Free Markets, Free People


The UN’s plan to dominate the world of energy and to redistribute wealth? “Climate change”

If you’ve ever wondered what the purpose was of the UN’s climate change agenda or where it is going, a new report makes it pretty obvious:

Two years ago, U.N. researchers were claiming that it would cost “as much as $600 billion a year over the next decade” to go green. Now, a new U.N. report has more than tripled that number to $1.9 trillion per year for 40 years.

So let’s do the math: That works out to a grand total of $76 trillion, over 40 years — or more than five times the entire Gross Domestic Product of the United States ($14.66 trillion a year). It’s all part of a “technological overhaul” “on the scale of the first industrial revolution” called for in the annual report. Except that the U.N. will apparently control this next industrial revolution.

The new 251-page report with the benign sounding name of the “World Economic and Social Survey 2011” is rife with goodies calling for “a radically new economic strategy” and “global governance.”

Throw in possible national energy use caps and a massive redistribution of wealth and the survey is trying to remake the entire globe. The report has the imprimatur of the U.N., with the preface signed by U.N. Secretary-General Ban Ki-Moon – all part of the “goal of full decarbonization of the global energy system by 2050.”

Make no mistake, much of this has nothing to do with climate.

I couldn’t agree more with the last sentence.  This has never been about climate.  World governance, however,  is and always has been the end game of the “Third World Debating Club”, also known as the UN. 

Dan Gainor, who wrote the piece being quoted, then cites the press release from the UN concerning the report:

The press release for the report discusses the need “to achieve a decent living standard for people in developing countries, especially the 1.4 billion still living in extreme poverty, and the additional 2 billion people expected worldwide by 2050.” That sounds more like global redistribution of wealth than worrying about the earth’s thermostat.

Well if you really understand how this is being approached, Gainor is exactly right.   Let me explain.   Those living in “extreme poverty” – the 1.4 billion cited – live mostly without running water and electricity.  Anyone – what is the fastest way to remedy that situation?  Well on the power side, fossil fueled (i.e coal fired) power plants.  You can build them relatively cheaply and quickly and they can begin to provide the requisite power necessary to begin to lift these people out of poverty.

But of course, the UN couldn’t control that, could they?  Instead, it has decided the way to do this is through going green with complete “decarbonization” by 2050.  That is can control, because it has been the initiator of most of this nonsense about global warming and the absurd treaties that have gone with it.   If it can find a way to convince governments that the threat is real and to have them self-impose carbon restrictions on themselves based on the UN agenda, it will be the UN calling the shots.

So essentially the UN is holding these 1.4 billion hostage to their agenda by refusing to budge on their push for global “decarbonization” by 2050.  In essence they’re telling the extremely poor that they’re stuck with that condition because the simple and immediately available solution is unacceptable to them since it poses a threat to the environment.  They’ll just have to wait while the UN engineers this agenda to the detriment of economies everywhere and we all end up in poverty of some sort.

An example of where this could head can be found in the UK right now as Christopher Booker explains:

Three years ago, when the hysteria over global warming was still at its height, our own British politicians voted almost unanimously for the Climate Change Act committing us, uniquely in the world, to cut our CO2 emissions by 80 per cent within 40 years. Even on the Government’s own figures, show that this will cost us up to £18 billion every year until 2050 – it is by far the most expensive law ever passed by Parliament. As our politicians continually impose on us ever higher taxes and other costs supposedly in the cause of ‘fighting climate change’ they have been carried away by a collective fantasy that has no parallel in history.

The result has been quite predictable:

As energy prices go through the roof, shocking figures reveal one in four families has been plunged into fuel poverty. Consumer Focus warns as many as 6 million could be forced to choose between a hot meal or heating their homes this winter.

Here are the numbers:

As energy prices go through the roof, shocking figures reveal one in four families has been plunged into fuel poverty.

[…]

The figures are higher than the one in five first estimated and show for the first time wealthier families have also been hammered by spiralling fuel costs with 15% of middle classes now fuel poor.

Research from price comparison website uSwitch found the number would leap to one in three if housing costs were added in.

It means at least 18 million people are spending 10% or more of their take home pay on energy bills. Based on the new way of calculating fuel poverty, 47% of working class families and 22% of the middle classes fall into this bracket.

A quarter of families with a stay-at-home parent are fuel poor but uSwitch argues this figure would soar to 44% if mortgages or rents were included. The number of fuel poor single parent families would jump from 39% to 52% while pensioner numbers would rise from 33% to 36%.

According to the website, fuel bills have rocketed by 71% in the past five years rising from £660 a year in 2006 to £1,131 today.

In other words, the UK’s self-imposed carbon caps and attempts to use not-ready-for-primetime alternative and renewable energy sources has driven up energy costs to such a level that it has put 1 in 4 in the UK into what is known as “fuel poverty”.

Bottom line?

William Baker, Head of Fuel Poverty Policy added: “Rising energy prices will lead to a bigger bills and a huge upswing in fuel poverty. This will mean an increasing percentage of our population, especially those on low incomes, are more likely to live in colder or damp houses or face higher debt.”

Most who have taken the time to do some study of the subject of climate change have come to the conclusion the science supporting it is suspect and that the UN’s IPCC is a political organization, not a scientific one.   This new UN report just puts an exclamation  on
that point.  The UN has, for years, concocted various plans and schemes to give it a larger role in world governance.  Not satisfied with being a deliberative body with the aim of keeping the peace, it now is attempting to find ways to direct revenue via this, their most ambitious scheme to date, to who they choose should receive it.  It is indeed a revenue redistribution scheme.

The end result of enacting this plan would be disastrous to the world’s economies, would keep those 1.4 billion in extreme poverty in the same state and, as is being demonstrated in the UK, put even more of the world’s population in “fuel poverty”.

Time to kill this monster now, before it gets any further out of its cage.

~McQ

Twitter: @McQandO

  • Facebook
  • Twitter
  • LinkedIn
  • Tumblr
  • Digg
  • Reddit
  • email
  • Print
  • Google Bookmarks

23 Responses to The UN’s plan to dominate the world of energy and to redistribute wealth? “Climate change”

  • Let’s face it, the UN is only marginally useful as a Security Council (with cocktail parties for the other non-Security Council members).
    Trouble always appears when we start taking the world body seriously (about much other than world health).  Every aspect of the UN is about siphoning off money so those cocktail parties can continue unabated even during recessions and alike.  “Climate Change” is just one of many money siphoning projects underway at the UN.

    • We need TOTALLY out of the UN, which has become a dirty joke…WAY beyond useless and firmly into a positive danger to our Republic.

      • This kind of money giveaway idea has been knocked around before …

        The Global Poverty Act would require the U.S. President to develop and implement a comprehensive strategy to further the United States foreign policy objective of promoting the reduction of global poverty, the elimination of extreme global poverty, and the achievement of the United Nations Millennium Development Goal of reducing by one-half the proportion of people worldwide, between 1990 and 2015, who live on less than $1 per day. This would require the United States to add 0.7 percent of the U.S. gross national product (23 billion to 98 billion a year) to its overall spending on Humanitarian Aid. This bill has been endorsed by The Borgen Project, Habitat for Humanity, Bread for the World, RESULTS and CARE.
        December 7, 2007: Introduced and sponsored in the US Senate by Sen. Barack Obama (D-IL) as S.2433.
        The bill passed the Foreign Affairs Committee in July 2008. It was never scheduled for a vote on the Senate floor, however, and died at the end of the session.  This was the closest any piece of legislation, with Sen. Barack Obama (D-IL) as chief sponsor, came to passing.

  • This is the same Societal Control mechanism that has been tried twice before. First in 1976, the Great Global Cooling scare, then in 1999 Anthropological Global Warming (notice the language keeps getting more sophisticated) finally the ubiquitous “Climate Change”, that one-size-fits-all panic button. The tool being used as the lever kept changing, but the goal remained the same; tax, regulate, control. “Climate Change” are economic chains that you chose to wear.

    • finally the ubiquitous “Climate Change” ??

      Now it’s “Climate Disruption”  (has that Klingon feel to it).

  • Regardless of UN actions, it really is impossible to discuss future global environmental issues without also discussing standards of living.  This follows because as people in the third world improve their standards of living, they will require increasing amounts of energy, which currently is mostly (and most cheaply) provided by fossil fuels.  Hiding discussion of increased average standards of living, on either side of the debate, is an evasion of the problem.

    • Generally speaking improved standards of living result in less polution and less environmental damage. Of course, if you buy the idea that CO2 is a looking environmental catastrophy, then you might not agree. But that’s a pssible future damage based upon a thesis (not even a verifiable theory as of yet).

  • Who’s hiding???
    Markets will take care of the entire ambit.
    Funny how pervasive and organic those market thingies are…

    • Rags, Markets do NOT control themselves.  That’s just foolish talk.

      <insert about 5 more paragraphs, toss in references to advanced educational degrees, and a blog, and scientific consensus, and say something usefully prophetic like “time will tell”>

  • I don’t want to sound like an extremist, but what if we killed off those 1.4 billion people through, say, stopping programs to control malaria, allowing various countries like the Red Chinese, the Russians, and the French to sell arms to any third-world tinpot who can scrape up the cash to buy, looking the other way when genocide is going on, converting our corn and grain to ethanol instead of selling it (or giving it away) as food, and propping up corrupt regimes that keep their people in lethal ignorance and poverty?

    Oh, wait…

    It’s all part of a “technological overhaul” “on the scale of the first industrial revolution” called for in the annual report.


    Correct me if I’m wrong, but the Industrial Revolution was not a government-sponsored or -directed enterprise, was it?  Well, except in Red China, when the Great Leap Forward killed off a few million people in the process of trying to build a semi-modern industrial base in a few years.

    Why do some people persist in believing that government can do things in an efficient manner and so should be in charge of much of anything?

  • Gee and when the world control freaks in the UN begin to really get their way and piss people off and plunge various nations into poverty what’s going to rise on the back of that do you think? Yep, good old xenophobic nationalism that’s going to pit people against scapegoats, against greedy “capitalists” who supposedly engineered it, money grubbing jews controlling the oil, their neighbours with gas or oil or nukes, America, ya de ya de ya. Give it another 20 years and we’ll be at the centennary of WW2, should be about right to see if the UN and its assorted ass-hats manage to relegate their own organization to irrelevancy or if they manage to take down a good fraction of the world in some needless conflict as well.

    • Sadly, I agree.  I can only suppose that at least some of the goobers at the UN and other high government officials around the world see themselves as Hitler / Stalin / Mussolini v2.0, minus (most of) the genocide, death camps, etc.

      As for the rest of them… I’m sure that they mean well, but it seems to me that the 20th century should have taught everybody a hard lesson about the evils of centralized planning.  Unfortunately, it didn’t.

      • The only thing it (falsely) taught most of those educated in the latter hald of the 20th century is that (1) Fascism/Nazism was not centrally planned and was indeed capitalist and (2) that central planning will work if it is done “right”.

        The only saving grace of the UN at the moment is that it has no effective and loyal fighting force… just like the League of Nations and so is powerless to really force any issue. So long as there is a reasonably benign superpower capable of menacing the tinpot asshat dictators then the UN can play their dumbass games. The danger will come when the UN screws over world peace in a quest for central authority and the last benign superpower has for some reason disarmed itself… but that isn’t happening, now is it?

    • I think the UN is very near its critical “self-parody” mass.
      You can’t get much more ironic and retain ANY creds.

  • You political idiots are forgetting something. Most of those wise pragmatic moderate leftist UN bureaucrats have advanced degrees. That automatically gives them capabilities far beyond those of normal men.

    I have one too. Have I ever mentioned that? Perhaps I have once or twice. Anyway, I have an advanced degree in German foreign policy from a very prestigious place that has “Advanced Studies” in its name. That proves that it’s important. So stop laughing. Don’t start up about how German foreign policy has mostly been simply invading anyone foreign that they felt like – that ended sixty years ago. And don’t you dare start up with how that prestigious university gave me a worthless degree just to get rid of me and not have to listen to my blather anymore. It’s not true, and the fact that I teach at a third rate college in the middle of a moose-infested forest doesn’t mean anything about my abilities, and certainly it doesn’t mean that I’m a mediocre thinker with delusions of adequacy. I decree it. I’m smart, and capable, and darn it, people like me.

    So those wise UN bureaucrats are our best hope for saving our planet, and not hurting my gender-neutral children the way you inbred, sterile, Goebbels-like righties want to. The consensus is established, and that’s that. So suck on it. We’ve already indoctrinated educated a whole generation of young people to understand that, and that’s still going on. It’s too late to change them back. I can tell by their blissful smiles as they look at me in my class that they truly understand. Their answers on tests are exactly what I expect, except for a few malcontents. OF course, after some intense discussions with them, almost all of them eventually see what I was trying to tell them.

    Which is the way it should be, because you political idiots cannot be allowed to hold sway. Why, you don’t even understand quantum physics, which I totally do, especially the spiritual, non-mathy parts. And you are totally clueless about peace studies, which is one of the advanced studies things only we people with advanced degrees in the social sciences understand. You should sign up for online seminar on that, so you would be exposed to the wondrous, post-modern view of how foreign affairs really works. Really. Stop laughing, I said!

    • Killer.  Never stop.

    • “middle of a moose-infested forest”
      Hey Scerb, I’m tired of you implying that Meeses are some sort of malign infestation.

      Meeses are our noble friends of the forest, and as long as you’re not driving a Volkswagen during rutting season, they are fairly harmless.

  • Most who have taken the time to do some study of the subject of climate change have come to the conclusion the science supporting it is suspect and that the UN’s IPCC is a political organization, not a scientific one.   This new UN report just puts an exclamation  on
    that point.  The UN has, for years, concocted various plans and schemes to give it a larger role in world governance.  Not satisfied with being a deliberative body with the aim of keeping the peace, it now is attempting to find ways to direct revenue via this, their most ambitious scheme to date, to who they choose should receive it.  It is indeed a revenue redistribution scheme.

    Quelle suprise. The UN has found that the preferred solution to a given problem is empower the UN as broker to a global resdistribution scheme channelling massive amounts through the sticky fingers of UN bureaucrats.   

    Time to kill this monster now, before it gets any further out of its cage.

    The UK could reduce income taxation in equal measure.  The UK could reduce income taxation even further by down-sizing their government.  Ideally they could expand the lowest tax band, so that the greatest number of people get used to paying lower taxes. 

  • Did the author of that article really try to make a credible comparison between a 40-year number (76 trillion) and a 1-year number (15 trillion)?  The value of that is precisely zero.

  • The main way I understand our action in Libya is to set a precedent for subordinating the US to Europe and the UN.

  • How would the UN and transnational Americans go about making this redistributionist scheme happen?

  • Europe’s biodiesel industry could be wiped out by EU plans to tackle the unwanted side effects of biofuel production, after studies showed few climate benefits, four papers obtained by Reuters show.
    Europe’s world-leading $13 billion biodiesel industry, which has boomed in the wake of a decision by Brussels policymakers in 2003 to promote it, is now on the verge of being legislated out of existence after the studies revealed biodiesel’s indirect impact cancels out most of its benefits.
    Read more: http://news.cnet.com/8301-11128_3-20078171-54/climate-impact-threatens-biodiesel-future-in-eu/#ixzz1Rowldhk8

michael kors outlet michael kors handbags outlet michael kors factory outlet