Gobal Warming's Globalist Backers

The other shoe has dropped concerning global warming. Fasten your seat
belts: an "international authortity" to act as enforcer has been demanded.
Concurrent with the release of the International Panel on Climate Control's
"report" (actually a twenty-page "summary for policy makers" with the report
itself to be released eventually, maybe in April, maybe in May), we have a
demand for an international authority to be set up to police compliance,
voiced by none other than Jacques Chirac and seconded by no less than 45
countries. As yet no goals or specific regulations have been designated. But
rest assured that "experts" will be consulted to spare us from the menace of
carbon dioxide.

International authorities of this type, with full police powers and
answerable to no one, are a venerable daydream of the UN bureaucracy and,
not coincidentally, of the left at large. Kofi Annan's calls for taxation
power and an independent army for the UN are other examples. Another, more
subtle episode involved the UN's late-90s attempt to emplace international
media rules derived from the censorship practices of third-world
dictatorships. More recently we have heard rumblings concerning
international gun control. What all these have had in common was their
transparent goal of enabling the UN to horn in on the policies of
independent states, and the fact that they went absolutely nowhere.

This style of internationalism - establishing a "global government" to act
as a schoolmarm for recalcitrant nation-states -- has long been an ideal of
the left, derived in large part from the supposed solidarity of the
international proletariat [todays Neo-Communists], whose "class interests"
were held to pull them together more than national and cultural differences
pushed them apart. It's one of those left-wing
[Neo-Liberal,"Progressive",Socialist,Neo-Commie] ideas that fail to stand
the test of reality. At the outbreak of WW I, every last European socialist
party voted to support its country's war effort, something that nearly drove
Lenin - then in exile in neutral Switzerland - out of his mind. The same
division endured, despite decades of efforts by assorted Cominterns and
Cominforms. But a form of internationalism survives as a kind of nucleus for
a new, transnational revolutionary class. [Neo-Communism]

At the dawn of the 50s, with all things Soviet beginning to look more than a
little shabby, left-wingers transferred their allegiance to the UN, which
(they hoped) would form the basis of a truly humane and progressive global
government. This attitude was personified by Gary Davis, a misfit who
carried out a sit-in at the UN's Turtle Bay construction site, demanding to
be given a passport as a "world citizen". Despite every conceivable
discouragement, this idea remains fixed in many minds as something of an
ultimate goal for an enlightened international system.

It's also proven a recurring nightmare to the more unrestrained American
paleocons, who repeatedly found evidence of UN encroachment in places where,
to put it kindly, little was discernable to calmer eyes. The last panic
afflicting this group was the entertaining "black helicopter" scare of the
mid-90s, in which talk radio and the infant Internet blazed with tales of
hordes of UN troops about to descend on the United States to enforce some
sort of undescribed but horrible UN despotism. (If the standard run of UN
blue helmet is any indication, they'd have probably have needed help getting
off the choppers.) You'd almost think that these proposals were deliberately
put forward to send the troglodytes raging.

But in fact, they're serious, though not in the sense offered. If UN efforts
had anything to actually do with global warming, they would not consistently
overlook China and India. Attempting to address a problem as vast as
climatic change without accounting for the world's two most populous
countries - both engaged in breakneck efforts at industrial modernization -
is well beyond simply asinine. Particularly since China stands in a class by
itself as far as pollution goes, messing up rivers, ecosystems, and entire
orbital zones with equal abandon. There are, to choose only one example,
evidently several hundred abandoned, blazing coal mines in the Chinese
interior that have been left to burn themselves out. What effect this has to
the carbon dioxide balance can only be imagined, since nobody has dared
question the Chinese about it.

As far as climate change goes, what this translates into is (as Dr. Robert
Giegengack puts it) that the battle is over. Every last SUV on every
American highway wouldn't account for a drop in the bucket representing
Chinese and Indian plans. So in the unlikely event that global warming is
the case, we will simply have to learn to live with it, as the Vikings and
everybody else did at the end of the last millennium

But of course, that's not the point. Apart from providing Chirac with
something to step up to after leaving the helm of le Republique Grande, the
aim of all these schemes, from Annan's tax plans to the Kyoto Treaty to the
climate change authority, is simply to bridle the United States. If not to
bring it under complete UN suzerainty, then to exercise some form of
bureaucratic restraint over what the UN hierarchy has long viewed as an
out-of-control colossus. The UN effectively controls many derelict
third-world states (and even the occasional European example, such as
Kosovo). Why not the U.S.?

The simple answer - and one we don't need to look past - is that the day the
UN seriously attempts any such thing is the day it gets evicted. Nothing
pulls together the irreconcilable elements of the American polity more
completely than a threat to U.S. sovereignty. The 1997 vote on the Kyoto
Treaty, 95-0, makes that clear. Many of those who voted against the protocol
(including Kerry, Boxer, and Schumer) share global warming fears and even
the internationalist impulse. But not to the extent of placing themselves
under UN oversight. The transnational dream comes in many varied and
dissimilar forms, depending on who's doing the dreaming.

So we can probably leave any sort of global warming authority out of our
future calculations. Excepting one possible case: we've previously pointed
out here that environmentalism displays all the aspects of a
pseudo-religion. And religions - as we've seen in recent years with the
Jihadis - represent the sole existing example of a working transnational
structure. A militant global environmentalist creed might very well be
capable of pushing such a program through. It wouldn't necessarily establish
a warming authority as much as it would become one, in and of itself. A very
spooky possibility, if only because there are plenty of people in the U.S.
who would welcome such a thing. So it might be worth keeping one eye on the
situation. But no more than that. For a religion to spread in such a manner
it would require a messiah. And the Greens, despite Al Gore's best efforts,
don't have one of those yet.

http://www.americanthinker.com/2007/...ist_backe.html

....and Mao Tse Dung is dead.

Carbon Dioxide Emissions from the Consumption and Flaring of Fossil Fuels
(Million Metric Tons of Carbon Dioxide) - 2004

China's emission of 4,788 Million Metric Tons of CO2 produces a GNP of
$2,264 Billion
U.S.A.'s emission of 5,912 Million Metric Tons of CO2 produces a GNP of
$12,970 Billion

U.S.A. produces 4.64 times more GNP per metric ton of CO2 produced than
China.

Who should cut back Greenhouse gases?
A Democratic country which is a relatively efficient user of fossil fuel?
Or an inefficient Communist country which will soon exceed the CO2
emissions
of any country?
__________________________________________________ ____

China is one of the world's biggest emitters of carbon dioxide, the
principal greenhouse gas blamed for global warming, which is released into
the atmosphere through the burning of coal, oil and other fossil fuels.

About 70 percent of China's energy comes from burning coal [ the most
CO2-intensive fuel ], and there are plans to dramatically increase
production as the energy demands of the nation's fast-modernising
population
of 1.3 billion people continue to soar.

China built 117 government-approved coal-fired power plants in 2005 -- a
rate of roughly one every three days, according to official figures.

However, China's government reiterated Tuesday its position that the
responsibility for climate change rested with developed countries.

"You need to point out that climate changes are the result of the
long-term
emissions of the developed countries," foreign ministry spokeswoman Jiang
Yu
said.

http://www.breitbart.com/news/2007/0....809bfjtz.html

[Communist China] is expected to surpass the US as the world's largest
emitter of greenhouse gases in the next decade.

"The Chinese government is taking climate change extremely seriously," he
said. "President Hu Jintao has said that climate change is not just an
environmental issue but also a development issue."

But he warned that for China, as a rapidly developing nation, to
completely
transform its energy structure and use clean energy "would need a lot of
money". [ China has the largest foreign reserves in the world exceeding
USD1
trillion. ]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/asia-pacific/6334749.stm

The International Energy Agency (IEA), which advises industrialised
countries, predicted that global carbon dioxide emissions would increase
by
55 per cent between now and 2030, unless "urgent" action was taken by
governments and consumers.

China will account for 39 per cent of the increase in carbon dioxide, as
its
emissions more than double in the period to 2030. This is largely because
it
is reliant on getting its electrical power from "dirty" coal-fired power
stations, rather than relatively clean gas-fuelled plants. It will
overtake
the US as the world's biggest emitter before 2010, the IEA said, a decade
earlier than other forecasts have suggested.

China's dominant role in rising greenhouse gas emissions is one of the
trickiest issues for global environmental policy. As a developing country,
China is exempt from the provisions of the Kyoto protocol that oblige
countries such as the UK to reduce their emissions. This is one major
reason
cited by the US for not ratifying the Kyoto treaty and remaining outside
global policy efforts to reduce the level of greenhouse gases entering the
atmosphere.

The IEA said that developing countries would account for three-quarters of
the increase in global carbon dioxide emissions between now and 2030,
passing the OECD group of 26 industrialised countries by around 2012. The
overall share of developing countries in world emissions is predicted to
rise from 39 per cent at present to 52 per cent by 2030, with other Asian
countries, notably India, also contributing heavily to the increase.

The IEA said: "This increase [from developing countries] is faster than
that
of their share in energy demand, because their incremental energy use is
more carbon-intensive than that of the OECD and transitional economies. In
general, they use more coal and less gas."

http://news.independent.co.uk/world/...cle1962439.ece
__________________________________________________ ___________

Meanwhile, the Communists put weather data under new and heavier
regulations

http://en.epochtimes.com/news/7-2-6/51328.html
__________________________________________________ ___________