Someone has finally admitted what all the man-made global warming BS is really about:



UN CLIMATE SCHEME: Reordering world economy, trillions in wealth transfer, sweeping 'industrial relocation'...



A United Nations document on "climate change" that will be distributed to a major environmental conclave next week envisions a huge reordering of the world economy, likely involving trillions of dollars in wealth transfer, millions of job losses and gains, new taxes, industrial relocations, new tariffs and subsidies, and complicated payments for greenhouse gas abatement schemes and carbon taxes — all under the supervision of the world body.

Those and other results are blandly discussed in a discretely worded United Nations "information note" on potential consequences of the measures that industrialized countries will likely have to take to implement the Copenhagen Accord, the successor to the Kyoto Treaty, after it is negotiated and signed by December 2009. The Obama administration has said it supports the treaty process if, in the words of a U.S. State Department spokesman, it can come up with an "effective framework" for dealing with global warming.

The 16-page note, obtained by FOX News, will be distributed to participants at a mammoth negotiating session that starts on March 29 in Bonn, Germany, the first of three sessions intended to hammer out the actual commitments involved in the new deal.

In the stultifying language that is normal for important U.N. conclaves, the negotiators are known as the "Ad Hoc Working Group On Further Commitments For Annex I Parties Under the Kyoto Protocol." Yet the consequences of their negotiations, if enacted, would be nothing short of world-changing.

Getting that deal done has become the United Nations' highest priority, and the Bonn meeting is seen as a critical step along the path to what the U.N. calls an "ambitious and effective international response to climate change," which is intended to culminate at the later gathering in Copenhagen.

Just how ambitious the U.N.'s goals are can be seen, but only dimly, in the note obtained by FOX News, which offers in sparse detail both positive and negative consequences of the tools that industrial nations will most likely use to enforce the greenhouse gas reduction targets.

The paper makes no effort to calculate the magnitude of the costs and disruption involved, but despite the discreet presentation, makes clear that they will reverberate across the entire global economic system.

• Click here for the information note.

Among the tools that are considered are the cap-and-trade system for controlling carbon emissions that has been espoused by the Obama administration; "carbon taxes" on imported fuels and energy-intensive goods and industries, including airline transportation; and lower subsidies for those same goods, as well as new or higher subsidies for goods that are considered "environmentally sound."

Other tools are referred to only vaguely, including "energy policy reform," which the report indicates could affect "large-scale transportation infrastructure such as roads, rail and airports." When it comes to the results of such reform, the note says only that it could have "positive consequences for alternative transportation providers and producers of alternative fuels."

In the same bland manner, the note informs negotiators without going into details that cap-and-trade schemes "may induce some industrial relocation" to "less regulated host countries." Cap-and-trade functions by creating decreasing numbers of pollution-emission permits to be traded by industrial users, and thus pay more for each unit of carbon-based pollution, a market-driven system that aims to drive manufacturers toward less polluting technologies.

The note adds only that industrial relocation "would involve negative consequences for the implementing country, which loses employment and investment." But at the same time it "would involve indeterminate consequences for the countries that would host the relocated industries."

There are also entirely new kinds of tariffs and trade protectionist barriers such as those termed in the note as "border carbon adjustment"— which, the note says, can impose "a levy on imported goods equal to that which would have been imposed had they been produced domestically" under more strict environmental regimes.

Another form of "adjustment" would require exporters to "buy [carbon] offsets at the border equal to that which the producer would have been forced to purchase had the good been produced domestically."

The impact of both schemes, the note says, "would be functionally equivalent to an increased tariff: decreased market share for covered foreign producers." (There is no definition in the report of who, exactly, is "foreign.") The note adds that "If they were implemented fairly, such schemes would leave trade and investment patterns unchanged." Nothing is said about the consequences if such fairness was not achieved.

Indeed, only rarely does the "information note" attempt to inform readers in dollar terms of the impact of "spillover effects" from the potential policy changes it discusses. In a brief mention of consumer subsidies for fossil fuels, the note remarks that such subsidies in advanced economies exceed $60 billion a year, while they exceed $90 billion a year in developing economies."

But calculations of the impact of tariffs, offsets, or other subsidies is rare. In a reference to the impact of declining oil exports, the report says that Saudi Arabia has determined the loss to its economy at between $100 billion and $200 billion by 2030, but said nothing about other oil exporters.

One reason for the lack of detail, the note indicates, is that impact would vary widely depending on the nature and scope of the policies adopted (and, although the note does not mention it, on the severity of the greenhouse reduction targets).

But even when it does hazard a guess at specific impacts, the report seems curiously hazy. A "climate change levy on aviation" for example, is described as having undetermined "negative impacts on exporters of goods that rely on air transport, such as cut flowers and premium perishable produce," as well as "tourism services." But no mention is made in the note of the impact on the aerospace industry, an industry that had revenues in 2008 of $208 billion in the U.S. alone, or the losses the levy would impose on airlines for ordinary passenger transportation. (Global commercial airline revenues in 2008 were about $530 billion, and were already forecast to drop to an estimated $467 billion this year.)

In other cases, as when discussing the "increased costs of traditional exports" under a new environmental regime, the report confines itself to terse description. Changes in standards and labeling for exported goods, for example, "may demand costly changes to the production process." If subsidies and tariffs affect exports, the note says, the "economic and social consequences of dampening their viability may, for some countries and sectors, be significant."

Much depends, of course, on the extent to which harsher or more lenient greenhouse gas reduction targets demand more or less drastic policies for their achievement.

And, precisely because the Bonn meeting is a stage for negotiating those targets, the note is silent. Instead it suggests that more bureaucratic work is needed "to deepen the understanding of the full nature and scale of such impacts."

But outside the Bonn process, other experts have been much more blunt about the draconian nature of the measures they deem necessary to make "effective" greenhouse gas reductions.

In an influential but highly controversial paper called "Key Elements of a Global Deal on Climate Change," British economist Nicholas Lord Stern, formerly a high British Treasury official, has declared that industrial economies would need to cut their per capita carbon dioxide emissions by "at least 80% by 2050," while the biggest economies, like the U.S.'s, would have to make cuts of 90 percent.

Stern also calls for "immediate and binding" reduction targets for developed nations of 20 percent to 40 percent by 2020.

To meet Stern's 2050 goals, he says, among other things, "most of the world's electricity production will need to have been decarbonized."

Click here for Stern's paper.

By way of comparison, according to the U.S. Department Of Energy, roughly 72 percent of U.S. electrical power generation in 2007 was derived from burning fossil fuels, with just 6 percent coming from hydro-power and less than 3 percent from non-nuclear renewable and "other" sources. And even then, those "other" non-fossil sources included wood and biomass — which, when burned, are major emitters of carbon.

Is this good or bad?

Good if you're a 3rd world have-not. Bad if you enjoy a comfortable American lifestyle or if you don't like having BS junk science used to manipulate and control your behavior.

Quote:

---

If it means you get sold into some NWO nu-third world slave labor camp, or get made into lampshades and soap I'm all for it. Bring on The Black Helicopters.

---

If you were part of a UN sponsored think tank with a globalist perspective, what would be your 30 year plan for social/redistributive justice? How do you make America more like Ethiopia and Ethiopia more like America so things are more even? How do you get the "haves" in the world to play along and stop hogging the Earth's resources? You're not going to get anywhere if you just ask nicely.

Cocaine = paranoia

Yaaawn.

Conservative = anti-science

No on stem cell research, evolution, global warming, fuel efficiency standards, etc. etc. etc.

+ 1 on that. It's more the far right though than moderate conservatives.

agreed

Al Gore was here....and he inveted the interweb.

global warming = $fraud$

I've been told more than once to go the lookalike contest in Key West. Last time down there was with my now ex wife. We spent a lot of time dodging the drunks, chickens and 6 toed cats.

If you let that beard go for a few weeks you'd be in the running.

The gays in Key West make the best waiters and I laughed out loud about your 6 toed cat comment. They love their cats and chickens down there.

And the fishing is unsurpassed.

How about this one:

Quote:

---

+ 1 on that. It's more the far right though than moderate conservatives.

---

Political conservatism/rightism has nothing to do with being anti-science. Religious fundamentalists (Christian, Islamic or whatever) have problems with things like stem cell research/evolution/etc for religious reasons. I am right-wing because I use my ability to reason and observe the world in a rational manner (I am not religious). Any so-called global warming is NOT in reality proven to be the result of man's activities. The Earth goes through natural cycles. By far the #1 emitters of carbon on the planet are VOLCANOES.

The man-made global warming hysteria is about controlling behavior. Leftists used to say they need to control people "for the good of the masses". Now that Marxism is discredited, it is "for the good of the planet".

Quote:

---

HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA

---

Another blistering rebuttal from Bla200! Way to knock down every point, champ! There's no way an 8-year-old who's been brainwashed about global warming by his pc public school teacher could have come up with the reply "ha ha ha ha etc..".

Or, maybe you were holding back your genius to be nice - lol. Bla200, pwned again!

Why debate a pathological liar without a single independent thought in his head? I've already destroyed you repeatedly.

If Hannity, Rush and Coulter disappeared tomorrow you wouldn't know what you opinions are.

By the way, what are your degrees in? What was your Masters thesis on and what did you conclude? Come up with a lie yet?

Coke on Onion.

Yeah, climate change is a vast left wing conspiracy. Uncovered on a porn board.

-Chuck, Vegetarian fanboy

What's that I hear? Crickets chirping? Tumbleweeds blowing around?

C'mon Blah200, maybe you can borrow a few lines from that useless link Charin posted. He's trying to throw you a lifeline.

why have algore and his cronies abandoned the term "global warming" and replaced it with "climate change"?

the only thing more ridiculous than algore's junk science foisted on the public is the amount of tax money allotted by our government to "fix" it.

Physics professor at Princeton likens global warming alarmists to prohibitionists.

William Happer testimony before the U.S. Senate Environment and Public Works Committee

"I predict future historians will look back on this period much as we now view the period just before passage of the 18th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution"

Global Warming is a media creation that was dreamed up by the Democratic Party and it's coalition of Loony-Left groups as a way to exert power and deprive everyday people of their rights under the guise "saving the planet". It is nothing but pure horse shit. Any credible scientist who dares argue with The Great Messiah and his tribe are shouted down and called names, and written off by the Democrat Lapdog media as loons and people who are "out of touch". The Democrats are relying on the sheeple to let them take their rights away and sleep right through it. And so far it is working perfectly.

Create is probably the wrong word. Replace it with exploit.

Quote:

---

you are a product of european socialism

---

... intelligent liberal drug laws, a more solid currency, and the busiest port in the world.



Just sayin'

The # 1 emitters of carbon are volcanos (humans are not even close). Volcanos have been in business about 4.5 billion years. The Industrial Revolution in America began about 160 years ago.





PS: carbon is a pollutant? are you sure about that?

Yes.

Wow, I thought we were talking about so-called climate change. Get your junk science straight, Einstein. No one claims carbon monoxide is causing climate change. Carbon dioxide, methane cow farts, water vapor and ozone are the dreaded greehouse gases.