arrest the crimatologists
Posts tagged treaty
Spy Drones To Enforce CO2 Regulations
Dec 21st
Paul Joseph Watson //
Prison Planet.com //
Monday, December 21, 2009 //

President Barack Obama has said that spy drones will be used to enforce CO2 emission regulations, while British Prime Minister Gordon Brown has outlined plans for the European Union to police compliance with carbon-cutting targets.
The final Copenhagen Accord included the provision that a global “governance structure” would be set up to control taxes on CO2 emissions and this is already starting to take shape after Gordon Brown announced that he is drawing up plans with French President Sarkozy for the EU to become a global warming policeman.
“Mr Brown and French President Nicholas Sarkozy now are working proposals for a “European monitoring organisation” that will oversee every country’s actions on emissions,” reports the Telegraph.
“I will work with President Sarkozy for a European organisation that will monitor the transparency that is being achieved not just in Europe and our own countries, but in every country around the world,” said Brown, adding, “I think people deserve for there to be international reporting at the highest standards of what is being done.”
In addition, President Barack Obama said that satellite technology would be used to check if countries like China are living up to their promises to cut CO2, a move that has been termed “eco-spying”. New advancements allow drones to monitor greenhouse gas emissions over a certain geographical area.
“We can actually monitor what takes place through satellite imagery and so forth, so I think we are going to have a pretty good idea of what people are doing,” said Obama.
“It is hoped that the use of satellite imagery will increase pressure on every country to do their part once targets are eventually in place,” according to the Telegraph.
While this will inevitably pose highly problematic geopolitical flash points in the short term, specifically with regard to U.S. satellites snooping on China, one can only imagine the long term implications of such measures on an individual level.
Governments are already announcing laws to track and trace every mile we travel via black boxes in our cars.
In future, is every business going to be assigned its own individual spy drone to monitor and report on its CO2 emissions?
In a wider sense, this is all geared towards further crushing any notion of border integrity or national sovereignty in pursuit of a global government authority to rule over all countries, zealously enforcing draconian CO2 reduction targets that will bankrupt richer countries while completely devastating the third world, leading to untold poverty and millions more deaths as a result of skyrocketing food prices.
Parturient montes: nascetur ridiculus mus
Dec 21st
From The Viscount Monckton of Brenchley in Copenhagen
via SPPIBlog
The mountains shall labor, and what will be born? A stupid little mouse. Thanks to hundreds of thousands of US citizens who contacted their elected representatives to protest about the unelected, communistic world government with near-infinite powers of taxation, regulation and intervention that was proposed in early drafts of the Copenhagen Treaty, there is no Copenhagen Treaty. There is not even a Copenhagen Agreement. There is a “Copenhagen Accord”.
The White House spinmeisters spun, and their official press release proclaimed, with more than usual fatuity, that President Obama had “salvaged” a deal at Copenhagen in bilateral talks with China, India, Brazil, and South Africa, which had established a negotiating bloc.
The plainly-declared common position of these four developing nations had been the one beacon of clarity and common sense at the foggy fortnight of posturing and gibbering in the ghastly Copenhagen conference center.
This is what the Forthright Four asked for:
Point 1. No compulsory limits on carbon emissions.
Point 2. No emissions reductions at all unless the West paid for them.
Point 3. No international monitoring of any emissions reductions not paid for by the West.
Point 4. No use of “global warming” as an excuse to impose protectionist trade restrictions on countries that did not cut their carbon emissions.
After President Obama’s dramatic intervention to save the deal, this is what the Forthright Four got:
Point 1. No compulsory limits on carbon emissions.
Point 2. No emissions reductions at all unless the West paid for them.
Point 3. No international monitoring of any emissions reductions not paid for by the West.
Point 4. No use of “global warming” as an excuse to impose protectionist trade restrictions on countries that did not cut their carbon emissions.
Here, in a nutshell – for fortunately nothing larger is needed – are the main points of the ”Copenhagen Accord”:
Main points: In the Copenhagen Accord, which is operational immediately, the parties“underline that climate change is one of the greatest challenges of our time”; emphasize their “strong political will to urgently combat climate change”; recognize “the scientific view that the increase in global temperature should be below 2 C°” and perhaps below 1.5 C°; aspire to “cooperate in achieving the peaking of global and national emissions as soon as possible”; acknowledge that eradicating poverty is the “overriding priority of developing countries”; and accept the need to help vulnerable countries – especially the least developed nations, small-island states, and Africa – to adapt to climate change.
Self-imposed emissions targets: All parties will set for themselves, and comply with, emissions targets for 2020, to be submitted to the secretariat by 31 January 2010. Where developing countries are paid to cut their emissions, their compliance will be monitored. Developed countries will financially support less-developed countries to prevent deforestation. Carbon trading may be used.
New bureaucracies and funding: Under the supervision of a “High-Level Panel”, developed countries will give up to $30 billion for 2010-12, aiming for $100 billion by 2020, in “scaled up, new and additional, predictable and adequate funding” to developing countries via a “Copenhagen Green Fund”. A “Technology Mechanism” will “accelerate technology development and transfer” to developing countries.
And that’s it. Expensive, yes. Unnecessary, yes. But earth-shaking? No.
The disconnect between the gaseous halations of various grandstanding “world leaders” about the supposedly urgent need to “Save The Planet Now” and the puny outcome of the Copenhagen Non-Event is dazzling. And it is welcome.
For all the rhetoric – or the flatulence that passes for rhetoric these days – it has begun to dawn on the “leaders” of those nations that subject them to regular recall and re-election that the people no longer believe the mad scientists are telling them the truth. And the people are right.
What is more, after the failure of the mainstream news media to report what the malevolent and unpleasant scientists involved in the Climategate affair had written to one another about those with whom they disagreed, or about what they had done to invent, fabricate, contrive, fiddle, tweak, alter, massage, conceal, hide or even destroy scientific data for the sake of protecting and peddling the pseudo-science in which environment correspondents had so readily and so ignorantly believed, the people no longer trust the media.
And that is bad news for a governing class that has come to develop a far-too-cosy relationship with the mainstream media. It is also very bad news for the mainstream media themselves, which are now rapidly losing circulation and ad revenue as the people rightly desert them for the Internet, where - notwithstanding various expensive attempts by the over-funded international Left to interfere with Google and Yahoo searches - the truth is still available if you know where to look.
Copenhagen was the last-chance saloon not for the planet, which does not need saving, but for the UN’s world-government wannabes. They blew it, big-time, by believing their own overspun propaganda about planetary peril and thinking they had “world leaders” where they wanted them. They overreached themselves, and have paid the price.
Even though next year is an el Nino year accompanied by fast-recovering solar activity, 2010 may not, after all, set a new global-temperature record to overtop that which was set in 1998, the year of the Great el Nino. By the time the next yackfest takes place in Mexico City in December 2010, the steam will have gone out of the “global warming” scare. We should not let our guard down, but Copenhagen is more than the end of the beginning for Green fascism: it is the beginning of the end. The eco-Nazis’ attempt at global bureaucratic coup d’etat has failed, and no such attempt is likely to succeed again. Too many of you are watching.
Alex Jones: Copenhagen births World Gov’t framework despite fallout over science fraud
Dec 20th
via PrisonPlanet.com
IN HIS THIRD EXCLUSIVE EXPOSÉ OF THE CLIMATEGATE FALLOUT, Alex Jones breaks down the conclusion of the Copenhagen United Nations Conference on Climate Change (UNFCC), including the foundations of a new era of Global Governance– as evidenced by quotes directly from the mouths of Al Gore, UN Head Ban Ki-Moon and bankster heir David de Rothschild.
Though new taxes have been levied and mechanisms for world regulation have been laid down, the Climate Change agenda has taken a lot of political damage. The beginnings of Climategate with the East Anglia CRU email leaks were just the beginning of a chain reaction of revelations that has fueled anger, doubt, denial and speculation worldwide. Compromised calculations or deliberately-fudged data have been exposed worldwide from research centers in Russia, New Zealand, Australia and beyond– casting serious doubt by even mainline commentators upon the so-called “settled-science” and ‘peer-reviewed’ scientific “consensus” of man-made global warming.
Copenhagen: The “deal” that wasn’t
Dec 20th
via AustralianClimateMadness.com
As would be expected, the moonbat media all over the globe is hailing Obama’s “deal” as a triumph and “historic”, but in reality, it is paper thin and the absolute least that could possibly have been hoped for after twelve days of detailed negotiation.
Furthermore, you have to ask how Obama managed to get the US, China and India, who, only a few hours ago, were so far apart you could drive a coach and horses between them, to agree to the deal unless it was completely watered down and vague, as the Sydney Morning Herald reports:
The agreement foresees US contributions of 3.6 billion US dollars in climate funds for the 2010-2012 period while Japan would contribute 11 billion US dollars and the European Union 10.6 billion.
It also includes a commitment to limit global warming to two degrees Celsius (3.6 Fahrenheit) — well short of the demands of island nations.
But a decision on targets for reducing carbon emissions by 2020 was put off until next month, a European diplomat said.
And unlike earlier drafts, the new accord did not specify any year for emissions to peak. (source)
And of course, it isn’t legally binding either. From a domestic point of view, this failure of Copenhagen to achieve anything significant demonstrates how misguided Kevin Rudd’s desire to pass the ETS beforehand really was. We all know that the only reason was self-promotion – to be able to turn up to Copenhagen with a “trophy” as part of his job interview for UN Secretary General. Thankfully, Tony Abbott put paid to that little dream.
Canada part of Copenhagen climate deal – News – MSN CA
Dec 18th
Prime Minister Stephen Harper and other world leaders — including those from the U.S., China, India, Brazil and South Africa — are leaving Copenhagen with a compromise climate deal and a vow to work out the details.
The agreement offers money to developing nations to help them fight global warming provided they agree to open their books to international scrutiny.
Harper called it a “comprehensive and realistic” agreement, while U.S. President Barack Obama hailed it as a “meaningful and unprecedented breakthrough.”
However, the agreement is not binding and does not set new greenhouse-gas reduction targets. Instead, countries are to set their own emission-reduction commitments, which would not be legally binding.
Most recent comments