Bishop Hill The implications of Hansen's tax
Apr 7, 2012 Climate: Parliament When I was at Tim Flannery's talk in Edinburgh last week, the great man pooh-poohed the idea that the whole global warming scare was a pretext for global government. This was quite surprising given the number of people who have been openly discussing the idea in recent months.
By coincidence, the Guardian carries a preview of the speech James Hansen will give in Edinburgh next week (I will be in attendance). Hansen is going to use the platform to issue a call for a global carbon tax. It seems hard to envisage any way this would be brought about without some form of global government/governance. I imagine this would be something along the lines of the UN - a huge bureaucracy nominally answerable to national governments but in practice entirely unaccountable.
Reader Comments (47)
If the UN turned into a global government of sorts it would make people in the UK wish that we were ruled by the EU!
From the very beginning the whole CAGW affair was a thin scientific covering to a political-religious movement to introduce a pan-national fascist control over all governments of the World. The whole global warming scare is a pretext for global government. The so-called science is cobbled together, inconsistent and in the end designed to be unverifiable to allow it to survive all eventualities.
James Hansen has been at the fore-front of this mission. His role is primarily political not scientific. A global carbon tax is the ultimate weapon to crush individual nationalism and individual freedom by siphoning off wealth from all nations and channeling it directly into social change, pet-projects and the salaries of an enormous international bureaucracy. In this endeavour it has the whole-hearted support of ambitious government, organized crime and fraudsters. .
I think Science should be awarded the Edinburgh Medal for its contributions to James Hansen.
BH:
"This was quite surprising given the number of people who have been openly discussing the idea in recent months."
They are being seditious is all. ;)
Flannery is wrong about many things, but in this instance he is right. And those people who are talking about bringing a world government are not to be taken seriously. They are not the people who have to face the voters at the elections.
An international carbon tax is quite possible and feasible as well without a world government. There has been a huge amount of cooperation at international level since WW2, and much more since the end of the Cold War. A multilateral international agreement mandating national governments to introduce carbon tax can be negotiated in 5 to 10 years.
All that an international carbon tax needs is political will at national and international level. No need for a world government.
nicholas tesdorf :
Hansen has been important since 1988 but long before that there was David Mitrany, who joined the League of Nations Society in 1916, in which Leonard Woolf was a leading light. Mitrany's 'international functionalism', influenced by Woolf, became seminal for the elitists pushing for world government once they realised they would never achieve their goals directly. For one rather important example:
That's from another important article on Mitrany and functionalism by the same author which sadly appears to have disappeared from the internet. I felt this stuff was important background for the global warming scare from the moment it appeared on my own radar in 1988. But that can all be dealt with through doing the science right.
It is not a conspiracy as such. It is just that the two concepts are made for each other.
“The common enemy of humanity is man.
In searching for a new enemy to unite us, we came up
with the idea that pollution, the threat of global warming,
water shortages, famine and the like would fit the bill. All these
dangers are caused by human intervention, and it is only through
changed attitudes and behavior that they can be overcome.
The real enemy then, is humanity itself."
- Club of Rome 1972
Just be a repeat of Copenhagen
Carbon Tax just the same as Carbon restriction
Usual story the The poor countries will ask for a dispensation because they are poor
The rich countrys will say yes but not to the developing Economys because they are ignoring their Carbon targets
The developing economies will accuse the rich countrys of using the Carbon levi as protectionism
because the Rich countries cant compete against their labour costs
So they will treaten to walk out refuse to set a level for this new Carbon tax
On the brink of collapse President Obama will step in looking for another Nobel Peace Prize
Broker a deal thats not legally binding (So why bother with a deal anyway )
Everybody walks away happy and carries on exactly as before
Forget the G20 the world goverment meets in Davos ( think thats in Luxenburg )
Someone there must of said behind closed doors Carbon Climate Change is a big Frankensteins Albertross round our necks is there a way off loading it but still keep the scientices and the Emviromentalists happy
The Enviromentalists have been conned into having Nuclear power and lower Carbon more efficient natural gas
Find out how many times have the words Shale Gas been typed into Google
And the scientice their bugets have been cut and ( other than CERN ) Climate Change is just a small carrot to keep them from dissapearing off to make nuclear bombs for North Korea and Alqida
Its like big Preimership teams buying up the best players and puuting them on the Subs Bench so they dont end up on the field playing for the opposing team
Just as the coomon cold saved the Human race from a Martian invasion
So ignorance self interest boredom apathy hype and plain old corruption will save the Human race from Taxing itself out of excistance
Shx
There's a distinction to be made between global government and global governance. As I suggest in my post, we may well see the latter.
The poor and the lower middle class are least able to cope with adverse effects of Climate Change Policies which are already effecting their quality of life. In order to avoid an economic tipping point & rapidly render relief, I would like to see a 50% reduction in funding emissions to the EPA & NASA GISS in January of 2013 with a commitment of zero funding emissions to the EPA & NASA GISS by 2015.
Lamy (Director-General of the World Trade Organization) Calls for European-Inspired Global Governance
http://www.globalgovernancewatch.org/spotlight_on_sovereignty/lamy-calls-for-europeaninspired-global-governance
Another link from Global Governance Watch on WWF last year:
"However, as long as regional authorities like the European Union and national governments such as the United Kingdom, with its newly established International Climate Fund, continue to adopt climate change policies, organizations like WWE [This should read WWF] will be empowered to outline, and perhaps later help institutionalize, their visions for global environmental governance."
http://www.globalgovernancewatch.org/spotlight_on_sovereignty/wwf-details-proposed-national-climate-change-policies
along the lines of the UN - a huge bureaucracy nominally answerable to national governments but in practice entirely unaccountable
The UN is not a bureaucracy. It is the collective will of nations. It meets and votes but does very little else other than pass resolutions. It is "accountable" in the sense that everyone gets one vote.
There is a whole raft of organisations underneath (UNICEF, UNHCR, etc) which get their mandate from the UN but are organisationally independent. This is what I assume you mean. They are a little bit different. Firstly they are not "a bureaucracy" but a host of small and large bureaucracies. Most of them are quite benign, relating to trade or refugees or such. A few are noxious little busybodies, like UNICEF, but people generally ignore them.
They are accountable, indirectly, because governments can refuse to pay their share. Sometimes they even do hold back the money until the get what they want and their is a lot of diplomatic pushing and shoving to get them to do what countries want. (The US currently owes over a billion dollars as its UN contributions and frequently vetoes actions it does not like.)
A global tax would not release them from that sort of control, since governments could still agree not to collect the tax.
Short of an actual UN government which could collect the tax, and enforce its will militarily, any "global carbon tax" would just replace current UN contributions. That would not be something along the lines of the current UN (which is really just a glorified committee) but a real government, with ministers and permanent departments.
The chance of such a government is not "hard to imagine" as you put it Bishop. It is exactly zero. The Russians and Chinese would veto such a program immediately, even is the US somehow lost all its marbles.
Hansen knows that. He is just playing to the fantasies of the green idiots who think it would be a good idea.
Mooloo, thanks. I agree with quite a lot but I'm not as unconcerned as you appear to be at the end:
I doubt that explains Hansen's motives entirely. He may also himself have bought into 'global governance' as a great idea - with he himself acknowledged as ones of its prophets (or so I'm sure he is told by those busy stroking his ego for their own ends). How global governance turns into global government I'm cannot tell you - did anyone foresee how Hitler would use clause 48 of the rather good Weimar Constitution to establish dictatorship in that country? I would much prefer that we are as far away from such surprises at the global level as possible.
Just Google "New Growth Path for Europe" June 2011 Postdam Jaeger et al, commissioned by the German Dept of Environment.
It's all there.
My main fear is that a world governance will be used with greatly extended powers. We already have UN bodies involved in World Heritage Listing, for example, with sanctions on countries that don't bring out their marbles.
Once this principle is extented to a judicial system, that's the end. Can you imagine a Judge without ego, who would turn down an inevitable place in history to say "No, I will not be one of the original Judges on the bench set up to hear the first global laws"?
Mooloo
Reread what I said. I said it was hard to imagine a global carbon tax without a global government, not that it was hard to imagine a global government per se. The question I'm addressing is "Do these people want a global government/global governance" rather than "will they manage it".
Indeed. I am now in my 5th decade, and yet I have never had an opportunity to vote for or against my country's membership of the Common Market/EEC/EU and all that that entails. And it is from Brussels where more than half the laws governing how I live are now made; the kind of lightbulbs I can buy; what's added to the water I drink, how many stupid windmills I see when I go for a walk (because of local politicians being 'obliged' to meet Kyoto and EU emissions targets). The ease with which the unelected EU mandarins have usurped Europe's long established democracies should be a lesson to anyone who thinks it can't happen on a global scale. As Nigel Farage put it, would you buy a used car off these people?
Assuming the SNP are particularly supportive of this - I cannot imagine him chosing to make the speech in Scotland otherwise - it once again shows that the SNP's commitment to "independence" doesn't mean anything related to being independent (of the EU, World Government, or any other part of the international nomenklatura) merely to wingeing at the English
The permanent survival of the ecofascist movement would absolutely depend on total global control, since otherwise those countries which supported progress would progress and leave the areas they control as economic backwaters. This, quite obviously, is happening.
The modern day Nostradamus, Hansen and two of his predictions:-
1 8 Jan 2009 Barack Obama has only four years to save the world according to Nasa scientist Jim Hansen
2 !988 Global temperatures to rise by 1.5 degrrees by 2012.
On both accounts he was wrong but is it not strange how well rewarded he is?
There seems to be a similarity of thought and conduct in the older years of the painter, Rembrandt.
Samuel van Hoogstraten's 1678 book, whose title translates as 'Introduction to Higher Education on Painting', was intended for art lovers. Its author emphasises that art lovers cannot discern the subtleties and merits of works of art, let alone understand them. He wrote that 'Not that my Introduction (my book) will open the eyes of art lovers such that they themselves will be able to judge art; far from it. But they will be able to understand what it is that one should judge in our work, so that with the help of an experienced painter they will be able to discern the strengths and weaknesses that every work contains."
One does not need to change many words for an IPCC analogy and peer review. From 1678.
(Quote acknowledged from "Rembrandt. A Genius and His Impact. Albert Blankert. National Gallery of Victoria, 1997. 462 pp.)
Lapogus did you vote in the European elections
Do you know who your MEP is
If we have to have a world wide tax we have to vote for the people who are imposing it
Otherwise you are violating National sovenereinty
Go to the Human Right Court in Strasburg
Basic human right
the right to reperesentation
Use their own dogma against them
Sorry, I should have said that I assume that the planet will be here in 2013?
How long will it be before the tragedy that has occurred in Pakistan due to an avalanche is put down to global warming?
EVENT BOOK NOW! : A Greener Shade of Blue? Communicating Climate Change on the Right
The Rt Hon Peter Lilley MP, who was one of the 5 MPs to vote against the Climate Change Bill, will be debating at this important event hosted by the Policy Exchange, Westminster. A chance to get off the blogs and come along and express your climate realist views in person. Book your place now and give support to Rt Hon Peter Lilley MP.
FREE EVENT: 6pm for 6.30pm start on Tuesday 1 May 2012
VENUE: The Ideas Space, Policy Exchange, 10 Storey’s Gate, Westminster, SW1P 3AY
RSVP email: events@policyexchange.org.uk
THE DEBATE:
A Greener Shade of Blue? Communicating Climate Change on the Right
Climate change presents a significant long-term risk to the UK and international environment and economy. However, some on the political right are suspicious of taking action to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. Some are hostile to the climate science. Others worry that action to protect the environment is just a cover for more radical, anti-capitalist political aims. Another strand challenges the economics behind some of the policy measures being taken, and fear they threaten economic growth unnecessarily and may even undermine green aims.
This debate will consider whether there is a genuine problem with climate action on the right of politics and how those who care about the environment might be better able to persuade doubters of the need for policy intervention.
In particular, it will consider:
To what extent are some parts of the right suspicious about climate change?
How does climate change differ from other environmental problems which may be a more comfortable fit with a right of centre philosophy?
How do politicians balance the weight of scientific evidence and political philosophy in deciding positions? Can a localist, market-centred philosophy fit with an acceptance of the need for action on a global problem like climate change?
How can those who care about environmental issues better communicate their concerns? What language should they use?
Is appealing to other concerns like energy security or green growth the best way to build support for climate action or to alienate it?
Speakers:
CHAIR | Guy Newey | Senior Research Fellow, Environment & Energy | Policy Exchange
Rt Hon Peter Lilley MP | Former Secretary of State at The Department of Trade and Industry
Tim Yeo MP | Chair | Energy and Climate Change Select Committee
Damian Carrington | Environment Editor | The Guardian
Dr Adam Corner | School of Psychology, Cardiff University & Climate Outreach Information Network
BOOK NOW!
Email: events@policyexchange.org.uk
@sHx... sorry but...
Tax is only collected with threat of penalties.
Penalties have to be enforced.
Enforcement gives power.
Power collects power.
Power enforces more taxes.
And that is ignoring the distribution.
Who decides? Who arbitrates disputes?
And taxation without representation just brings wars. Always has done.
So either way we lose.
Stacey - good point - and I was amazed to hear John Beddington say on tv that the recent drought was 'probably nothing to do with climate change'... (He went on to say that it was not quite as bad as 1976)
The point is - some bozo in the media obviously put the question to him for him to respond in that way..!
When will the media stop feeding the alarmists..?
If the UN turned into a global government of sorts it would make people in the UK wish that we were ruled by the EU!
Apr 7, 2012 at 9:32 AM | Roy
Short of an actual UN government which could collect the tax, and enforce its will militarily, any "global carbon tax" would just replace current UN contributions. That would not be something along the lines of the current UN (which is really just a glorified committee) but a real government, with ministers and permanent departments.
Apr 7, 2012 at 11:20 AM | Mooloo
Roy -
the governing will be carried out by proxy. The EU member states will do what the EU tells them, and in turn the future will see the EU doing what the UN tells it. It may take decades, like the EU construct, but the objective and plans are there.
Mooloo -
There's none so blind as those who will not see. We already have the EU governing most of Europe. In the Americas the the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) is to be transformed along the line of the EU model. NAFTA already has two 'supplements', one of which is the North American Agreement on Environmental Cooperation (NAAEC). Does that set off any lightbulbs?
Then there is Mercosur in South America. It started as the Argentina-Brazil Integration and Economics Cooperation Programme and now it too has its own Parliament with 18 MPs from each member state and a number of other states preparing to deepen the integration. Guess what? 'Environmental' concerns are at the heart of its activity.
Watch for more developments in the far east. China is already seeing money flooding into that country as big corporates set up divisions there to invest in various tech 'solutions'. Russia, like China, will be delighted to accept more capital in return for accepting the climate change fight as an essential focus.
At the heart of it all is the UN's various agencies and arms length organisations. The only collective will is that of the political class, which does such a bang up job of ignoring the wishes of the people. Welcome to the post-democratic world of which so many people remain in complete ignorance.
cash strapped western governments, whose ponzi economies are heading for the shitter, will welcome this kind of global governance which says they 'must' raise carbon taxes off the people. 'Sorry, its not us, we have to' is a pretty good defence, won't lose any votes if all parties are going to do it. Then of course the trick will be to not hand it over to the global body, on spurious grounds, which should be easy enough to invent. Thus the show remains on the road, for the time being, and shitter-dom is postponed.
Mr Cameron is all in favour of global governance. As I have posted before, he submitted a paper on it to the last G20 meeting, in that instance the paper was called "Governance for Growth". In his foreward he said:
"The answer is not to be found in elaborate new institutions and global architecture.
We have the machinery that we need already. No, what we need above all is the most
precious and intangible commodity – political will."
No doubt the forthcoming Rio meeting on "Sustainable Development" (is this the successor to CAGW, aka global warming, aka climate change?) will also seek concensus and the political will to impose new rules and taxes on us all.
We have been warned and should beware.
They lost me right there; why even pretend it's a debate when you start off by demanding that everyone accept this loaded premise, which is utterly unsupported?
On behalf of my compatriots, I am extremely sorry to impose Flannery on you all. But why did you invite him? He is f**kwit.
The main difference between the terms global government and global governance to my mind, is that those that use the former can be ridiculed more easily as conspiracy therorists, and those that use the latter less so. It's much easier to swallow global governance as international political machinery that enables international cooperation and policy than it is to utter the alternative: the one-world totalitarian government we read about in science fiction novels.
Nevertheless, the net result of a global policy, enforced and policed by any single organisation, is global governement, irrespecive of the fact that those that comprise it come from national governments.
No point in pussy-footing around the etymology here, because if we accept this form of totalism - whether we descibe it as government or governance, we accept the assault on our individualty that has been happening in the name of sustainable development and climate change along with all the erosions of personal and economic freedoms that will naturally transpire.
I for one am not with those that think that global governance and climate change are unrelated or coincidental and not pre-designed reciprocal bedfellows: For me, the radical global decarbonisation planned by the planners for our road to serfdom has already begun in earnest, and that the intention to limit and ration energy generation, distribution and consumption - planet wide - is absolutely connected to the politics, economics and population control only a global government could prescribe... and not just a question of the radiative properties of a molecule that has had honest people scratching their heads in bemused academic debate for the last 20 years...
I say, don't be "seduced" like the modelers, wake up and smell the coffee.
"When I was at Tim Flannery's talk in Edinburgh last week, the great man pooh-poohed the idea that the whole global warming scare was a pretext for global government."
No doubt the poor man believes that EU member states retain their sovereignty.
Autonomous Mind, Nicholas Tesdorf and a few like-minded posters get my vote.
At the risk of repeating myself from a previous comment on World Government/Governance. The Green Agenda ( http://green-agenda.com/index.html ) provides an excellent primer. The following quotes have been lifted from it
"In Nature organic growth proceeds according
to a Master Plan, a Blueprint. Such a ‘master plan’ is
missing from the process of growth and development of
the world system. Now is the time to draw up a master plan for
sustainable growth and world development based on global
allocation of all resources and a new global economic system.
Ten or twenty years form today it will probably be too late."
- Club of Rome,
Mankind at the Turning Point
"The concept of national sovereignty has been immutable,
indeed a sacred principle of international relations.
It is a principle which will yield only slowly and reluctantly to
the new imperatives of global environmental cooperation."
-UN Commission on Global Governance report
"Democracy is not a panacea. It cannot organize everything and
it is unaware of its own limits. These facts must be faced squarely.
Sacrilegious though this may sound, democracy is no longer well
suited for the tasks ahead. The complexity and the technical nature
of many of today’s problems do not always allow elected
representatives to make competent decisions at the right time."
-Club of Rome,
The First Global Revolution
"The emerging 'environmentalization' of our civilization
and the need for vigorous action in the interest of the entire global
community will inevitably have multiple political consequences.
Perhaps the most important of them will be a gradual change
in the status of the United Nations. Inevitably, it must
assume some aspects of a world government."
- Mikhail Gorbachev,
State of the World Forum
"In my view, after fifty years of service in the United Nations system,
I perceive the utmost urgency and absolute necessity for proper
Earth government. There is no shadow of a doubt that the present
political and economic systems are no longer appropriate
and will lead to the end of life evolution on this planet.
We must therefore absolutely and urgently look for new ways."
- Dr Robert Muller,
UN Assistant Secretary General,
"Nations are in effect ceding portions of their sovereignty
to the international community and beginning to create a
new system of international environmental governance
as a means of solving otherwise unmanageable crises."
- Lester Brown,
WorldWatch Institute
"The goal now is a socialist, redistributionist society,
which is nature's proper steward and society's only hope."
-David Brower,
founder of Friends of the Earth
"Isn't the only hope for the planet that the
industrialized civilizations collapse?
Isn't it our responsiblity to bring that about?"
- Maurice Strong,
founder of the UN Environment Programme
"Giving society cheap, abundant energy would be the
equivalent of giving an idiot child a machine gun."
- Prof Paul Ehrlich, Stanford University
Sorry to post again!
Just thought this little gem was all part of the same game. Taken from the Green Schools initiative here in Ireland. Need to brainwash the young and get them on board as soon as possible, I guess:
‘Global Citizenship
This section of the Green-Schools website outlines information on the theme of European & Global Citizenship. This theme is currently in development with funding from the Department of Foreign Affairs under the Communicating Europe Initiative. This theme is, like in the case of the Climate Change theme, very much a cross cutting theme and has implications in all the other themes (e.g. waste, water, energy, travel, biodiversity). Furthermore, since Green-Schools is an international environmental education the theme and spirit of European & Global Citizenship is very much a central ethos to the international programme.’
http://www.greenschoolsireland.org/themes/global-citizenship.199.html
The most important thing to understand is this.
The more bureaucrats control the economy the more there will be pollution. The simple proof is to look at the USSR.
Stacey what my dad used say
If you have 3 pisses in 5 minutes then call the doctor
This stuff is not conspiracy theory, it is real and happening right now. Nick Stern and Chris Huhne were brought onto Ban Ki Moon's High Level Climate Finance Panel, to look at ways of pulling $100billion a year by 2020. With them were George Soros, Christine Lagarde, now IMF after the creative removal of Strauss-Kahn, Ciao Koch Weser, Deutsche Bank, (His wife is a trustee of Pachauri's Teri Europe) and a couple of third world dictators amongst others.
Fully referenced, "High Level Climate Finance"
http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/originals/high_level_climate_finance.html
Socialist International is HQ'd in London as is Globe International, closely linked with the Club of Rome.
They are having a pre-Rio "Legislator's meeting", John Gummer is President, Sam Fankhauser of UK Climate Change Committee is their chief economist and is involved with carbon trading as is Nick Stern and both are at the LSE Granthan Institute, which has WWF-US and Environmental Defense CEO's on the management board. Huhne was present at their Durban meeting.
Oliver Letwin is responsible for Camergreen policy and wrote for UNEP magazine in December calling for "Green Growth" to be locked in at RIO in June. (Geoffrey Lean of the Telegraph is the Editor of UNEP magazine).
United Socialist Nations
http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/originals/un_progress_governance_via_climate_change.html
SI links with Pelosi, Markey, Jonathan Lash, (Earth Institute, Al Gore on the board), Joseph Stiglitz, Carol Browner, former EPA Socialist International and was Obama's Climate Czar on taking office.
Changing The Engine Of The Global Economy – The Next UN Strategy
http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/originals/changing_global_economy_engine.html
The move to leave the dollar and go for an international exchange currency.
http://sppiblog.org/news/a-nest-of-carbon-vipers
Christina Figueres UNFCCC execsec, former senior figure in Nick Stern's carbon trading company, trained by Al Gore to deliver Inconvenient truth. Not speculation, straight from their own websites.
This is all happening, in contrast to global warming, which is the distraction.
Apr 7, 2012 at 10:16 AM | Registered Commenter sHx says:
"Flannery is wrong about many things, but in this instance he is right. And those people who are talking about bringing a world government are not to be taken seriously. They are not the people who have to face the voters at the elections."
http://greensmps.org.au/content/news-stories/bob-brown-delivers-3rd-annual-green-oration
http://joannenova.com.au/2012/04/the-new-world-order-black-brown-and-soviet-red-all-over/#more-21188
Care to reconsider sHx? Senator Bob Brown is the leader of the Australian Greens (around 10% of the total vote) who is clearly very confident to face the electorate with these ideas. He and Labor's Gillard (who as a socialist is presumably attracted by the wealth redistribution aspects of the carbon tax) are in formal political cooperation and the tax's chief architects.
btw David Cameron congratulated Gillard on bringing in the tax. What is the fascination the Conservatives have with being green? We are lucky in Oz to have no "toffs" pandering to political correctness. Here the battle lines are very clearly drawn, as shown by the recent Queensland state election when the Labor government were reduced to seven (7) seats out of 89. Part of the reason for that landslide was the palpable anger at the federal government's policies and Gillard's great personal unpopularity.
From where do people get this idea that global governance is required? For what purpose?
Have people forgotten what Hitler was about?
Have people forgotten what communism was all about?
Do people have no understanding about the Islamists' dream of a world Islamic caliphate, under which everyone will bow to the islamic way?
Do people really not understand how global government would be catastrophic for democracy and all the freedoms and rights we enjoy today?
There is one word for global government. Insanity!
There's none so blind as those who will not see. We already have the EU governing most of Europe.
Don't be silly. You might not like the influence the EU has, but it governs nothing.
The EU, like the UN, is a rule making body. Very few of those rules, even the very stupid ones, have any political effect. Even the ones that transfer money.
NATO starts military action – the sine qua non of a government – and yet no-one bleats about it ruling Europe.
Even the Governor of the Bank of England – unelected, note – has far more power than Brussels.
About three years ago I read an article re the Bilderberg Group that had decided to bring about global government, run by the UN, and that the model for this would be the EU. It would be financed by 'carbon tax'.
I dismissed this as a conspiracy theory.
Gore and Obama got the carbon tax principle established using money from the Joyce Foundation in the US ($4M). It is clear for all to see that AGW is a scam, the EU is totally corrupt but many of the politicians in the US, UK and EU are in favour of all of this - all third world politicos want it.
I now think it is no longer a theory.
Global Great Depression and Population Reduction by 2030: MIT and The Club of Rome Prophecy
http://www.activistpost.com/2012/04/global-great-depression-and-population.html
U.N. Policy Paper Outlines 7 Building Blocks for 'Heavy-Handed' World Government
http://www.activistpost.com/2012/03/un-policy-paper-outlines-7-building.html
Naming Names: Your Real Government
http://www.activistpost.com/2011/03/naming-names-your-real-government.html
Mooloo
You want to believe that, go ahead.
There is a fine line between "influence" and "government". If you make rules that your member governments are obliged to turn into domestic legislation then you are prima facie a government, at least in all but name.
The characteristics of a state can be itemised:
it has its own currency;
it has its own army;
it has its own police force;
it has its own foreign policy;
it regulates (to a greater or less extent) the behaviour of its citizens through legislation.
Which of those the EU does not currently have it is aiming to acquire or create.
If it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck ...
This is exactly what I covered in part two of my Richard Black/Stakeholder Forum investigation.
The push is to get a deal at RIO+20 on "global governance" and back it up with a climate criminal court at UN level.
The machine is on the move, Hansen is cog in it. RIO is the endgame.
Nickolas Tesdorf is right. Again I quote the statement after Copenhagen Climate Summit where Gordon Brown said that the western world owed the third world / developing nations a carbon debt of 100 Billion and that we (the first world nations) should be prepared to have green taxes forced upon us so that "debt " can be "repaid".
In case anyone is still reading this thread:
Bob Brown's "Global Government" voted on at the Global Greens Congress | Dakar 2012
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N0FmFOGnf10&feature=player_embedded
For those who aspire to a new world order and global governance, it is coming. It's called China.
Obama has already bowed to the Chinese leader in public, like an obedient servant, in recognition of this fact... that China has now superseded the US as the country in the driving seat of the global economy.
China is on the up. The West is on the down.
China has 800,000 military personnel and the world's fastest growing defence budget. It has little debt. It is cash rich. Its economy keeps growing at record pace. It has low unemployment. It is dominating the global economy. It has already started dictating economic policy in countries around from the world including the US. The yuan is about to replace the US dollar as the number one currency. The US is now indebted to China like nobody could have ever imagined.
More importantly, China has a quarter of the world's population. In 10 years time, the new world order and dominance by China will be complete. The United Nations will become obsolete. The US will be but a minnow of its past. Democracy will also be a thing of the past. Beijing will dictate to the world. Remember, 10 years... for that is how quickly it is going to happen.
The new world order will, however, put extreme discipline into peoples lives, where only hard work will be tolerated by the Beijing dynasty. The trivial lifestyle of the West will cease. China's global governance will accomplish what Hitler could only dream of... but it will be achieved under a communist regime overseeing a pseudo-capitalist system that benefits Beijing and casts everyone else into financial servitude. Nevertheless, for the first time ever, there will be global stability... no wars... no Islamic terrorism... no risk of a global Islamic caliphate... no mass starvation ... compulsory education in mandarin will be required for everyone around the world.
Most importantly, the Chinese information ministry will take control of the internet and the global media and our world as we know it will be turned upside down.
I say this because I believe I have been to the top of the mountain, and I have seen what the future holds. And it's not going to be much pleasant except those who are Chinese. The transition will commence within the next year or two as the US suffers an inevitable and catastrophic financial armageddon.