalizisation of people in the developed and democratic countries for fairing better than their unlucky counterparts elsewhere.


Has Anyone Read the Copenhagen Agreement?
UN Framework for COP15 agreement
Carbon Dioxide Rise May Alter Plant Life, Researchers Say – Part 1
Carbon Dioxide Rise May Alter Plant Life, Researchers Say – Part 2
Carbon Dioxide Rise May Alter Plant Life, Researchers Say – Part 3

This entry was posted in Analysis, COP15, Economy, Politicians and tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.