Who in the world wants UN Local Agenda 21?

The United Nations Local Agenda 21 Programme was adopted by all member nations in 1992. Most citizens in the United States were never told anything about it. To my knowledge, no nation in the entire world was allowed to vote on this sweeping plan to rebuild the world.

Over the past twenty years, the UN's communitarian system was implemented in every nation. In some nations it was an open process, because their systems were not established as governments of the people. In the nations where the citizens elect representatives and have veto power over laws passed by their elected representatives, Local Agenda 21 was hidden.

There are numerous first-hand accounts of citizens asking if LA21 was in their home area, and more than one US politician is on the record denying Local Agenda 21 was their local plan. Michael Shaw of Santa Cruz taped his local representative denying it. Seattle City Council members told me during face-to-face interviews there was no such thing in Seattle.

Today Seattle Council members openly advertise they embrace LA21 goals, visions and values. Today every government in the world promotes LA21 sustainable development principles.

For 100 years the very idea of a global government was relegated to conspiracy theory land. What life must have been like for the researchers and investigators who uncovered the plan in it's earliest stages. Some people have been studying and watching it come down since the 40s. Of course, few people took their findings seriously and the whole topic became nothing but a joke.

The emerging world governance system is not communist, although communists played a major role in setting things up. The new global system is called communitarianism. Unlike communism, communitarianism is a balance between individual and collective rights.

Under a communitarian system, individuals get their "rights" from the Community. The new Sustainable Community replaces God and any other higher authority in existence. All nations have to bow before the Community, be it the Global Community, the Regional Community or the actual neighborhood Community. Communitarian Community Law is supreme at every level.

This plan for controlling the global economy included an entirely new bureaucracy that replaces legitimate local governments. Every federal agency in the United States changed their mission statements to promote sustainable development, before anyone in the USA had heard the term. New agencies were established with names like Department of Neighborhoods, Community & Economic Development, Strategic Planning Office, Community Policing Services and Office of Sustainability. Strict new land use regulations were passed. Entire older neighborhoods were torn down and replaced with new sustainable "model" neighborhoods.

Now there are places in the U.S. where property owners cannot cut their own trees for firewood without getting permission first. Property owners can lose their property in all kinds of new ways if they do not adhere to the new regulations. New Smart Grids and Smart Meters (that cost mega bucks to install) are popping up all across broke America. Go Green has swept the world like a flu virus without anyone really questioning what exactly a "green economy" means. Smart businesses promote themselves as "green" because that's where the money is, not because they think they're saving the planet. Anyone deemed "unsustainable" is doomed.

"There is as yet no agreed definition of what constitutes a green economy. Whilst it is recognised that to a great extent a green economy will be tailored to the national context, there are a number of 'strands' that can be identified.' Earth Summit 2012

In the U.S. businesses keep moving to escape LA21 inspired regulations that kill their profits. Jobs keep disappearing. Taxes are diverted into new black hole programs that line the pockets of the sustainable developers, while more and more Americans lose everything they have. Even the Obama Stimulus Package was designed to line the pockets of LA21 sustainable developers. Construction money was for modifying homes to be more "sustainable."

A "green economy" doesn't mean earth friendly living. It has zero to do with saving the environment or anything else, except to the grass roots activists who believe the big lie. Green stands for money, not grass. It means the only people who make money are the people who know the green grant game. The stakeholders who pass these plans at the local level aren't called stakeholders for no reason. They hold the stakes over Americas' heart.

"Though it is notoriously difficult to reach agreed definitions of a green economy, it may be easier to achieve consensus on the principles that should ideally underpin a green economy in any context. This involves more of a focus on desired outcomes that a green economy should be striving to achieve. This may include an agreement that any transition to a green economy should have the principle of equity at its heart. This could also include the recognition of the environment and ecosystems as 'stakeholders' in our economic system." http://www.earthsummit2012.org/index.php/green-economy-landing/237-principles-green-economy

In one year the planners will meet again in the same spot they met when they adopted the LA21 plan. Maybe this time, national citizens around the world will have the opportunity to vote on any Rio+20 resolution adopted by their government representatives. Maybe this time around LA21 will make the nightly news in America. Maybe we'll be told about the communitarian philosophy and law that supports LA21. And, maybe we won't be told anything at all.

Earth Summit
http://www.earthsummit2012.org/

On 14th - 16th May 2012, the UN Conference on Sustainable Development (UNCSD) or 'Rio+20' will take place in Rio de Janeiro. Also referred to as the Rio+20 Earth Summit, due to the initial conference held in Rio in 1992, the objectives of the Summit are: to secure renewed political commitment to sustainable development; to assess progress towards internationally agreed goals on sustainable development and to address new and emerging challenges. The Summit will also focus on two specific themes: a green economy in the context of poverty eradication and sustainable development, and an institutional framework for sustainable development. The full text of Resolution A/RES/64/236, which endorsed the Summit is available here.

Several years ago we added this poll to the ACL website's Agenda 21 page. This may be the only global "vote" ever held over this issue in the entire world. The results show why that is.

Should national law be over-ruled by U.N. Agenda 21? Selection Votes Yes, and I'm from the U.S. 13% 287 No, and I'm from the U.S. 66% 1,465 Yes, and I'm from the U.K. or the E.U. 2% 40 No, and I'm from the U.K. or the E.U. 6% 129 Yes, and I'm from Asia 1% 28 No, and I'm from Asia 1% 17 Yes, and I'm from outside the U.S. 2% 38 No, and I'm from outside the U.S.. 7% 159 I don't know, and I'm from the U.S. 1% 23 I don't know, and I'm from outside the U.S. 1% 21 2,207 votes total

Lord Moncton In Cancun - The Abdication of the West

From Peter Myer's elist:

Excerpt from Lord Moncton In Cancun - The Abdication Of The West From The Viscount Monckton of Brenchley, Cancun, Mexico, Dec 9th, 2010, at Rense.com

Bureaucracy: Hundreds of new interlocking bureaucracies answerable to the world-government Secretariat will vastly extend its power and reach. In an explicit mirroring of the European Union's method of enforcing the will of its unelected Kommissars on the groaning peoples of that benighted continent, the civil servants of nation states will come to see themselves as servants of the greater empire of the Secretariat, carrying out its ukases and diktats whatever the will of the nation states' governments.

Many of the new bureaucracies are disguised as "capacity-building in developing countries". This has nothing to do with growing the economies or industries of poorer nations. It turns out to mean the installation of hundreds of bureaucratic offices answerable to the Secretariat in numerous countries around the world. Who pays? You do, gentle taxpayer.

Babylon, Byzantium, the later Ottoman Empire, the formidable bureaucracy of Nazi Germany, the vast empire of 27,000 paper-shufflers at the European Union: add all of these together and multiply by 100 and you still do not reach the sheer size, cost, power and reach of these new subsidiaries of the Secretariat.
http://www.rense.com/general92/repp.htm

And in the Guardian:

(2) Lord Monckton is asked to leave corporate lunch party in Cancun

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/blog/2010/dec/07/cancun-monckton-crashes-business-lunch

Monckton crashes Cancún business lunch

Lord Christopher Monckton is asked to leave corporate lunch party after airing his sceptical views on climate change

The Caribbean sun was shining, the talk was of carbon prices, profits and enterprise and 400 of the world's most successful green corporate executives were nibbling salmon and prawns in Cancún's glitzy Ritz Carlton hotel. But then the protest began.

This was not peasant farmers or Greenpeace hanging from the roof, but the impeccably dressed British climate sceptic Lord Christopher Monckton. Holding forth in the centre of the World Climate Summit lunch party, he claimed that man-made climate change was not happening and businesses should hesitate before investing in green energy.

A heated debate on climate change between the Guardian's environment editor John Vidal and Lord Christopher Monckton Link to this audio

Most people steered clear, but Monckton had no hesitation in barging in on conversations, reeling off statistics and arguments that, he said, proved not only that the world was not warming but that "certain newspapers" were not reporting the reality.

But it seems that the man who in Copenhagen last year compared young protesters to Hitler Youth because they gatecrashed a meeting of climate sceptics, had not actually been invited to the largest business conference of the summit that featured Lord Stern, Richard Branson and several Mexican billionaires.

After an hour of tolerating Monckton, the patience of the organisers wore thin. "Who is this man?" asked one American green venture capitalist. "These are weird views," said another. A few minutes later he was asked to leave. Surprisingly, considering Cancún is so close to the US, such climate sceptics have been all but absent at the UN meeting. The Committee for a Constructive Tomorrow , a US free-market thinktank that used to take money from oil companies, had a small stand in the non-government group halls, but otherwise it is a sceptic-free zone. Opinions were sharply divided over the reasons for their absence from the public arena. One group of people believe that they have no appetite for a fight and have exhausted themselves; another says that they are holding their guns for better sport later. Both opinions will, of course, be fiercely contested.

Communities and Climate Adaptation in a Post-Katrina World: Are We Prepared?

National sustainable communitarian communities adaptation strategy coming next month!

Communities and Climate Adaptation in a Post-Katrina World: Are We Prepared? By Martin Chavez, Executive Director, ICLEI-Local Governments for Sustainability USA and former Mayor of Albuquerque, New Mexico

http://www.climatecentral.org/breaking/blog/communities_and_climate_adaptation_in_a_post-katrina_world_are_we_prepared/

August 25th,2010

Of all the lessons and reminders that have followed Hurricane Katrina, the need for better natural disaster preparation is the most obvious. Katrina has even redefined what we mean by preparation: not just organizing better emergency response or building taller levees, but developing long-term holistic strategies to increase resilience to a range of threats and natural disasters – many of which may be exacerbated by climate change.

Katrina is a wake-up call for cities, towns, and counties across the country: You may not be within striking distance of a Category 5 hurricane, but you will be impacted by climate change, and you must begin to prepare. Climate adaptation must address the changes that are already being documented by scientists around the country and are predicted to worsen in coming decades: more heat waves in the Midwest, drought in the Southeast, wildfires and water shortages in the Southwest, and rising sea levels on the East Coast, to name a few. (For further details by region, see the 2009 Global Climate Change Impacts in the United States report.)

Climate scientists tell us that in a warming world, disasters will happen both quickly and in slow motion. For example, Miami, just like New Orleans, faces the threat of more powerful hurricanes generated by warmer oceans. But the entire South Florida region must also deal with slowly rising sea levels, which threaten to swallow coastal property, accelerate beach erosion, and contaminate underground aquifers – which supply drinking water to millions – with saltwater. These threats cannot be ignored: Proactive planning is critical, not to mention incredibly cost-effective (another obvious Katrina take-home); today’s choices will shape tomorrow’s vulnerabilities.

Defining Climate Adaptation

Most local governments that are addressing climate change have focused on climate mitigation, or reducing greenhouse gas emissions (GHGs). But even if all emissions could be halted tomorrow, we’d still face rising temperatures in the coming decades due to the GHGs we’ve already emitted. In other words, climate adaptation efforts must become as important as mitigation at all levels of government, but especially local governments, which are on the front lines of responding to any disaster or threat.

Climate adaptation is centered on initiatives that reduce a community’s vulnerability to actual or expected climate change impacts. The initiatives chosen depend on local and regional circumstances. Some communities may focus on building sea walls to protect coastal assets; others may prepare their infrastructure for more severe floods or their community members for droughts and heat waves.

How Can Communities Prepare?

Strong climate adaptation efforts are already taking shape in a handful of leading cities and counties, such as Miami Dade County, Fla., Chicago, Ill., New York, NY, Keene, NH, Homer, Alaska, and others. My organization, ICLEI-Local Governments for Sustainability USA – the leading membership organization of cities and counties committed to climate protection and sustainability – is working to share their lessons learned and to develop a national program called Climate Resilient Communities (CRC) that establishes the best practices for local climate adaptation. The CRC Program will launch in fall 2010, but some of the basic principles of the program are already in place.

Proactive planning can be undertaken with a five-step process:
• Conduct a climate resiliency study
• Set preparedness goals
• Develop a preparedness plan
• Implement a preparedness plan
• Measure progress, evaluate, and repeat the cycle

Most local governments are still navigating the first milestone in this process, working to identify their risks and vulnerabilities. But others, such as Chicago, have already integrated adaptation strategies into their climate action plans. Planners have discovered that mitigation and adaptation are not mutually exclusive: Some of the same measures to lower greenhouse gas emissions also enhance community resiliency. For example, increasing local renewable energy from various sources – solar, wind, geothermal, biogas – reduces the vulnerability from widespread power grid outages. Planting more trees on city streets helps cool buildings, which require less electricity; urban forestry also lessens the urban heat island effect and reduces storm water runoff during major rainstorms.

Leading Adaptation Efforts

Around the country, adaptation progress is happening at the local, regional, state, and federal levels. For example, Miami Dade County is integrating adaptation measures into its forthcoming community sustainability plan. In the San Diego Bay region, coastal cities and the Port of San Diego are developing a sea level rise adaptation strategy. The entire state of California released a draft adaptation strategy in 2009, and in October 2010, the White House Council on Environmental Quality is expected to release an update on progress to create a national adaptation strategy.

These efforts are encouraging, but far more work remains, and countless communities have not even considered the climate impacts they face. As we look back on the tragedy of Katrina and its aftermath, we must use it as an opportunity and a motivator to begin serious dialogues on climate adaptation.

To learn more about the innovations of sustainable cities and counties, read ICLEI USA’s Planet Earth magazine.

About ICLEI-Local Governments for Sustainability USA
With over 600 members nationwide, ICLEI-Local Governments for Sustainability USA is the leading local government association addressing climate protection, clean energy and sustainability. As a non-profit membership organization, ICLEI USA provides the expertise, technical support, training and innovative tools to help local governments achieve their sustainability goals. More information at www.icleiusa.org.

World People's Conference on Climate Change and the Rights of Mother Earth

Bolivian Government Outlines Strategy for International Climate Negotiations
April 21, 2010 in Press, Uncategorized
Robert S. Eshelman. Independent Journalist, Posted: April 20, 2010 09:29 PM

The Bolivian government detailed today a broad plan for future international climate change negotiations and how governments and social movements might work together to push for climate justice internationally.

Bolivian President Evo Morales opened the People’s World Conference on Climate Change this morning, strongly condemning capitalism and calling for a “communitarian socialism” that will provide for the material wants and needs of the world’s populations and promote a more sustainable relationship between humans and the natural world.

More here: http://pwccc.wordpress.com/2010/04/21/bolivian-government-outlines-strategy-for-international-climate-negotiations/

Bolivia is a leading communitarian nation now. Plurinational Communitarian is a new one on me!

The new Political Constitution of the State, approved by referendum on the 25th January by 61.4% of the votes and announced on the 7th February, is clearly of transcendental importance for the refoundation of Bolivia. Essentially, it establishes the creation of “a Unified Social State of Law whose character would be Plurinational Communitarian, free, independent, sovereign, democratic, intercultural, with decentralized autonomous departments, regions, municipalities and indigenous circumscriptions”. The recognition of individual and collective rights, popular participation, the principle of equality, and the end of all types of exclusion and discrimination are all present in the new constitutional text.

http://boliviarising.blogspot.com/2009/05/bolivian-foreign-minister-communitarian.html

UN climate change panel based claims on student dissertation and magazine article

Shouldn't be long now before you all can cite the ACL as your source while you're stopping communitarian regulations from passing in your homes communities. The standards for citations have come a long way under the United Nations. This puts that trilateralist syposium for teaching students about NAU regional integration in Mexico this May-June in a whole new light.

From Peter Myer's elist:

(2) UN climate panel based claims on student dissertation & article in mountaineering magazine

From: ReporterNotebook Date: 31.01.2010 05:20 AM

UN climate change panel based claims on student dissertation and magazine article

January 30, 2010

By Richard Gray | Telegraph.co.uk | 30 Jan 2010

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/environment/climatechange/7111525/UN-climate-change-panel-based-claims-on-student-dissertation-and-magazine-article.html

http://alethonews.wordpress.com/2010/01/30/un-climate-change-panel-based-claims-on-student-dissertation-and-magazine-article/

The United Nations' expert panel on climate change based claims about ice disappearing from the world's mountain tops on a student's dissertation and an article in a mountaineering magazine.

The revelation will cause fresh embarrassment for the The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), which had to issue a humiliating apology earlier this month over inaccurate statements about global warming.

The IPCC's remit is to provide an authoritative assessment of scientific evidence on climate change.

In its most recent report, it stated that observed reductions in mountain ice in the Andes, Alps and Africa was being caused by global warming, citing two papers as the source of the information.

However, it can be revealed that one of the sources quoted was a feature article published in a popular magazine for climbers which was based on anecdotal evidence from mountaineers about the changes they were witnessing on the mountainsides around them.

The other was a dissertation written by a geography student, studying for the equivalent of a master's degree, at the University of Berne in Switzerland that quoted interviews with mountain guides in the Alps.

The revelations, uncovered by The Sunday Telegraph, have raised fresh questions about the quality of the information contained in the report, which was published in 2007.

It comes after officials for the panel were forced earlier this month to retract inaccurate claims in the IPCC's report about the melting of Himalayan glaciers.

Sceptics have seized upon the mistakes to cast doubt over the validity of the IPCC and have called for the panel to be disbanded.

This week scientists from around the world leapt to the defence of the IPCC, insisting that despite the errors, which they describe as minor, the majority of the science presented in the IPCC report is sound and its conclusions are unaffected.

But some researchers have expressed exasperation at the IPCC's use of unsubstantiated claims and sources outside of the scientific literature.

Professor Richard Tol, one of the report's authors who is based at the Economic and Social Research Institute in Dublin, Ireland, said: "These are essentially a collection of anecdotes.

"Why did they do this? It is quite astounding. Although there have probably been no policy decisions made on the basis of this, it is illustrative of how sloppy Working Group Two (the panel of experts within the IPCC responsible for drawing up this section of the report) has been.

"There is no way current climbers and mountain guides can give anecdotal evidence back to the 1900s, so what they claim is complete nonsense."

The IPCC report, which is published every six years, is used by government's worldwide to inform policy decisions that affect billions of people.

The claims about disappearing mountain ice were contained within a table entitled "Selected observed effects due to changes in the cryosphere produced by warming".

It states that reductions in mountain ice have been observed from the loss of ice climbs in the Andes, Alps and in Africa between 1900 and 2000.

The report also states that the section is intended to "assess studies that have been published since the TAR (Third Assessment Report) of observed changes and their effects".

But neither the dissertation or the magazine article cited as sources for this information were ever subject to the rigorous scientific review process that research published in scientific journals must undergo.

The magazine article, which was written by Mark Bowen, a climber and author of two books on climate change, appeared in Climbing magazine in 2002. It quoted anecdotal evidence from climbers of retreating glaciers and the loss of ice from climbs since the 1970s.

Mr Bowen said: "I am surprised that they have cited an article from a climbing magazine, but there is no reason why anecdotal evidence from climbers should be disregarded as they are spending a great deal of time in places that other people rarely go and so notice the changes."

The dissertation paper, written by professional mountain guide and climate change campaigner Dario-Andri Schworer while he was studying for a geography degree, quotes observations from interviews with around 80 mountain guides in the Bernina region of the Swiss Alps.

Experts claim that loss of ice climbs are a poor indicator of a reduction in mountain ice as climbers can knock ice down and damage ice falls with their axes and crampons.

The IPCC has faced growing criticism over the sources it used in its last report after it emerged the panel had used unsubstantiated figures on glacial melting in the Himalayas that were contained within a World Wildlife Fund (WWF) report.

It can be revealed that the IPCC report made use of 16 non-peer reviewed WWF reports.

One claim, which stated that coral reefs near mangrove forests contained up to 25 times more fish numbers than those without mangroves nearby, quoted a feature article on the WWF website.

In fact the data contained within the WWF article originated from a paper published in 2004 in the respected journal Nature.

In another example a WWF paper on forest fires was used to illustrate the impact of reduced rainfall in the Amazon rainforest, but the data was from another Nature paper published in 1999.

When The Sunday Telegraph contacted the lead scientists behind the two papers in Nature, they expressed surprise that their research was not cited directly but said the IPCC had accurately represented their work.

The chair of the IPCC Rajendra Pachauri has faced mounting pressure and calls for his resignation amid the growing controversy over the error on glacier melting and use of unreliable sources of information.

A survey of 400 authors and contributors to the IPCC report showed, however, that the majority still support Mr Pachauri and the panel's vice chairs. They also insisted the overall findings of the report are robust despite the minor errors.

But many expressed concern at the use of non-peer reviewed information in the reports and called for a tightening of the guidelines on how information can be used.

The Met Office, which has seven researchers who contributed to the report including Professor Martin Parry who was co-chair of the working group responsible for the part of the report that contained the glacier errors, said: "The IPCC should continue to ensure that its review process is as robust and transparent as possible, that it draws only from the peer-reviewed literature, and that uncertainties in the science and projections are clearly expressed."

Roger Sedjo, a senior research fellow at the US research organisation Resources for the Future who also contributed to the IPCC's latest report, added: "The IPCC is, unfortunately, a highly political organisation with most of the secretariat bordering on climate advocacy.

"It needs to develop a more balanced and indeed scientifically sceptical behaviour pattern. The organisation tends to select the most negative studies ignoring more positive alternatives."

The IPCC failed to respond to questions about the inclusion of unreliable sources in its report but it has insisted over the past week that despite minor errors, the findings of the report are still robust and consistent with the underlying science.

Is China too big to negotiate? by Rowan Callick

(6) Is China too big to negotiate?

Rowan Callick, Asia-Pacific editor The Australian December 24, 2009 12:00AM

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/opinion/is-china-too-big-to-negotiate/story-e6frg6zo-1225813288687

MANY of Chinese Premier Wen Jiabao's fellow leaders at Copenhagen last weekend were convinced that he was behaving like an impressively deadpan shopper at Beijing's Silk Market.

The classic play for the experienced shopper in China is to bargain down as far as you can, then walk away, shaking your head in sorrow that you cannot afford the seller's exorbitant price.

Then if the stallkeeper remains confident of still being able to chalk up a profitable sale, they will send an acolyte to summon you back for a further round.

But Wen was never going to return once he left the room at the climate change conference, regardless of the loud appeals from Europeans and many developing countries for China to sign up to a different deal.

What Wen took going in to the conference was not an offer or a negotiating position. It was a commitment, which had taken a long time inside Beijing's complex, faction-ridden governing machinery to nut out. ...

Beijing, whose priorities are invariably domestic, does not tolerate ceding ground to multilateral pressure. Germany has finally moved on from the effect of the Versailles peace treaty after World War I, but Beijing has never forgotten that the great powers gathered there handed over the German ports in China to the Japanese rather than returning them to Chinese control.

It's not so hard, really, to work out what Chinese leaders mean in their statements. They mean what they say.

Beijing insists that China's prospect of catching up with its Japanese and South Korean neighbours' living standards is not negotiable, even over global warming. Its Global Times editorialised: "The majority cannot sacrifice their life to build a greener world for the few."

The global financial crisis that laid the Western world low has reinforced Chinese leaders' sense that they are at the centre of international affairs and do not need to play Western negotiating games. Engineers and other technological experts have recently dominated public life in China. Wen himself is a geologist. Bridges are properly built or they collapse. You don't negotiate their feasibility.

Mao Zedong said: "The revolution is not a dinner party, or writing an essay, or painting a picture, or doing embroidery."

Nor is the revolution a multilateral agreement.

What are the game rules for the Western negotiators? MahJongg? Chess? Game Theory?

Reflections on Copenhagen from Peter Myers

Here's one thing the Australians have in common with the US:

(1) China launches world's fastest train - yet counted as a Developing Nation at Copenhagen

Peter Myers, December 28, 2009

Developed nations are counted as Annex 1 nations, in UN documents of the Rio Earth Summit and the Kyoto Protocol. Japan is the only non-Western Annex1 nation listed.

Annex2 nations are those developed nations who have to PAY for the environmental costs of the Developing nations.

This obliges us even though we "Developed" nations are in serious debt to such Developing nations, having moved our manufacturing industries there, as per the UN-sponsored Lima Declaration of 1975.

China's launching of the fastest train in the world, on top of its manned space launches, shows that the UN's division of countries into two categories, Developed and Developing, with China in the latter, is ludicrous.

The Rio Summit & the Kyoto Protocol even bind Western Countries heavily indebted to China, to PAY for China's voluntary efforts under Kyoto (only Annex 1 & 2 countries are BOUND).

Reclassification of countries from Developing to Developed is VOLUNTARY.

This was the chief sticking point at Copenhagen. Western countries tried to get around it by issuing the "Danish text" (Danish draft). China rallied the "Developing" countries against it, accusing the West of trying to void the Kyoto Protocol.

The Rio Earth Summit & Kyoto Protocol say that Developed countries must PAY not only their own environomental costs, but those of Developing countries, as reparation for the Historic Injustice of the last 200 years (associated with Western colonialism).

A counter-argument to that is that there's been a huge Technology Transfer from Western/Developed countries to Developing countries, which cancels any such reparations, if indeed such a claim was valid.

The UN's Lima Declaration of 1975 sets out a program of the dropping of import tariffs, to transfer Industry from the West to the Third World. The document has a Marxist tone.

Now, 34 years later, it's clear that the major benificiaries of that policy have been Confucian countries (China, Singapore, Hong Kong), which have displaced the West as colonizers.. They are now major financial centres, lenders to the West, and colonizers of Africa and other Third World zones.

The Marxists at the UN cannot wrap their minds around such realities, so fixed is their focus on Western Imperialism.

The 1975 Lima Declaration, formally called Declaration and Plan of Action on Industrial Development and Cooperation, was adopted on 27 March 1975 in Lima by the Second General Conference of UNIDO, by 82 votes in favour, 1 against (United States), and 7 abstentions (Belgium, Canada, West Germany, Israel, Italy, Japan, UK.).

Israel's abstention shows that Zionist Jews had split from Marxist Jews by that time.

Reference:
Encyclopedia of the United Nations and International Agreements: vol 2, G to M, By Edmund Jan Osmanczyk, Anthony Mango, 2003/4

http://books.google.com.au/books?id=QqlFx7xHiSUC&pg=PA1325&lpg=PA1325&dq=%22Declaration+and+Plan+of+Action+on+Industrial+Development+and+Cooperation%22+1975+in+Lima+%22Second+General+Conference+of+UNIDO%22&source=bl&ots=vGxMOxYvFp&sig=vclip4ewgFQ3VwdcBnSDBKCfJO8&hl=en&ei=vpA4S-LxEo3Y7AOOkNgo&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=1&ved=0CAcQ6AEwAA

These same Marxists hoped to get the world to sign up to World Government at Copenhagen ... in the fine print.

Subsequent bulletins will make that case.

China was the one country smart enough, organized enough, and strong enough, to see the ruse and destroy it.

The message is that the Marxists will never get their World Government after all. Perhaps they'll reconsider their policies which are transferring the Imperial Succession from West to East.

Peter's forward included the text of the 1975 Lima Declaration, wikipedia information on the Kyoto Protocols and the Rio Accords in 1992. Closest I've ever seen him get to LA21. I can't imagine why Marxists would reconsider their policies when it could easily be that transferance is one of their goals. I personally think China is a big part of the original ruse.

Kind of overkill with the number of reported "leaks" if you think about the global stage actors and the drama they all played out for our benefit. It's almost comical the way it went down.

(9) Danish text divides; China, India, Sudan, Venezuela block "One World" agenda

Copenhagen: The last-ditch drama that saved the deal from collapse

In the end it came down to frantic horse trading between exhausted politicians. After two weeks of high politics and low cunning that pitted world leaders against each other and threw up extraordinary new alliances between states, agreement was finally reached yesterday on an accord to tackle global warming. But the bitterness and recriminations that bedevilled the talks threaten to spread as environmental activists and scientists react to what many see as a deeply flawed deal

John Vidal and Jonathan Watts

Sunday 20 December 2009

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2009/dec/20/copenhagen-climate-global-warming

The Copenhagen accord was gavelled through in the early hours of yesterday morning after a night of extraordinary drama and two weeks of subterfuge. It is a document that will shape the world, the climate and the balance of power for decades to come, but the story of how it came into existence is one of high drama and low politics.

Amid leaks, suspicion, recriminations and exhaustion, the world's leaders abandoned ordinary negotiating protocol to haggle line-for-line with mid-level officials. An emergency meeting of 30 leaders was called after a royal banquet on Thursday evening because of the huge number of disputes still remaining.

China and India were desperate to avoid this last-minute attempt to strong-arm them into a deal. The Indian prime minister Manmohan Singh's plane mysteriously developed a problem that delayed his arrival. Chinese premier Wen Jiabao simply refused to attend, sending his officials instead. In a collapse of protocol, middle-ranking officials from the two countries negotiated line by line on a text with Nicolas Sarkozy of France, Germany's Angela Merkel and US secretary of state Hillary Clinton. Gordon Brown felt the only way to overcome the logjam was for leaders to descend into the detail and take on officials. Yet there was still no agreement by 7am on Friday.

"I thought it was meltdown," said Ed Miliband, Britain's secretary of state for energy and climate change. Brown returned to the fray, cranking out 13 amendments designed to overcome the objections of the developing nations and press home Europe's desire to commit to a 50% reduction in global emissions by 2050 and a determination to make the process legally – not just "politically" – binding on all parties. Both goals were rejected by China and India, which had formed a strong alliance.

During the day, and the flurry of different texts, the leaders battled on, trying to reach an agreement that was not just about saving the Earth from global warming, but would also play an important role in reshaping the global balance of power. Barack Obama, who had flown in on Friday morning on Air Force One, joined the discussions immediately and held two sets of direct talks with Wen, who never once participated in the closed-room group meetings.

Around 8pm, after the second of these bilateral meetings, Obama returned to the negotiating room saying he had secured an agreement from Wen on the key issue of how promises to cut emissions would be verified by the international community. But a new fight then erupted in which China bizarrely insisted that Europe lower its targets for greenhouse gas emissions.

Merkel wanted to set a target for developed nations to cut emissions by 80% by 2050, but in the last gasp, China declared this unacceptable. This astonished many of those present: China was telling rich nations to rein back on their long-term commitment. The assumed reason was that China will have joined their ranks by 2050 and does not want to meet such a target. "Ridiculous," exclaimed Merkel as she was forced to abandon the target.

But it was not to be the final battle in a bruising conflict that left the negotiators drained and the draft diluted. The final text was released shortly before midnight. The final two-and-a-half-page political agreement – the Copenhagen accord – was vaguely worded, short on detail and not legally binding. Although it was hailed as a step forward by Brown and Obama, the weak content and the final huddled process of decision-making – ignoring the majority of the 192 nations present – provoked disappointment and fury.

Part of the frustration was the lack of new ambition. Due to the leaks, hold-ups and suspicion, China barely budged and the EU refused to raise it sights. Before the Copenhagen conference, the EU said it was willing to raise its emissions reduction target from 20% to 30% by 2020 if other countries also lifted theirs. That never happened. European commission president José Manuel Barroso said not one country asked the EU to move up to the higher figure, but counterparts had pulled down EU proposals to set a target for 2050.

"It was extraordinary," he said. "This is important for the record. Other parties do not have the interest and awareness in climate change that we have." Which other party was soon apparent. That night, immediately after the accord was announced and denounced for its weakness, the Observer asked the director general of the Swedish environment protection agency, Lars-Erik Liljelund, who was to blame for blocking a 2050 target for cutting emissions.

"China," he said after a dramatic pause. "China doesn't like numbers."

The drama was not over. Without recognition by the plenary session of all the delegate nations, the agreement was almost worthless. But the anger in the hall meant that approval was far from certain. When the Danish chairman, Lars Løkke Rasmussen, gave delegates just an hour to consider the accord, he was assailed by a storm of criticism.

The Venezuelan representative raised a bloodied hand to grab his attention. "Do I have to bleed to grab your attention," she fumed. "International agreements cannot be imposed by a small exclusive group. You are endorsing a coup d'état against the United Nations."

While the debate raged, China's delegate, Su Wei, was silent as Latin American nations and small island states lined up to attack the accord and the way it had been reached.

"We're offended by the methodology. This has been done in the dark," fumed the Bolivian delegate. "It does not respect two years of work."

Others resorted to histrionics. The document "is a solution based on the same very values, in our opinion, that channelled six million people in Europe into furnaces," said Sudan's Lumumba Stanislaus Di-Aping.

It was too much for Rasmussen, who looked strained and exhausted after a week spent vainly trying to bridge the schisms between the parties. He raised his gavel to close the debate, which would have aborted the Copenhagen accord and condemned the summit to abject failure.

The document was saved at the last second by Miliband, who had rushed back from his hotel room to call for an adjournment. During the recess, a group led by Britain, the US and Australia forced Rasmussen out of the chair and negotiated a last-minute compromise. The accord was neither accepted or rejected, it was merely "noted". This gave it a semblance of recognition, but the weak language reflected the unease that has surrounded its inception. Copenhagen was the leakiest international conference in history. The first leak, on the second day of the conference, came after a mysterious telephone invitation to meet a diplomat in a cubbyhole at the back of one of the delegation offices.

Two sheets of paper were handed over. They were the detailed analysis of the "Danish text", a widely rumoured but never seen document prepared by a few rich countries in secret and almost certainly intended to be sprung on unsuspecting developing countries when there was an impasse at a late stage in the negotiations.

But without the actual text, the document was incomplete and hard to use. The leaker said that other papers would be handed over to the Guardian off the premises the next day, but the call never came. The day was only saved by an another leaker from another country who handed over a copy of the Danish text within 24 hours. The two leaks together exploded into the negotiations, with developing countries convinced of a conspiracy and rich countries furious as their plans were revealed. If adopted, the text would have killed off the Kyoto treaty, which puts legal demands on rich nations, but not developing ones.

As the conference went on, the leaks became more regular, until by the end there was a flood. Three days before the end, a confidential scientific analysis paper emerged from the heart of the UN secretariat, showing that the emission-cut pledges countries had made by that point would lead not to a 2C rise, as countries were aiming for, but a 3C rise that would frazzle half the world. Britain and other rich countries claimed that the figures were wrong, despite other analyses agreeing with them. But developing countries accused the UN of knowingly consigning countries to destruction.

In the last 24 hours, it became negotiation by leak. Secret documents were deliberately left on photocopiers, others were thrust into journalists' hands or put on the web. People were photographing them and handing them around all the time. All eight versions of the final text that world leaders were asked to sign up to were leaked within minutes of being published. The talks repeatedly teetered on the brink of collapse.

As the talks were snared on procedural issues inside the conference hall, civil society was getting angry. As the arrival of the 120 world leaders approached, more and more restrictions were imposed on who was allowed in. The 7,000 colourful and noisy kids, environmentalists, church groups, lobbyists, students, activists and others who had been allowed into the Bella centre every day were first reduced to 1,000 and then to just 90 on the last day.

Mainstream groups such as Friends of the Earth International and Greenpeace were cut down from hundreds of activists to only a few each. Asian and African groups were hit the hardest because entry was in proportion to membership size.

Posters went up – "How can you decide for us without us?" and "Civil society silenced" – and there were demonstrations, but by the end the Bella centre was silenced.

Before the start of the conference, it had been assumed the leaders would only have to settle two or three issues when they arrived at Copenhagen, but by the time they walked in there were still 192 disputed pieces of text in the drafts.

Rather than reopen debate following the frantic final 24 hours of horse trading, the new chair gavelled through the decision in a fraction of a second. Sudan, China and India expressed concerns, but the Copenhagen accord had been born. Though frail and unloved, this document will shape the lives of generations. Though many environmentalists claimed no deal was better than such a weak deal, those most closely involved in the negotiations said it marked progress of a sort.

"It was definitely worth saving," said Miliband. "This is the first time that developed and developing nations have agreed to deal with emissions and the first time the world has agreed on a deal on climate finance."

Money is likely to oil the deal. Only nations that accept the UN document will be entitled to some of the $30bn dollar start-up fund that will be made available over the next three years to tackle deforestation, share technology and deal with the impact of climate change.

UN secretary general Ban Ki-moon said the negotiations that ultimately involved 113 leaders were unprecedented in UN history, but the effort had been worth while.

"Finally we have sealed the deal. Bringing world leaders to the table paid off," said Ban, who had slept only two hours in the previous two days. "It's not what everyone hoped for, but this is a beginning."

The sentiments were echoed by John Hay, spokesman for the United Nations framework convention on climate change: "At the UNFPCCC, there has been quite a bit of drama over the years. But this may top the list."

Outside the conference hall yesterday, more than 100 protesters chanted: "You're destroying our future!" Some carried signs of Obama with the words "climate shame" pasted on his face.

Friends of the Earth said the "secret backroom declaration" failed to take into account the needs of more than a hundred countries". "This toothless declaration, being spun by the US as a historic success, reflects contempt for the multilateral process and we expect more from our Nobel prize-winning president," said the group's spokeswoman, Kate Horner.

Negotiators put on a brave face. In the early hours, as he headed out into the bitterly cold, Brian Cowen, the Irish taoiseach, expressed disappointment at the outcome.

"The substance of the European Union's [offers] was robustly put, but we couldn't get the commitment of others," Cowen said. "We did not achieve everything we wanted, but the reality is that this is as much as can be advanced at this stage."

China seemed more satisfied. "The meeting has had a positive result, everyone should be happy," said Xie Zhenhua, head of the Chinese delegation.

'Contraception cheapest way to combat climate change'

The Optimum Population Trust explains their latest Hegelian reason for eugenics:

"Roger Martin, chairman of the Optimum Population Trust at the LSE, said: "It’s always been obviously that total emissions depend on the number of emitters as well as their individual emissions – the carbon tonnage can’t shoot down as we want, while the population keeps shooting up."

UN data suggests that meeting unmet need for family planning would reduce unintended births by 72 per cent, reducing projected world population in 2050 by half a billion to 8.64 million.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/environment/climatechange/6161742/Contraception-cheapest-way-to-combat-climate-change.html

Here's a globalist's Dog and Pony slidehow of climate change protests and art:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/earthpicturegalleries/6789041/Copenhagen-climate-change-conference-protests-and-art-installations.html

France proposes Global tax on financial transactions to fund Copenhagen measures

The openly communitarian nations aren't holding back in the least about their hopes of using Climate Change to implement their objectives under LA21. The 3rd piece is an editorial, kind of amazing in that it's in a mainstream Australian newspaper and it's warning the public!

"Kouchner told reporters after meeting U.N. Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon that France has been working on the tax idea for a year and hosted a conference in Paris in October with 59 countries as well as financial and economic experts to put together a proposal.

"He conceded there is some opposition, even in liberal countries, but he predicted "all the people of the world will accept this kind of contribution."

""It will be done, believe me, it will be done. I don't know when. But I know that we (have) to rebalance the responsibility and the sufferings in this world," Kouchner said. "If it comes through this conference it will be a big, big, big, big benefit.""

Forwarded from Peter Myers elist

(6) France proposes Global tax on financial transactions to fund Copenhagen measures

http://www.winnipegfreepress.com/greenpage/environment/78729202.html

The Canadian Press - ONLINE EDITION

France wants to help developing countries combat climate change with small tax

By: Edith M. Lederer, THE ASSOCIATED PRESS

7/12/2009 7:04 PM |

France is pushing for a political agreement at the climate conference in Copenhagen to include a tax on financial transactions to help developing countries, Foreign Minister Bernard Kouchner said Monday.

Kouchner said a very small tax - 0.005 per cent on financial transactions - would help developing countries fight poverty, promote education and health, and meet the costs of combatting climate change.

Such a tax on all financial movements would be "impossible to feel," he said, explaining that it produces just 5 cents "on a movement of a thousand dollars, a thousand euros."

Kouchner told reporters after meeting U.N. Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon that France has been working on the tax idea for a year and hosted a conference in Paris in October with 59 countries as well as financial and economic experts to put together a proposal.

He conceded there is some opposition, even in liberal countries, but he predicted "all the people of the world will accept this kind of contribution."

"It will be done, believe me, it will be done. I don't know when. But I know that we (have) to rebalance the responsibility and the sufferings in this world," Kouchner said. "If it comes through this conference it will be a big, big, big, big benefit."

The secretary-general expressed hope that the French proposal "will be discussed in Copenhagen as a way to generate financial support in addition to public fundings to be provided by the governments."

Kouchner said France is also pressing for the creation of a World Environment Organization with a mandate to monitor and verify the commitments made in Copenhagen on reducing carbon emissions.

He said he thinks this idea will be developed before a conference in 2012 to mark the 20th anniversary of the 1992 Earth Summit in Rio de Janeiro.

"Obviously we need results, not only talks, but talks are very important to get results," Kouchner said.

He recalled that just two months ago the world was talking about "the coming disaster in Copenhagen."

Today, the talk is of "the huge success coming soon. Let's hope. We'll see," Kouchner said. "We are now a bit more optimistic of getting a political statement at the end of Copenhagen."

The secretary-general said that with 105 world leaders expected on Dec. 18, there is momentum to reach a strong political agreement in Copenhagen.

"The more ambitious, the stronger agreement we have in Copenhagen, the easier, the quicker the process we will have to a legally binding treaty in 2010, as early as possible," Ban said.

(7) Global financial transactions tax (currency exchange levy) mooted

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2009/dec/07/tobin-tax-climate-change-investment

Now let's tax transactions

A currency exchange levy would work politically and morally for a debt-ridden, post-crisis world

Stephany Griffith-Jones

guardian.co.uk, Monday 7 December 2009 20.30 GMT

A global financial transactions tax may have seemed a utopian dream in the past. This was surprising, given that on a national level many countries have successfully implemented financial transactions taxes. Indeed, one of the most effective to date is the UK stamp duty on transactions of stocks and shares, which has raised significant tax revenue for many decades without reducing significantly the activity of the stock market. Many other countries have implemented similar taxes, either on domestic financial transactions or capital inflows.

Resistance has been greater in the past to an internationally co-ordinated tax on financial transactions, often described as a Tobin tax. However, the mood has changed dramatically since the global financial crisis. Several important players have openly backed it, including the French, German and Brazilian governments; and several parliaments, like Belgium's, have passed legislation to facilitate its implementation. Importantly, Adair Turner, chairman of Britain's Financial Services Authority, the regulator of the City of London – the world's largest foreign exchange market – has openly backed such a tax, as has the FSA chief executive, Hector Sants. Particularly significant is the fact that Gordon Brown clearly supported a global financial transactions tax as a valid option in the lead-up to the recent G20 meeting.

The reasons are clear. First, even a very small tax – say, of 0.005% – on all foreign exchange transactions of the major currencies, would generate a large amount of tax revenue, estimated at over $30bn a year. Governments, especially in developed economies, have vast public deficits and debts as a result of costly bailouts of their financial system and other effects of the crisis. They are therefore keen to raise taxes, especially those that would not be paid by most of their voters. Preliminary studies show that the largest burden of a financial transactions tax would be borne by a very small group of very rich people, who make large investments in institutions such as hedge funds, which trade currencies frequently. For a government like Britain's, which in its pre-budget report will have to grapple with the issue of reducing future public deficits in a way that does not hurt ordinary citizens, a global financial transactions tax is an attractive option.

Second, both the private and the public sector have difficulty in funding sufficient investment, particularly after the financial crisis. However, the need to expand finance for investment in low-carbon technology, especially in developing countries, is increasingly urgent. The planet really cannot wait. Providing such additional finance to developing countries for clean technologies would not only slow down climate change directly, it would also facilitate greatly the deal that should be agreed in Copenhagen between developing and developed countries to include meaningful limits on carbon emissions.

To help fulfil both objectives, an international financial transactions tax could be agreed by the governments whose currencies are most widely traded. Half of the proceeds could be kept by the country whose currency is being taxed, to reduce its budget deficit – thus replacing less desirable increases in other taxes or reductions in essential government spending, such as in health or education. The other half of the proceeds could go to an international fund to finance efficient investment in climate change mitigation in developing countries.

A third reason for a financial transactions tax, especially on foreign exchange transactions, is that it is increasingly easy to implement. The greater centralisation and automisation of the exchanges' and banks' clearing and settlements systems – as well as the greater standardisation that will imply far more derivatives transactions settled on exchanges after the financial crisis – make the collection of such a tax much easier. It also makes avoidance of payment more difficult and less desirable, as the established settlements system would offer safety for such transactions.

This is a win-win proposal, through which many would gain and very few would lose. It would show that governments can design and adopt rational solutions that favour their citizens, now and in the future. If the financial sector supports such a proposal, it will improve significantly its rather battered image, given the harm it is seen to have caused. An international transactions tax could help restore the trust in markets and governments, now undermined by the global crisis. But above all, it is economically and morally the right thing to do: the international financial transactions tax is clearly an idea whose time has come.

(8) Copenhagen plan for Global Taxation & "unelected global authority"

From Leon Andrews <buxtonboy@gmail.com> 7 December 2009 22:25 From: "Peggy" <platypus123@bigpond.com>

Kevin Rudd's $7b UN wrangle

http://www.heraldsun.com.au/opinion/kevin-rudds-7b-un-wrangle/story-e6frfhqf-1225794045942

Andrew Bolt

Herald Sun (Melbourne)

November 04, 2009 12:00AM

NEXT month Kevin Rudd flies to Copenhagen to help seal a United Nations deal to cut the world's emissions - and to make Australia hand over part of its wealth

So keen is the Prime Minister to get this new global-warming treaty signed that he's been appointed a "friend of the chairman" to tie up loose ends.

So here's the question: is Rudd really going to approve a draft treaty that could force Australia to hand over an astonishing $7 billion a year to a new and unelected global authority?

Yes, that's $7 billion, or about $330 from every man, woman and child. Every year. To be passed on to countries such as China and Bangladesh, and the sticky-fingered in-between.

And a second question, perhaps even more important: is Rudd really going to approve a draft treaty which also gives that unelected authority the power to fine us billions of dollars more if it doesn't like our green policies?

It is incredible that these questions have not been debated by either the Rudd Government or the Opposition, whose hapless leader, Malcolm Turnbull, on Monday admitted he did not even have a copy of this treaty.

Australia's wealth and sovereign rights may soon be signed away, so why hasn't the public at least been informed?

In case you think what I'm saying is just too incredible - too far-fetched - to be true, let me quote this draft treaty.

Here is paragraph 33 of annex 1, which has already been discussed at UN meetings involving Australian negotiators in Bangkok and now Barcelona. Brackets indicate phrases which still need final agreement:

"By 2020 the scale of financial flows to support adaptation in developing countries must be [at least USD 67 billion] [in the range of USD 70-140 billion] per year."

Plus, says paragraph 17 of annex III E, developed countries such as Australia should "compensate for damage" to the economies of poorer countries "and also compensate for lost opportunities, resources, lives, land and dignity" allegedly caused by our gases.

And here comes the bill, in paragraph 41 of annex 1 of this extortion note: "[Financial resources of the Convention Adaptation Fund"] [may] [shall] include: (a) [Assessed contributions [of at least 0.7% of the annual GDP of developed country parties] ... "

In fact, deeper in the draft our bill for our "historical climate debt, including adaptation debt" climbs to at "at least [0.5-1 per cent of GDP]".

Wow. Let's do the sums. Australia's GDP is about $1000 billion a year. So this demand for 0.7 per cent of our annual wealth works out to $7 billion a year, to be handed over to a new global agency of the United Nations.

That's your money, folks. Billions to be sent to Third World governments and authoritarian regimes to allegedly deal with a warming that actually halted in 2001. And all funnelled through the UN, which brought us such fast-money wheezes as the Oil-for-Food corruption scandal.

Never have the Third World's demands for the First World's cash been so brazen.

But wait, there's more. Because never has the Left's mad goal of world government been so close, either.

This draft treaty, on which Climate Change Minister Penny Wong has worked, also calls for the creation of a new "board" of global warming bureaucrats appointed by the countries signing the Copenhagen deal.

The powers this board will have over us are astonishing. For a start, it will check our emissions, and could "impose financial penalties, at a minimum of 10 times the market price of carbon, for any emissions in excess".

Work it out: if we exceed our emissions target by, say, as much as Rudd warned two years ago we'd overshoot by 2012, we'd be up for a fine of $1.4 billion even with the very lowest carbon price under Rudd's plan.

Even more outrageously, this new world body could impose "penalties and fines on non-compliance of developed country parties" such as Australia that failed to honour "commitments to ... provide support in the form of financial resources, technology transfer and capacity building".

All this gives a remote and unelected world body a huge and unprecedented say in how we run our own economy and our foreign affairs. For instance, any Australian government that decided to keep gassy coal-fired power stations running to avoid blackouts or to save Australian jobs potentially faces huge fines from foreigners.

Likewise, if it stopped handing over technological breakthroughs to a China or some African leader it no longer trusted, it could be fined again.

But wait, there's still more.

You'd think this draft treaty that Rudd has worked on would at least give us a say over how our billions are spent.

But no. UN bodies are already notoriously hard for any one nation to supervise or restrain.

Even the United States, the biggest donor of all, could not stop the corruption at UNESCO two decades ago, and was forced to walk out in protest. Nor could it stop dictatorships such as Libya and Cuba from later holding key roles in the UN's human rights bodies.

And with this new global warming body, the vote of the paying West will be overruled even more decisively by the spending rest.

Under this draft treaty, the new board's biggest spending arm - the "adaptation fund" - will be managed by a "governing board comprising

three members from the five United Nations regional groups, two members from small island developing nations and two members from the least developed countries".

That formula means the industrialised nations which pay most could hold just one of the nine seats on the body which will then spend their cash. Our cash.

That's the treaty being prepared for the Copenhagen meeting. That's the billions we risk having to hand over. That's the power we risk losing over our own affairs.

Now ask: why hasn't this been the subject of furious debate? Where's the Government? Where's the Opposition?

Well, here's Rudd's one response to this threat, given only this week: "At this stage there's no global agreement as to what long-term financing arrangements should underpin a deal at Copenhagen."

That's a "trust me", with no bottom line. In fact, Rudd is already reaching into his - your - wallet: "Australia, once a global agreement is shaped, would always be prepared to put forward its fair share."But how much? Seven billion dollars a year? Five? Three? Hello?

As for Turnbull ... well, it's tragic.

Badgered by Alan Jones on 2GB on Monday on this very point, he said: "Of course the poorest countries are going to need assistance ... (But) there is no way that anything like this would be accepted without extensive debate."

So where is that debate, Malcolm? Why aren't you screaming from the rooftops for reassurances that our wealth won't be squandered and our powers handed over?

Just this week the European Union said it would pay its share of an

$82 billion cheque to this new body if countries such as ours come on
board, too - so who's applying the brakes?

Not our politicians, for sure.

So if you oppose this surrender of our billions and our freedom, better start saying so now, before it's all too late.

(9) Airlines fear Tax of $4-5 per international airline ticket

http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/d6fdc1f8-e2d0-11de-b028-00144feab49a.html?nclick_check=1

Airlines' concerns grow of global tax support

By Pilita Clark, Aerospace Correspondent

Published: December 7 2009 02:00 | Last updated: December 7 2009 02:00

Some of the world's leading airlines are becoming increasingly concerned the summit will back a global aviation tax to help poorer nations combat climate change.

Although detailed funding decisions are not expected to be finalised at the Copenhagen summit, several aviation tax options have stayed in the official negotiating text. One is for a levy on all air fares except flights to or from poorer nations, and another is "in the order of $4 to $5 per international airline ticket".

"We certainly don't want a levy, although unfortunately there's some risk that that could occur in Copenhagen," Andy Kershaw, British Airways manager of environment policy, told an Institute of Economic Affairs conference in London last week.

Virgin Atlantic is also worried. "We would hope that the politicians would recognise the limitations to any global aviation tax," Steve Ridgway, chief executive, told the Financial Times. "Any carbon tax or levy is a blunt instrument which won't necessarily deliver any climate change benefit."

US airlines, meanwhile, have been lobbying Todd Stern, US special envoy for climate change, urging him to dismiss what the Air Transport Association of America calls "an exorbitant tax to fund climate change adaptation measures in developing countries". This is a reference to the "international air passenger adaptation levy" proposed on behalf of several countries by the Maldives, where leaders fear their Indian Ocean islands will be submerged by rising sea levels unless radical adaptation steps are taken.

Backed by other developing nations, the levy is projected to raise initially up to $10bn annually to help poorer countries cope with climate change.

Finding the money to help developing countries tackle global warming has been a critical part of Copenhagen talks, where delegates from more than 190 nations will try to forge a global deal on greenhouse gas emission targets to replace the 1997 Kyoto protocol, whose first commitment period expires in 2012.

Are Game Theory & climate change communitarian ideologies?

I haven't kept up with this story because I'm sure readers who are interested in it are finding lots of good articles all over the internet. I try not to go too deeply into topics I have no basic understanding of, and there are too many ones in which I am at a 101 level. Here's the lead that made me open the link:

The United Nations is to conduct an investigation into emails leaked from a leading British climate science centre which appeared to show some of the world's leading scientists discussing ways to shield data from public scrutiny and suppress others' work.

And then here's what it revealed at the end:

Republicans in the House of Representatives in the United States grilled government scientists about the leaked emails during a hearing on Wednesday in Washington, but the scientists countered that the emails did not change the fact that the they believe the earth is warming.

"The emails do nothing to undermine the very strong scientific consensus ... that tells us the earth is warming, that warming is largely a result of human activity," said Jane Lubchenco, head of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration.

She said the emails do not address data from her agency or Nasa, the US space agency, which both keep independent climate records that show dramatic global warming. http://english.aljazeera.net/news/europe/2009/12/2009124121257874111.html

I can still remember when I first heard that term "consensus" in reference to a US government policy I was opposed to, and how after looking it up how outraged I was to hear my government use that term to describe how they pass new laws. By the time I started my research this way of agreeing was already firmly entrenched in the entire process, from neighborhood visionings to community mapping. It still irritates me to see it used as if I have to kowtow to people who use it. It's like the words "Go Green" and how irritating that is to so many of us already.

I got a RL lesson in Game Theory today and it was fascinating. I guess I basically did understand it all along but not the scientific terms used to describe it. It's a way of pulling in tiny bits of data and testing the probablility of your theory with the additional data... hopefully unnoticeable to the untrained eye, and using the new results to either make your theory have a higher probability of success projection, or tempering it with something less adequate but also less noticeable. It's the SARA model used by the Community Police in Seattle during the 80s and 90s. It's also Crime Mapping, COMPASS and Potential for Crime analysis. Every program that was tested in Seattle when I lived there was Game Theory. What a revealing piece for me.

Every move I made in Seattle potentially went into the database. I never got to review it so I never knew what was in it beyond what I was first told. I've had a pilot test file since it was started by Community Police Officer Michale Crooks during her assignment to the NATS R&B Committee. The data was turned over to COMPASS in June 2000 by Veronica Jackson, Dept of Neighborhoods NATS Director. (Her boss at the time was Jim Diers, a neighborhood activist who plays a role in the Obama rise. Several of the Seattle "Gamers" are in Obama's administration now.) The NATS' data was used to show DOJ how well Seattle performed in datagathering. The COPS official who designed the database and was chosen Seattle's new Police Chief after the WTO "fiasco", is now Obama's Drug Czar. Gil Kerlikowske is a key to understanding the forces already in place that will be used to determine American's futures. Communitarianism is NOT just a theory, many programs have been tested and expanded that are entirely communitarian in makeup. Community Policing is a GLOBAL branch of the UN police that reaches into every neighborhood in the world. It's the quiet way of rebuilding a safe and sustainable world, and the US military trains locals to set up these programs in occupied territories as well as civilan territory. The communitarians see no difference between a war zone and a civilian zone, the entire world is a war zone as far as they're concerned. Anyone who thinks they live beyond the reach of the global police is kidding themselves.

My mom called me yesterday and explained why she has to believe in Obama, she needs to have hope. She wants to believe the world will be good for her grandchildren. What could I say? Well I did at first say "you believe people who lie every time their lips move?" but then I let it go. I had to. I can't be the one telling my 75 year old mother that Obama is Etzioni's puppy. In fact, after this week of being under attack from people I trusted, I don't know if I want to continue to tell anybody anything. But my neighbor said I'm too social and he can't see me giving this up. :)

Every now and then I wonder what's in my R&B file after all these years... whether it's been purged as irrelevant or passed on to other agencies to determine my future potential as an asset or to flag and identify me as a potential problem. Last time I flew I wasn't flagged. I was told I don't show up in the Pentagon's database of potential troublemakers, which was a relief until I learned Etzioni is not in their database either, and he's a self admitted former terrorist who holds dual citizenship. In theose first few months of coming face to face with Local Agenda 21 planning, I wrote hundreds of letters, long rants and angry laments over their trampling over our rights as if they didn't exist at all anymore. It might be pretty funny to go back and read some of them again and just see if I can find out what information they kept, if any. I have unfinished business with the City of Seattle, and I was hoping to finish up a few things when I go outside next spring.

Etzioni's IDEAS used by Climategate "scientists"!

1000 thanks to our giving friends in the UK who took the time to read these docs!

Unearthed Files Include 'Rules' for Mass Mind Control Campaign http://www.informationliberation.com/?id=28101
Jurriaan Maessen

On page 19 of the Powerpoint Presentatation
Collaboration: The Case for Strategic Pragmatism:

"Etzioni distnguishes between Coercive, Calculative and Normative Compliance. Coercive or physical power is related to total institutions, such as prisons or armies. Calculative compliance is related to 'rational' institutions, such as companies. normative compliance is related to institutions or organizations based in shared values, such as clubs and professional societies."

Our ACL homepage poll shows an overwhelming 91% of the respondents DO NOT want to overturn the US Constitution in favor of Communitarian Values. Etzioni's "shared values" are actually only shared in professional societies that promote global governance.

Here's clarification of where the above referenced paper came from:

Re: Climate Scandal - Futerra - Tavistock - Etzioni

Ok, guys. I should clarify that the Powerpoint document was NOT part of the hacked emails hacked from CRU. I obtained that from the British Library Archives after noticing the Tavistock signature within Futerra's methodology. The presentation hints at collaborative strategies...


Tavistock are everywhere:

http://www.facebook.com/l/9ef9f;www.theplace2be.org.uk/default.aspx

http://www.facebook.com/l/9ef9f;www.campaign-for-learning.org.uk/cfl/index.asp

http://www.facebook.com/l/9ef9f;www.ican.org.uk/

http://www.facebook.com/l/9ef9f;www.btbetterworld.com/

http://www.facebook.com/l/9ef9f;www.changeit.org.uk/index.php/what-is-changeit/

http://www.facebook.com/l/9ef9f;www.dcsf.gov.uk/everychildmatters/

And more...


What piqued my interest was noticing the Climategate, Futerra, Tavistock and Etzioni
all cosied togather.


Sorry for the confusion.


More revelations to follow in due course. ;)

Here's where my good friend Bobby Garner went with the hacked emails. Game Theory came up during our Hegelian dialectic research, but as a non scientist I steered way clear of that aspect. Bobby has the science background and works in a technical field, he's been instrumental in my basic understanding of the role science plays in the Communitarian plan for a new "global architecture." He sees the possibility that the emails were leaked as propaganda:

You have heard the news of the release of e-mails from the Climatic Research Unit of the University of East Anglia. The influential CRU claims the world's largest temperature data set, and its work and mathematical models were incorporated into the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) who's reports on Climate Change since 1992 have guided all world government's policy for meeting the dangers of Global Warming.

A few weeks ago, I wrote in "Intellectual Technology and Game Theory In Perspective" (new comments added) in regard to "Reference Framing:

All frames of reference rest upon certain hypotheses, postulates and a priori assertions, assumptions and beliefs. The degree to which those hypotheses, postulates and, assertions are true defines the range of validity for every frame of reference. Each of those hypotheses, postulates and a priori assertions must be preserved if the frame of reference is to be maintained. The point at which they break down is where a particular frame of reference becomes ineffective and invalid. Therefore, by tampering with the hypotheses, postulates and a priori assertions, the reference frame may be shifted in any direction. Public Polling and so called "Scientific Studies" in combination with an effective propaganda machine, are hugely effective in disturbing the underlying hypotheses, postulates and assertions which demand a shift in the points of reference. All of the big issues of the day from feminism to gay rights to climate change and dozens more are all examples of a shifting social frame of reference. Each of them is the product of a winning game strategy devised by the global strategists.

Global Warming is an application of Game Theory defining a reference frame based on specific hypotheses, postulates, a priori assertions, assumptions and beliefs. Their basis in truth "defines the range of validity" for the "game" known as Global Warming.

Speaking of the validity, the hypotheses, postulates, a priori assertions, assumptions and beliefs supporting Global Warming have suddenly come under intense scrutiny. There are two possible scenarios regarding the public disclosure of some 3,600 e-mail messages from the archives of the Climatic Research Unit of the University of East Anglia in England.

1. The e-mails were stolen by a hacker and published for the purpose of undermining the hypotheses, postulates, a priori assertions, assumptions and beliefs which support the Global Warming Game just as the "effective propaganda machine" claims.

or...

2. The e-mails were leaked to an "effective propaganda machine" by the game player's themselves for the purpose of shifting the "frame of reference" to induce a new public opinion of the game called Global Warming.

You will recognize the first of course as the official story published by the "effective propaganda machine" (the Internet), but that's precisely why we should question it and consider the possibility or probability that the second one may be the real reason.

So why would the game players wish to induce a major shift the public's perspective view of Global Warming?

Among the possible reasons are...:

1. Global Warming has not achieved the expected result, or has fail to achieve it within the needed time frame. Time is of the essence and it's getting short according to some World Servers of the Plan focused on the Venus Transit and 2012.
2. Another reason could be related to the sluggish return of sunspot cycle 24 and the predictions of a very weak cycle.
3. Another possibility could relate to the banking crisis and a collapsing global economy.
4. Or it could be all of the above.
   

There are plenty of reasons why Global Warming is no longer justifiable by the game players. It is very probable that Gore's green alliance with venture capital" came as it did in November of 2007 at the very bottom of the last sunspot cycle in order to realize the maximum benefit of the usual warming trend associated with increased sunspot activity as we entered the next cycle. At that time the projected peak of sunspot cycle 24 would fall in mid 2013. That projection has now necessarily been delayed by at least two years: " The sun is in the pits of a century-class solar minimum, and sunspots have been puzzlingly scarce for more than two years.". Adding to that disappointment, is the revised predictions for one of the weakest cycles in memory. With all of that development, we can add the effects of the lingering banking and financial crisis which most certainly poses a serious threat to the budding Green Economy which once held the promise of obscene profits for Gore's Green alliance of venture capitalists. In a Huffington Post article posted by Al Gore on July 17, 2008, he wrote:

"I don't remember a time in our country when so many things seemed to be going so wrong simultaneously. Our economy is in terrible shape and getting worse, gasoline prices are increasing dramatically, and so are electricity rates. Jobs are being outsourced. Home mortgages are in trouble. Banks, automobile companies and other institutions we depend upon are under growing pressure. Distinguished senior business leaders are telling us that this is just the beginning unless we find the courage to make some major changes quickly....
- Al Gore's Progress Report On the Antithesis To the Communitarian Synthesis

In addition to all of those problems, some of the released messages indicate possibly insurmountable problems with the data manipulation/modeling software programs in use by the Climatic Research Unit at the University of East Anglia. See Congress May Probe Leaked Global Warming E-Mails. Scroll down to the message by Harry Harris.

It's been a long time since we've seen such a well coordinated effort to ditch a failed policy, but I believe the evidence supports that conclusion. I have always believed that the NWO would come on the heels of a rapid succession of catastrophic events which would allow no other options. Events which could be manipulated to focus on the precise time when The Plan is finally realized. Several people whom I consider credible due to their positions in the movement, sincerely believe that the opportune time for the transition will be like a window which will be open for a period of time before it closes, not to open again for thousands of years. According to many of those sources, we are presently within that window of opportunity.

Many believe that the title of the defining document, UN/Local Agenda 21 implies the year 2021 as the latest possible date to have realized the Brave New World. If September 11, 2001 marked the opening of the window (as I believe it does), and 2021 marks the close, then we are approaching the very center where the odds of success are at their maximum. I have documented this window of opportunity on my Gateway To America's Destiny page.

I have updated a page containing some older information on A Major Deception on Global Warming.

Bobby Garner
http://www.congregator.net
Use it if you can.