The full article from which quotes are taken appears in Andrew Bolt's Herald Sun Column. This is a warning to the Australian people. How much more does it apply to the American People. R.P. BenDedek (www kingscalendar com) Email: rpbendedek@hotmail.com
Will Rudd pay the UN $7 billion? by Andrew Bolt
Wednesday, November 04, 2009
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 ... an astonishing $7 billion a year to a new and unelected global authority? ... 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?
Here is paragraph 33 of annex 1,
"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."
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.
Paragraph 22, objective 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] ... "
... 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]".
Australia's GDP is about $1000 billion a year... 0.7 per cent of our annual wealth works out to $7 billion a year...all funnelled through the UN, which brought us such fast-money wheezes as the Oil-for-Food corruption scandal.
This draft treaty,.. calls for the creation of a new "board" of global warming bureaucrats.. 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...
Likewise, if it [Australia] stopped handing over technological breakthroughs to a China or some African leader it no longer trusted, it could be fined again.
Even the United States, the biggest donor of all, could not stop the corruption at UNESCO two decades ago,.. Nor could it stop dictatorships such as Libya and Cuba from later holding key roles in the UN's human rights bodies.
... 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.
why hasn't this been the subject of furious debate? Where's the Government? Where's the Opposition?
See Also:
Realistic Rational Copenhagen The Australian December 05, 2009
- CONSPIRACY theorists on both sides of the climate change debate could do worse than have a cup of tea, a Bex and a good lie down ahead of next week's Copenhagen summit. That should give them time to realise that the atmospherics around global warming have shifted dramatically.
For the first time in the 17 years since the "Earth summit" in Rio de Janeiro, there is a chance for more questioning of the science of global warming. Scepticism is no longer out of order -- and thanks to the political debates around the world, people have a more sophisticated understanding of the issues.
The second thoughts on climate are coming from both sides.... We have seen the parliament of a Western nation state like Australia vote against a scheme to reduce carbon emissions, while James Hansen, the guru of global warming, has denounced Copenhagen as a farce.
See Also: Global Warming Petition Project
