This
issue has been framed up incorrectly by the media, which not
surprisingly, is apologetic to interests of the corporate, crony, elite
establishment. The issue is not whether or not
there is global warming. There very well may be.
But even if there is, what needs to be demonstrated is the
magnitude of the threat, or how imminent the danger is. Let's
face it, evidence for impending doom has not been forthcoming to date.
Are climate change/global warming proposals reflective of an
underlying belief in global warming, or are they more reflective of an
underlying belief in impending doom? And it's not
what has already happened that is troubling, it's what is likely to
happen, as is the case any time the emotion of fear is evoked.
Is there target softening going on? What new
proposals are in the pipeline? Is there evidence of
an agenda that is different than the ostensible one?
The
fact that the climate change issue has galvanized around the UN is
not an insignificant issue, given the UN's history as a tool for big
corporate interests (see Chomsky on "forced acquiescence" and "the
Washington consensus"). The idea that these big corporations,
which control the UN, suddenly wish to talk about the environment has
zero credibility. On the other hand, the idea that
they have an ulterior motive is much more salient. Even
a quick look into the backgrounds of the movers and shakers behind this
movement reveals an obvious elitist bias.(1) These
sorts should have zero involvement, let alone leading involvement, in
any legitimate effort. Clearly, they have a lot more than just
global warming on their agenda. And profiting from
trading carbon credits is not the only ulterior motive. Nor
is the manifest destiny style of green investing that Al Gore has found an interest
in. There is also a very concerted effort
underway to foster globalization, which in turn entails increasing
global governance, global taxation, and the consolidation of government
power at the global level to the detriment of the sovereignty of
nations. Those who want this are big corporations
who stand to establish still more dominance from liberalizing
international trade. And they would love nothing
more than to legitimize their dominance around a global, central
government authority. So, increasingly, we will see
things dealt with on a supranational level, for the "good of the
whole", or course. This will have the desired
effect, namely the gradual ceding of national sovereignty and
simultaneous consolidation of power around global authorities.
Bottom
line? Simple. First, and most
importantly, conserve. Conservation is great.
But keep conservation efforts local - in our communities - where
they belong. Reduce our carbon footprints in as
many ways possible. Shouldn't we be doing that
anyway? Second, don't waste any of your precious
time with political solutions or any of the big "movements" that
purport to be fighting global warming. Any climate
agenda coming out of the UN should be ignored, as it is owned, lock,
stock and barrel, as are movements like Al Gore's extremely well funded
"Alliance for Climate Protection".
Follow
the money of any significant sociopolitical movement and we invariably
find ourselves back in the same old place: on the lap of big money,
whose secret meetings, tax exempt foundations and think tanks
continually landscape the globe with the "team player" facade (think UN
"peacekeepers") necessary to legitimize their dominance around global
authority. They have done so at the national level
by using "dems vs pubs" hysteria to convince taxpayers to foot the
bill. Pander to the pubs to get those new military bases, pander
to the dems to get those neoliberal "reforms" ... France's
poorly planned carbon tax is an example of an elitist bias masquerading
as sugar and spice and everything nice.(2) Increasingly,
we will see these trends at the global level - the endgame.
Isn't
it interesting how even the most "humanistic" and "progressive" of
"reforms" often end up serving as the underpinnings of servitude and
estrangement? Conservation is good. Conservation
is wonderful. But mark my words, "global warming"
is no movement of, by and for the people.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Maurice
Strong
- served
on the Commission on Global Governance and is "one
of the world’s leading proponents of the United Nations'
involvement in world affairs"
- was
a longtime Foundation Director of the World Economic Forum, a
Senior Advisor to the President of the World Bank and the UN
Secretary General,
-
served as an advisor to the Rockefeller Foundation,
-
wrote the Introduction to the 1991 Trilateral
Commission book (for which David Rockefeller wrote
the Forward section ...) "Beyond
Interdependence".
(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maurice_Strong)
Gro Harlem
Brundtland
-
special envoy on climate change for UN Secretary General
-
"provided the momentum" for the 1992 Earth
Summit/UNCED that was headed by Maurice Strong, who had been a
prominent member of the Brundtland Commission. The
Brundtland Commission also provided momentum for Agenda 21.
-
Bilderberg attendee and member of Club of Madrid
(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gro_Harlem_Brundtland)
"Sarkozy's
Carbon Tax Goes up in Smoke"
"But
the details of the policy spoke otherwise, most notably by fully
exempting oil refineries, power stations, cement works and other
major producers of carbon" ... Instead,
the tax was to be paid by people heating their own homes and driving
their own cars—in other words, anyone too politically
vulnerable or disorganized to get the ear of the Élysée
Palace." (http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704065404574636470061766890.html?mod=googlenews_wsj -
2nd paragraph)