JohnB Posted December 12, 2011 Share Posted December 12, 2011 (edited) I always knew that the connection of beauracrats and (many) NGOs to reality was tenuous at best, but this out of Durban simply shows how far from the real world they are. From the UNFCCC agreement that they wanted to get signed at durban; 39. Developed country Parties shall provide developing country Parties with new andadditional finance, inter alia through a percentage of the gross domestic product of developed country Parties, for technology, insurance and capacity-building in order to enable and implement adaptation actions, plans, programmes and projects at all levels, in and across different economic and social sectors and ecosystems; So how much "new and addititional finance" you may ask? 47. The provision of the amount of funds to be made available annually to developingcountry Parties, which shall be equivalent to the budget that developed countries spend on defence, security, and warfare. Fifty per cent of that amount shall be for adaptation, 20 per cent for mitigation, 15 per cent for technology development and transfer and 15 per cent for forest-related actions in developing country Parties; So America, your share is around $800 Billion. I'm so glad you can afford it. But seriously, how far divorced from any form of economic reality do you have to be to even make such a suggestion? Only people living in a total fairyland could think that Germany has a spare 30 Billion Euros to throw at this. (There are other ways of funding this, see below.) All up it would come to around $1.3 Trillion, a nice little earner for the UN that I'm sure has them swooning at all the great deeds and marvelous works they could accomplish with the money. (After management fees, their wages and a few conferences in very nice places are deducted of course.) Some other really cool bits (Are you listening America?) 80. Stopping wars, defending lives and ceasing destructive activities will protect theclimate system; conflict-related activities emit significant greenhouse gas emissions to the atmosphere. 81. The guarantee that all Parties shall cease destructive activities that contribute to climate change, in particular the activities of warfare, production of materials and services that support warfare, and to divert associated financial resources and investments into the shared global effort to combat a common enemy: climate change. You are required to stop all "warfare" related activities and shut down your defence industries, giving all the saved money to the UN for redistribution. (See 47 above) What you do about the hundreds of thousands unemployed is presumably your problem. How about this bit? 74. Ensure respect for the intrinsic laws of nature.75. The recognition and defence of the rights of Mother Earth to ensure harmony between humanity and nature, and that their will be no commodification of the functions of nature, therefore no carbon market will be developed with that purpose. Can somebody enlighten me as to exactly what an "Intrinsic Law of Nature" is? Or is it just a greenies wet dream? But I'm sure the "Climate Court of Justice" will be able to rule on this; 79. Requests the Conference of the Parties to develop, by its eighteenth session, anInternational Climate Court of Justice in order to guarantee the compliance of Annex I Parties with all the provisions of this decision, which are essential elements in the obtaining of the global goal; BTW, "Annex I Parties" are the West, the developed nations, a full list is here. The court is to have the power to judge and fine only the developed nations. The West is to comply or else, the ROW can do what they like. I guess some animals are more equal than others. I've always thought that those who think that "Climate Change" was a cover for some UN conspiracy were fools. However, having read the UN documents and seeing the sheer amounts of money it wants and the power that it is demanding in that name, I'm starting to wonder if they might not have a point. The documents are long on power and authority over the people of the planet, but very short on responsibility to the people of this planet. It seems to be very much assumed that the UN knows best and would never act except in the best interests of the people or the planet. If that is true then they would be the first organisation in history to manage that little feat. The UN needs to be introduced to reality, very soon. Edited December 12, 2011 by JohnB Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!Register a new account
Already have an account? Sign in here.Sign In Now