Christian Conservative Christian "Independent"

I'm an evangelical Christian, member of the CPC, but presently & unjustly exiled to wander the political wilderness.
All opinions expressed here are solely my own.

Friday, December 18, 2009

Possible LEAK of Copenhagen Treaty

Who knows if this supposed LEAK is really what the proposed treaty looks like... but if it is, it underscores my BIGGEST issue with the whole "climate change" scheme... it's not about "Global Warming", IT'S ABOUT WEALTH TRANSFER.
8. Scaled up, new and additional, predictable and adequate funding shall be provided to developing country Parties, in accordance with the relevant provisions of the Convention, to enable and support enhanced action on mitigation, including REDD-plus, adaptation, technology development and transfer and capacity-building, for
enhanced implementation of the Convention. Parties take note of the individual pledges by developed country

Parties to provide new and additional resources amounting to 30 billion dollars for the period 2010-2012 as listed and with funding for adaptation prioritized for the most vulnerable developing countries, such as the least developed countries, small island developing states and countries in Africa affected by drought, desertification and floods.

In the context of meaningful mitigation actions and transparency on implementation, the Parties support a goal of mobilizing jointly 100 billion dollars a year by 2020 to address the climate change needs of developing countries. This funding will come from a wide variety of sources, public and private, bilateral and multilateral, including alternative sources of finance.
$100 BILLION DOLLARS?!?!?! Where on EARTH are we going to come up with that kind of dough ANNUALLY?!?! What is Canada's share of that contribution going to look like? WHERE ARE WE GOING TO COME UP WITH THAT POTENTIAL $1-5 BILLION A YEAR!?!?!?

Of course, the transfer of some of our Western wealth in and of itself is not an entirely bad thing... but let's call it for what it really is, and then do something about the REAL problems in the Third World. I, for one, would be more than willing to take all the money we're CURRENTLY spending on "climate change" and redirect it into real hard solutions to major problems around the world... just think of all the problems we could solve! But increasing our funding of an issue who's scientific support is suspect? You've got to be kidding me!

I also have serious issues with men like Mugabee, Chavez, Kim Jong-il, and other world despots being given a single dime of that money... which the current proposed Copenhagen Treaty does not in any way, shape, or form address.

There's a bit of a silver lining, I suppose, in all this. If this is played right politically, and if the fallout from the leak at East Anglia continues, this could play right into our hands... can you imaging Iggy on the campaign trail trying to justify the HUGE tax increases we'd need to be able to afford this? All the PM would have to do is say that we're pulling out of the treaty, and BINGO... there's our majority.

I'm CONVINCED that Canadians are all willing to do our share to help the needy in this world. But when it comes to "climate change", and when it starts to hits them HARD in the pocket books, which this treaty is going to, I firmly believe that Canadians simply won't stand for it.

Of course, this could all just be a red herring... they may have leaked this strategically so that they can bring forward a treaty that calls for only $50 BILLION a year. Because it will have a "more reasonable" number, our leaders may be hoodwinked into signing on... like they were with Kyoto.

Labels: , ,


  • At Fri. Dec. 18, 10:59:00 a.m. EST, Anonymous Popular Capitalist said…

    Keep in mind the treaty will have to pass the US Senate with 2/3rds approval in order to be ratified by the US... It'll never pass ratification at that stage just like when Woodrow Wilson tried to get the US to join his pet League of Nations concept.

    If the US Senate doesn't ratify it, the treaty will fall apart. This is exactly what WILL happen.

  • At Fri. Dec. 18, 11:00:00 a.m. EST, Anonymous Anonymous said…

    All told, in spite of the rhetoric of environmental fanaticists I have to say the Conservative government is doing the right thing at Copenhagen: follow the lead of Obama - don't make the CPC look backwater - while simultaneously ensuring that the Canadian economy won't be exceedingly compromised by the concessions made.

    After having foiled St├ęphane Dion's coalition, made partial amends with the artistic community, improved Indo-Canadian relations and agreed to reach a tangible agreement at Copenhagen I think it's safe to say it: Harper has had a good year.

  • At Fri. Dec. 18, 11:00:00 a.m. EST, Blogger wilson said…

    Do you think Mugabee, Chavez, Kim Jong-il will allow independant inspections in their countries?

    That is where the buck will stop, literally.

  • At Fri. Dec. 18, 11:04:00 a.m. EST, Anonymous Anonymous said…

    The treaty called for .7% of GDP and that amounts to about $10 Billion annually from Canada. That's about $400 per person per year in new taxes or $1600 for a family of four every year. They wanted 1% which was closer to $480 per person but they scaled back a bit. This is the thin edge of the wedge of course. The ultimate target is about 2% of GDP but that won't happen for a decade or two.

    What the countries will do with this new cash is anyone's guess. I expect many will use it to buy guns. The AK47 is made in China now ans can be bought for $5 each. Our money will be used to arm the world, I guarentee that.

    Also watch out for the dreaded 450 ppm Co2 agreements (we are at 380 now). How this number was arrived at is a scientific/political mystery. Once we hit this number in 20 years, a whole new set of emergency actions will take effect. This is the time when the internal combustion engine will become too expensive for everyone except the rich, and if you aren't riding a horse to work each day you will be from then on. I kid you not.

    We need a national debate about this Treaty. The media, particulary the CBC, has been silent about what this treaty entails. Have you noticed that?

  • At Fri. Dec. 18, 11:18:00 a.m. EST, Anonymous Anonymous said…

    Wilson is right,
    these third-world despots waging their murderous tribal wars will never allow the developed world (the ones sending them the money) access to their countries to check on 'green projects'.
    A green project in most of these places will most likey consist of the fertilization of the land above the burial spots of all of their enemies.
    And I sure as heck am totally against the UN overseeing the distribution of funds and ensuring that green projects are underway.

  • At Fri. Dec. 18, 12:32:00 p.m. EST, Blogger UsualSuspect said…

    If Canada signs anything, it should only do so subject to a referendum.

    Any transfer of Canadian sovereignty to an unelected foreign body should require the consent of the people.

    Any last minute deal signed under duress by politicians inside a pressure cooker will neither be well considered nor legitimate in the eyes of the public.

  • At Fri. Dec. 18, 02:35:00 p.m. EST, Anonymous Anonymous said…

    "$100 BILLION DOLLARS?!?!?! Where on EARTH are we going to come up with that kind of dough ANNUALLY?!?! "

    Well... The world economy is worth over 60 000 000 000 000 per year.* So 100 000 000 000 would be...0.17% of the world economy. Most of that is from the wealthiest countries in the world. I'm sure we can handle it.

    And if done properly, the spending won't be a cost so much as an investment. GDP just measures the value of goods and services produced in a country. Every time there is an oil spill, every time someone is diagnosed with cancer, etc, the GDP goes up.


    By the way... Are my numbers and calculations right? Math was never my forte... Also... I'm assuming that we are talking about the same numbers (i.e., that 100 billion dollars in 2020 is the same as 100 billion dollars today). If it's 100 billion in 2020 dollars, and if the world economy continues growing, then it will cost even less.


    Apologies if I'm submitting this twice. My computer has been confusing me today. (Or perhaps it's the other way around?)


  • At Fri. Dec. 18, 10:23:00 p.m. EST, Blogger maryT said…

    Have those econuts paid any attention to Rhodesia/Zimbabwai.
    Same country, different leaders, capitalist/socialist/dictatorship.
    Is that what they really want for Canada and the USA.

  • At Wed. Dec. 23, 08:54:00 p.m. EST, Anonymous Anonymous said…

    The problem isn't the amount of money, but what will be done with it.

    My concerns are:

    1) Fraud/abuse
    2) Using it as development funds (which of course will exacerbate the issue of global warming)
    3) Spending on reduction of Carbon emissions from countries that barely emit any carbon as it is, rather than focusing on remidiation of the affects of global warming.
    4) There are a number of things that are likely to be more significant (e.g. malaria eradication, vaccinations, clean drinking water). In addition habitat preservation is probabaly more important than emissions control.

    So it comes down to this.

    does it make more sense to invest 1 billion in Mozambique building wind turbines? Or 250 million to build a coal power plan and 750 million preserving critical habitat, vaccinating the population, and cleaning up the water?

    The Christian perspective is that perhaps global warming is an issue (that's for the scientists to advise us on), but we know there are a great many people suffering in the world, and it is our responsibility as wealthy nations to help ease the burden. And for some countries the money is most likely better spend on something else.



Post a Comment

<< Home