Green = Red.
Environmentalism is about cash. We’ll start with Arnold Schwarzenegger’s ridiculous press conference earlier this month that must have left people wondering if the Governator was preparing for his next action movie role. Mimicking the global warming doomsayers via afantasy Armageddon scenario (read: The Day After Tomorrow, 2012, etc.) Schwarzenegger presented his constituents a map of the future in which many notable San Francisco landmarks — such as the airport — were under water.
“Within a century, Treasure Island, this place where we are right now, could be totally under water,” the governor said. “It is technology in the end that will save us.”
- The Governator becomes a warming scaremonger.
Not coincidentally, Schwarzenegger has been praising President Obama’s carbon trading agenda (read: new taxes). The rationale is simple — California has a $21 billion state budget deficit, and understanding the Chicago politics style of the new administration the Republican Schwarzenegger knows he has to suck up to have any chance of overcoming his disastrous left-leaning economic strategy of the past 5 years.
Which brings us to the point: This isn’t about the environment, it’s about money, and big money at that. As many of the ClimateGate e-mails showed, proponents of global warming/climate change are using the environment as a front to tax and redistribute wealth.
The Global Warm-mongers aren’t even trying to keep it a secret anymore, their agenda is brazen.
In clear and open language, written right in the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (i.e., the Copenhagen treaty) were these gems (compilation courtesy of Counting Cats in Zanzibar):
Annex 1, paragraph 33: “By 2020 the scale of financial flows to support adaptation in developing countries must be [at least USD 67 billion] [in the range of USD 70-140 billion] per year.”
Annex 3, E, paragraph 17: “[[Developed [and developing] countries] [Developed and developing country Parties] [All Parties] [shall] [should]:] (a) Compensate for damage to the LDCs’ economy and also compensate for lost opportunities, resources, lives, land and dignity, as many will become environmental refugees; (b) Africa, in the context of environmental justice, should be equitably compensated for environmental, social and economic losses arising from the implementation of response measures.”
Annex 1, C, paragraph 41: “[Financial resources of the Convention Adaptation Fund"] [may] [shall] include: (a) [Assessed contributions [of at least 0.7% of the annual GDP of developed country parties]“
Compensation for “dignity”? Could this be any less about environment and conservation and any more about collectivist, statist, socialist wealth redistribution and societal re-engineering? This isn’t planting trees and being a good steward, it’s extortion.
Worse, the Copenhagen treaty would have American taxpayers ships billions of dollars annually to an unelected board of climate change bureaucrats, who would then redistribute funds to unelected and undemocratic regimes in South America, Africa and Asia. Think a dictator in Africa might use those funds for something other than improving the environment?
People aren’t exaggerating when they say this is an attempt to sow the seeds of world government — just wrap any issue up in the cloth of “global crisis” or other such nonsense and an unelected board of bureaucrats get to decide where you should live, what kind of car you should drive, or how many miles you can drive it. Or what kind of toilet paper you should use (no joke, folks).