by Cathie Adams, Eagle Forum International Issues Chairman
The design of a new $100 billion a year Green Climate Fund (GCF) to “enable developing [poor] countries to address climate change” is a facet of last December’s Cancun Agreement of the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC), a treaty signed by President George H.W. Bush and ratified by the U.S. Senate in 1992.
Following the annual 2009 UNFCCC meeting in Copenhagen, the UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon assembled a 20-member High-level Advisory Group on Climate Change Financing to make recommendations to the design team for the GCF. Group members included George Soros, Chairman of the Soros Fund Management, a representative from the World Bank, and Lawrence Summers, the Director of the National Economic Council and Assistant to President Obama for Economic Policy.
The High-level Advisory Group proposals for the GCF would fulfill the Secretary-General’s 2010 call for nations “to fundamentally transform the global economy – based on low-carbon, clean energy resources.” And the U.S. would be the biggest loser in every funding scheme:
- a carbon tax,
- a tax on international aviation and shipping,
- a financial transaction tax, and
- a wire tax for producing electricity.
- They also proposed taking 100% of the fossil fuel subsidies and redirecting them to international climate action.
The first meeting of the GCF design team, called the Transitional Committee (TC), met in Mexico City on April 28 & 29. The 40-member TC’s charge is to prepare “operational specifications for the GCF in time for approval by the next UNFCCC meeting in Durban [South Africa] in December .”
Granting taxing authority to the UN would undermine national sovereignty and effectually transform the UN from “governance” to “government.” The UN’s “governance” already consists of an executive branch of appointed bureaucrats, a legislative branch that convenes when nations meet at a myriad of global meetings, and a judicial branch in the International Criminal Court, which the U.S. Senate has not ratified.
The scheme began in earnest in 1997, in Kyoto, Japan, when nations from around the world met to discuss the “global warming” theory, a thesis that “climate change” is caused when greenhouse gases are emitted when fossil fuels are burned. The meeting’s outcome was the Kyoto Protocol, a treaty that sets legally binding limits on greenhouse gases based upon this scientifically inconclusive theory.
At the outset, the U.S. Senate understood the negative impact it would have on the U.S. economy and unanimously passed a resolution advising President Clinton and VP Gore NOT to sign a treaty that would negatively impact our economy or would be applied to some but not all nations. The Kyoto Protocol failed on both counts. It applies to only 37 rich nations, but not the remaining 155, and would severely damage our economy.
Even so, President Clinton signed the Kyoto Protocol, yet did not send it to the U.S. Senate for ratification. President George W. Bush later unsigned the treaty, but remained a party to the UNFCCC.
Climate facts have not deterred the global agenda. “Climate-gate” and “glacier-gate” have tremendously undermined the manmade “global warming” theory pushed within the UN system by the International Panel on Climate Change and exposed it as more of a political statement, than a scientific conclusion.
Whether a natural disaster, a drought or flood, a record-setting heat or cold, manmade “climate change” is blamed because the poor nations want the GCF to become a major funding source to their economies. Even though China has surpassed the U.S. in greenhouse gas emissions, it is not bound by the treaty. Some even blame the U.S. for China’s emissions because China is a major manufacturer of American products.
Observers must conclude that since “global warming” is an unproven scientific theory, and since the greatest greenhouse gas producer is exempt from legally binding emissions limits, then the primary purpose of the GCF is to redistribute wealth from the rich to the poor countries.
Americans, and particularly the U.S. Congress, need to be aware of this UN taxing scheme before it is submitted for approval to the UNFCCC meeting this December.