A TIMELINE TO FOLLOW
The building tsunamii demanding US government action to curb greenhouse gas emissions has been building since the early 1990s. The worldwide push for such a program is much older. Beginning as early as 1972 the United Nations began [ushing for a Global Governance commission to help oversee the World's delicate climate, and to work toward a worldwide solution. Interestingly enough, throughout the intervening thirty-plus years, the same names keep appearing as the principles.
In 1972 the United Nations convened the first United Nations Conference on the Human Environment** in Stockhom, Sweden, with 113 nations sending representatives. Canadian Maurice Strong was the Conference Leader.
Of special note, from that conference is this section:
The UNCHE emphasized that defending and improving the environment must become a goal to be pursued by all countries. The Stockholm Declaration and Action Plan defined principles for the preservation and enhancement of the natural environment, and highlighted the need to support people in this process. The Conference indicated that “industrialized” environmental problems, such as habitat degradation, toxicity and acid rain , were not necessarily relevant issues for all countries. In particular, development strategies were not meeting the needs of the poorest countries and communities.
Note that environmental problems are not necessarily relevant for all countries. Only the large industrialized nations were singled out as responsible for pollution. [Note: The United States was in 1972 the largest industrialized nation]
The following year, The United Nations established United Nations Environment Program. Although the UN realized that many of the issues intended to be addressed by the UNEP were already covered under other UN programs, the UN established the UNEP in 1973 with an initial $100 million contribution for the years 1973-77.
Later that same year the General Assembly, realizing that many UN activities were already related to the broad theme of the environment, carefully crafted the United Nations Environment Programme to have a strong co-ordinating, catalysing, and financing function. Thus, each existing UN organization was still to retain responsibility for the environmental aspects of its own programme, while UNEP was to provide a mechanism for coordination and appropriate scientific input.
In 1983 the United Nations set up the World Commission on Environment and Development, which came to be known as the Brundtland Commission, named for its chairman, Norwegian Prime Minister, Gro Harlem Brundtland. The commission completed its study in 1987 and issued a report in which it stated in part;
"Sustainable development is development that meets the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs".
In addition to Brundtland, other commission members included Maurice Strong and Sir Shridath Ramphal. Ramphal is the former Secretary-General of the British Commonwealth, is Co-Chair of the Commission on Global Governance, President of the World Conservation Union (IUCN) and Chair of the International Steering Committee of the Rockefeller Foundation's Leadership in Environmental and Development (LEAD) Programme.
The report suggested that international governments should meet to look at how to best reduce the effects of human activities on the environment for future generations. This led to the first Earth Summit, held in Rio, Brazil in 1992.
In recent years, many Conservatives have tried to make the case the the Modern Environmental Movement has become a home for dispossessed communists. Providing some evidence of that was the Global Forum on Human Survival, hosted by Mikhail Gorbachev in Moscow in 1990. Demonstrating forcefully the new direction that the former Communism was taking, he said, in part:
Our time is indeed a watershed of destiny. Material culture is developing with stunning speed. Nevertheless with so many people still living in poverty, misery, hunger and squalor, we cannot say that ours is a world of plenty. At the same time we are becoming painfully aware of the worst side of technological progress which threatens mankind with self-annihilation. To find the way out we need spiritual values, we need to rethink man's attitude toward nature, towards others and to himself. We need a revolution of the mind. This is the only way towards a new culture and new politic which can meet the challenge of our time.
The chairman of that forum, Frederico mayor, laid out a plan for world education as to the concerns of the environment. He laid out a discussion of television and media attention to the problem, and of education of the children of the world.
Environmental survival, after all, can be a difficult, abstract concept, unless we reach each child with a simple and powerful idea that we humans are part of nature and that we must love our trees and rivers and farm-lands and forests, as we love life itself.
In 1992, the United Nations established the Commission on Global Governance, with Ingvar Carlsson and Sir Shridath Ramphal as co-chairmen. Among the 28 commission members, selected for their influence, was Maurice Strong. That commission issued its report in 1995, in anticipation of the 1998 World Conference on Global Governance. A summary published by Henry Lamb in 1996, entitled Our Global Neighborhood, provides valuable insight into the commission and it's conclusions. I would recommend a thorough reading of the entire Lamb piece. Excerpts from it include:
The Commission on Global Governance has released its recommendations in preparation for a World Conference on Global Governance, scheduled for 1998, at which official world governance treaties are expected to be adopted for implementation by the year 2000. Among those recommendations are specific proposals to expand the authority of the United Nations to provide:-Global taxation;
-A standing UN army;
-An Economic Security Council;
-UN authority over the global commons;
-An end to the veto power of permanent members of the Security Council;
-A new parliamentary body of "civil society" representatives (NGOs);
-A new "Petitions Council";
-A new Court of Criminal Justice; (Accomplished in July, 1998 in Rome)
-Binding verdicts of the International Court of Justice;
-Expanded authority for the Secretary General.
Lamb goes on to explain that the commission has come to believe that the time is now right, and the world population is now ready for a centralized global governance.
The Commission believes that world events, since the creation of the United Nations in 1945, combined with advances in technology, the information revolution, and the now-global awareness of impending environmental catastrophe, create a climate in which the people of the world will recognize the need for, and the benefits of, global governance.
While calling for global governance over formerly sovereign nation states, the commission extends to the environment, rights that, until now, humans have maintained as their own. This 1995 report can be seen borne out today in the concerns for the plight of the Polar Bears.
The report says: "We believe that all humanity could uphold the core values of respect for life, liberty, justice and equity, mutual respect, caring, and integrity." In the fine print, these lofty values lose much of their appeal. Respect for life, for example, is not limited to human life. "Respect for life" actually means equal respect for all life. The Global Biodiversity Assessment (Section 9), prepared under the auspices of the United Nations Environment Programme, describes in great detail the biocentric view that "humans are one strand in nature's web," consistent with the biocentric view that all life has equal intrinsic value. Some segments of humanity may balk at extending to trees, bugs, and grizzly bears the same respect for life that is extended to human beings.
On April 17, 1995, Earth Day, then Vice President Gore, visited Molten Metal Technology Inc. (MMTI), in Fall River, MA. That day he praised the work that MMTI was doing, with new technologies it had created. (Do not go to that link yet -- save it for the surprise coming in the second section of this article)
MMTI was a firm that proclaimed to have invented a process for recycling metals from waste.Gore praised the Molten Metal firm as a pioneer in the kind of innovative technology that can save the environment, and make money for investors at the same time.
Among those investors, and corporate executives of MMTI were Maurice Strong and Peter Knight. Strong, we have already met. Knight was a registered Washington lobbyist, and a former top Senate aide to Al Gore. In addition to MMTI, Knight was a partner in the law firm of Wunder, Knight, Forscey & DeVierno, the president of a Washington D.C.-based investment firm, Sage Venture Partners, and a former deputy chairman of the Democrat National committee.
The Kyoto Protocol to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) were completed in 1997. After the US Senate had voted 95-0, not to accept the Kyoto Protocol unless developing nations were subject to the same provisions as the United States, The Clinton Administration signed the protocol on Nov 12, 1998. That signing, at the United Nations Climate Change Conference in Buenos Aires, signaled, to the UN that the US would abide by that protocol, regardless of what Congress had done.
Because of the widespread resistance within Congress to the provisions of Kyoto, President Clinton declined to send the signed treaty to Congress for ratification.
Negotiations on the Kyoto Protocol to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) were completed December 11, 1997, committing the industrialized nations to specified, legally binding reductions in emissions of six "greenhouse gases." The treaty was opened for signature on March 16, 1998 through March 16, 1999; the United States signed the Protocol on November 12, 1998. This treaty would commit the United States to a target of reducing greenhouse gases by 7% below 1990 levels during a "commitment period" between 2008-2012. Because of the way sinks, which remove these gases from the atmosphere, are counted and because of other provisions discussed in this report, the actual reduction of emissions within the United States required to meet the target is estimated to be lower than 7%. The Administration has indicated that until developing countries also make commitments to participate in greenhouse gas limitations, it will not submit the protocol to the Senate for advice and consent, thereby delaying indefinitely any possibility of ratification.
One of the major stumbling blocks for most Americans, even among those who are most concerned about AGW, is the fact that developing nations are exempt from the emissions standards imposed upon the United States. Emerging economies in China and India account for an ever growing percentage of CO2 emissions, and yet are exept from reductions under Kyoto.
The United States had taken a firm position that "meaningful participation" of developing countries in commitments made in the Protocol is critical both to achieving the goals of the treaty and to its approval by the U.S. Senate. This reflects the requirement articulated in S.Res. 98, passed in mid-1997, that the United States should not become a party to the Kyoto Protocol until developing countries are subject to binding emissions targets.
It is this exemption of the two largest populations of the world that has many sceptics in the United States convinced that the United Nations is not sincere in its AGW rhetoric, but is instead simply looking for a redistribution of US wealth to the rest of the world.
The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change issued its fourth report in 2007, this one concerning the possible existance of Anthropogenic Global Warming (AGW), or climate change brought about by mankind. The IPCC is a scientific intergovernmental body set up by the World Meteorological Organization (WMO) and by the United Nations Environment Program. We have become familary, by this time with the United Nations Environment Progam, and their agenda.
The IPCC was established to provide the decision-makers and others interested in climate change with an objective source of information about climate change. The IPCC does not conduct any research nor does it monitor climate related data or parameters. Its role is to assess on a comprehensive, objective, open and transparent basis the latest scientific, technical and socio-economic literature produced worldwide relevant to the understanding of the risk of human-induced climate change, its observed and projected impacts and options for adaptation and mitigation. IPCC reports should be neutral with respect to policy, although they need to deal objectively with policy relevant scientific, technical and socio economic factors. They should be of high scientific and technical standards, and aim to reflect a range of views, expertise and wide geographical coverage.
It is important to note, that the IPCC did not do any of the research, but compiled a 1400 page report by more than 2500 scientists. The IPCC then drew conclusions from the work of those scientists, and published a 21 page summary. That summary has ignited a firestorm of controversy.
The IPCC surmised from the study that AGW is real, and presents a catastrophic danger to the planet. According to their conclusions, the debate as to the existance of AGW is over, scientists have reached a consensus that it is real, and it is the obligation of the United States to reduce greenhouse emissions.
And yet, that consensus does not exist. Many of the same scientists whose work was credited in the IPCC study, disagee with the conclusions drawn by the IPCC. Yet their own work is used to support those conclusions. According to The International Society for Individual Liberty website:
Skeptics include some of the world's foremost scientists: 85 climate experts who signed the 1995 Leipzig Declaration . . . 4,000 scientists from around the world (including 70 Nobel laureates) who signed the Heidelberg Appeal . . . and the 17,000 American scientists who signed the Oregon Petition denying that human activity was the cause of global warming.
Those who question the validity of the IPCC conclusions are castigated and compared to deniers of the Holocaust. This demonization of anyone who opposes or even questions the existance of AGW borders on the totalitarian in its nature. This UN sponsored IPCC push to force the US into accepting the Kyoto Protocol, and reduce emissions, is entirely based upon questionable and flawed science, many sceptics believe.
The past eight years, the Bush Administration has been resistant to the push for US acceptance of Kyoto. Former Vice President Gore has campaigned tirelessly for the cause of AGW, the UN has continued its push for a Global Governance by the United Nations, and quietly, the subject of Carbon Credits and Cap and Trade have made their way into the American conscience.
Carbon Credits, a system by which a corporation or individual can "buy" the right to carbon emissions. In theory, if a company, or an individual, emits a greater "carbon footprint" than is deemed appropriate, they can purchase carbon emissions from other companies or individuals who are not using their own allotted quota. From Wikipedia:
Carbon credits are a key component of national and international emissions trading schemes that have been implemented to mitigate global warming. They provide a way to reduce greenhouse effect emissions on an industrial scale by capping total annual emissions and letting the market assign a monetary value to any shortfall through trading. Credits can be exchanged between businesses or bought and sold in international markets at the prevailing market price. Credits can be used to finance carbon reduction schemes between trading partners and around the world.
The proposed legislation before congress today is what is known as "Cap and Trade." While the trading of carbon credits has, until this time, been entirely voluntary, the Warner-Lieberman Climate Security Act would make it mandatory for businesses to reduce their greenhouse gas emissions, subject to governmental "caps" or else "trade" with other businesses who have credits with which to trade. Ac]ording to an explanation by the Union of Concerned Scientists:
These systems draw on the power of the marketplace to reduce emissions in a cost-effective and flexible manner. In practice, cap-and-trade systems create a financial incentive for emission reductions by assigning a cost to polluting. First, an environmental regulator establishes a “cap” that limits emissions from a designated group of polluters, such as power plants, to a level lower than their current emissions. The emissions allowed under the new cap are then divided up into individual permits—usually equal to one ton of pollution—that represent the right to emit that amount.
This approach is a so-called free market approach, as businesses able to cut back their emissions are allowed to sell those credits to other companies unable to do so. Detractors point out, however, that cost of those carbon credits will amount to a tax on the businesses buying the credits, increasing the cost of their products to the consumer.
Because the emissions cap restricts the amount of pollution allowed, permits that give a company the right to pollute take on financial value. Companies are free to buy and sell permits in order to continue operating in the most profitable manner available to them. So, those that are able to reduce emissions at a low cost can sell their extra permits to companies facing high costs (which will generally prefer to buy permits rather than make costly reductions themselves).
If the costs are passed on to the public, then the question becomes, "Who profits from Cap and Trade?"
FOLLOW THE MONEY
Those early United Nations Conferences began to immediately attract corporate money. A look into archives of The Ford Foundation Annual Report, for instance, reveals that in 1973 that foundation established an Energy Policy Project, providing millions of dollars toward that project.
In response to the critical need for a broader understanding of the factors contributing to this country's energy problems, the Foundation established an Energy Policy Project in 1972, with a staff of lawyers, economists, engineers, and scientists. The staff, located in Washington, D.C., is assisted by a twenty-one member advisory board composed of public officials, energy industry executives, academic leaders, and representatives of the consumer and environmental movements. A total of $4 million has been committed for research and analysis by the staff and by academic and other research centers commissioned to study a wide range of energy issues. Through these studies the project aims to provide the factual and analytical bases for forming a coherent national energy policy.
In addition to the US projects listed, the foundation provided an unspecified amount of money to the United Nations project.
The Foundation provided support to several nongovernmental organizations working with the United Nations Environment Program, which was established as a result of the UN's Stockholm Conference on the Human Environment in 1972.
Much of that UNEP funding came from so-called UN "donar nations." For those unfamiliar with the term, read: UNITED STATES. In the early years, the United States provided more than one-third of the financing for that program.
Further disruptions in planning and programming have been caused by uncertainties over the precise amount of contributions that could be expected. This was particularly true in the case of contributions from the United States, which was providing one-third of UNEP's budget yet delayed both pledges and payments until the last minute. (NOTE: I love you Ronald Reagan)
The Global Governance Commission received massive funding from both the United Nations, which established the commission, and from private sources.
The Commission consists of 28 individuals, carefully selected because of their prominence, influence, and their ability to effect the implementation of the recommendations. The Commission is not an official body of the United Nations. It was, however, endorsed by the UN Secretary General and funded through two trust funds of the United Nations Development Program (UNDP), nine national governments, and several foundations, including the MacArthur Foundation, the Ford Foundation, and the Carnegie Corporation.
One of the provisions outlined above by the Global Governance Commission was the establishment of a New Economic Security Council (ESC). It would be that council that would be responsible for global taxation and the distribution of those tax revenues. The ESC would be responsible for all communications, and media access, "not linked to commercial interests."
Both the World Trade Organization (WTO) and the International Labor Organization (ILO) would be brought under the authority of the new ESC. The Commission believes: "for economic growth to raise the living standards of the poor and be environmentally sustainable, trade has to be open and based on stable, multilaterally agreed rules." The ESC would be given authority over telecommunications and multimedia. Since the atmosphere and outer space are "global commons" assigned to the Trusteeship Council, businesses that use the air waves and satellites would be subject to the policies of the ESC. The Commission says: " Civil society itself should try to provide a measure of global public service broadcasting not linked to commercial interests. The highest priority should be given to examining how an appropriate system of global governance can be created for overseeing the `global information society' through a common regulatory approach." The Commission calls on the WTO to give poor countries preferential treatment in license allocations and to create rules to counter the influence of "national monopolies."
The US company MMTI, mentioned above, praised by Vice President Gore for its new technology, received its entire funding from Depaartment of Energy grants. And, of course, once it was incorporated, from investors in its stock.
"Second, the company had received more than $25 million in U.S. Department of energy (DOE) research and development grants, but had failed to prove that the technology worked on a commercial scale. The company would go on to receive another $8 million in federal taxpayers' cash, at that point, its only source of revenue.
After the above mentioned Earth Day visit by the Vice President, and the subsequent media attention it generated, the stock price for MMTI soared to $35 per share. The problem for the company was, the process they claimed to be using was never proven to work. In 1996 the Department of Energy declined to put any more taxpayer money into the venture.
"With Al Gore's Earth Day as a Wall Street calling card, Molten Metal's stock value soared to $35 a share, a range it maintained through October 1996. But along the way, DOE scientists had balked at further funding. When, in March 1996, corporate officers concluded that the federal cash cow was about to run dry, they took action: Between that date and October 1996, seven corporate officers--including Maurice Strong--sold off $15.3 million in personal shares in the company, at top market value. On Oct. 20, 1996--a Sunday--the company issued a press release, announcing for the first time, that DOE funding would be vastly scaled back, and reported the bad news on a conference call with stockbrokers.
The subsequent free-fall of the stock eventually resulted in a massive investor-generated class action lawsuit against the corporate executives. The company eventually filed bankruptcy.
Proponents of AGW often make the claim that deniers of the IPCC study are being bought off by "Big Oil." But, an increasing number of scientists, with no ties to the petroleum industry are speaking out. Sen James Inhofe, ranking Republican on the Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works, had this to say on the floor of the US Senate:
While it may appear to the casual observer that scientists promoting climate fears are in the majority, the evidence continues to reveal this is an illusion. Climate skeptics -- the emerging silent majority of scientists -- receive much smaller shares of university research funds, foundation funds and government grants and they are not plugged into the well-heeled environmental special interest lobby.On the other side of the climate debate, you have an comparatively well funded group of scientists and activists who participate in UN conferences, receiving foundation monies and international government support and also receive fawning media treatment.
The number of skeptics at first glance may appear smaller, but the skeptics are increasingly becoming vocal and turning the tables on the Goliath that has become the global warming fear industry.
Key components of the manufactured "consensus" fade under scrutiny. We often hear how the National Academy of Sciences (NAS) and the American Meteorological Society (AMS) issued statements endorsing the so-called "consensus" view that man is driving global warming. But what you don't hear is that both the NAS and AMS never allowed member scientists to directly vote on these climate statements.
Essentially, only two dozen or so members on the governing boards of these institutions produced the "consensus" statements. It appears that the governing boards of these organizations caved in to pressure from those promoting the politically correct view of UN and Gore-inspired science. The Canadian Academy of Sciences reportedly endorsed a "consensus" global warming statement that was never even approved by its governing board.
Rank-and-file scientists are now openly rebelling. James Spann, a certified meteorologist with the AMS, openly defied the organization when he said in January that he does "not know of a single TV meteorologist who buys into the man-made global warming hype." In February a panel of meteorologists expressed unanimous climate skepticism, and one panelist estimated that 95% of his profession rejects global warming fears.
But what about the former Vice President, you might ask. He is so sure that AGW is real that he produced a movie, "An Inconvenient Truth." He has spent the past eight years living what he preaches. As he travels the world in private jets, he pays for that carbon footprint by buying carbon credits. He pays for those carbon credits to a company, the Generation Investment Management LLP.
For those not familar with Generation Investment Management, from their website:
Generation is an independent, private, owner-managed partnership established in 2004 and with offices in London and Washington, D.C.Generation has built a global research platform to integrate sustainability research into fundamental equity analysis. We focus on the economic, environmental, social, and governance risks and opportunities that can materially affect a company's ability to sustain profitability and deliver returns. Our research plays an important role in forming our views on the quality of the business, the quality of management, and valuation.
Our preference for performance-based fees aligns our interests with that of our clients and is typically based on long-term performance.
Our Advisory Board, convened by our Chairman the Hon. Al Gore, helps set our long-term thematic research agenda into global sustainability issues, including climate change, poverty and development, ecosystem services and biodiversity, water scarcity, pandemics, demographics and migration, and urbanization.
Generation's vision is to mainstream sustainability in the capital markets. As part of our advocacy efforts, we are pleased to share highlights of our thematic research [PDF] to date. Our core values include a commitment to responsible citizenship, and we also participate in number of initiatives aimed at strengthening sustainability research. Five percent of the profitability of the firm is allocated to the Generation Foundation, which will support global non-profit sustainability initiatives.
CEO, Chairman and founder, the honorary Albert Gore, Jr, former Vice President of the United States. This is correct. Al Gore buys carbon credits from Al Gore. And the other founders of the firm? Once again we come across the name of Peter Knight.
David Blood, the former CEO of Goldman Sachs Asset Management, is Managing Partner;Mark Ferguson, previously co-Head of Pan-European Research at Goldman Sachs Asset Management and a Global Equities Portfolio Manager, is Chief Investment Officer;
Peter Harris, previously head of International Operations for Goldman Sachs Asset Management, is Chief Operating Officer;
Peter S. Knight, formerly Managing Director Met West Financial, lawyer, Chief of Staff for Senator Al Gore (D-TN) from 1977-1989, and Campaign Manager for President Clinton's successful re-election in 1996, is President of Generation U.S.; and
Colin le Duc, previously Director of Research for SAM Sustainable Asset Management in Zurich and strategy consultant for Arthur D. Little in London, is Head of Research.
But what of the right honorable Maurice Strong? What has become of him? He is still with us, dividing his time between business in the United States and working for the Peoples Republic of China.
Strong is on the board of directors of the Chicago Climate Exchange, Wikipedia-described as "the world's first and North America's only legally binding greenhouse gas emission registry reduction system for emission sources and offset projects in North America and Brazil."---snip---
Strong is the silent partner, a man whose name often draws a blank in the Washington cocktail circuit. Even though a former Secretary General of the 1992 United Nations Conference on Environment and Development (the much hyped Rio Earth Summit) and Under-Secretary General of the United Nations in the days of a beleaguered Kofi Annan, the Canadian born Strong is little known in the Unites States. That's because he spends most of his time in China where he works to make the communist country the world's next superpower.
Ezra Levant writing about Strong in 2002 said this:[//url]
Journalist Elaine Dewar, who interviewed Strong, described why he loved the UN."He could raise his own money from whomever he liked, appoint anyone he wanted, control the agenda," wrote Dewar.
"He told me he had more unfettered power than a cabinet minister in Ottawa. He was right: He didn't have to run for re-election, yet he could profoundly affect lives."
Strong prefers power extracted from democracies, and kept from unenlightened voters. Most power-crazed men would stop at calling for a one world Earth Charter to replace the U.S. Constitution, or the UN Charter.
But in an interview with his own Earth Charter Commission, Strong said "the real goal of the Earth Charter is it will in fact become like the Ten Commandments. It will become a symbol of the aspirations and commitments of people everywhere."
To quote once again [url=http://www.alternet.org/environment/87219/]from Mark Hertsgaard;
The debate over the Climate Security Act shows how the next Congress, and the next President, will address the most urgent issue facing us.
Both presidential candidates, Barack Obama and John McCain have pledged their fealty to the issue of Global Climate change, and vowed that their adminstrations will work to combat it. Before they do, I would suggest that they each do their homework, and make a critical examination into the hypocracy and the motives of those who push for these measures.
for those interested in a more detailed account of Maurice Strong, read INTERNATIONAL MAN OF MYSTERY: WHO IS MAURICE STRONG? by Ronald Bailey
**http://www.eoearth.org/article/United_Nations_Conference_on_the_Human_Environment_(UNCHE),_Stockholm,_Sweden
Guys and Dolls, but please read it through to the end. I believe that this might be the most important post I have ever written.