- UN personnel cannot be prosecuted even for openly spending our tax dollars on redecorating their summer homes. Or even if they kill us.
"Two years ago, U.N. researchers were claiming that it would cost “as much as $600 billion a year over the next decade” to go green. Now, a new U.N. report has more than tripled that number to $1.9 trillion per year for 40 years....
That works out to a grand total of $76 trillion, over 40 years -- or more than five times the entire Gross Domestic Product of the United States ($14.66 trillion a year). It’s all part of a “technological overhaul” “on the scale of the first industrial revolution” called for in the annual report.
- Except that the U.N. will apparently control this next industrial revolution.
Throw in possible national energy use caps and a massive redistribution of wealth and the survey is trying to remake the entire globe. The report has the imprimatur of the U.N., with the preface signed by U.N. Secretary-General Ban Ki-Moon – all part of the “goal of full decarbonization of the global energy system by 2050.”
- Make no mistake, much of this has nothing to do with climate.
The press release for the report discusses the need “to achieve a decent living standard for people in developing countries,"...
- The slobs could have helped poverty long ago with US taxpayer money we've already given them, but they used it to re-decorate their summer homes. Even after these crimes are discovered, no one is ever punished and US taxpayers are never reimbursed. US acceptance of these crimes is criminal in itself.
(continuing, Fox News): "especially the 1.4 billion still living in extreme poverty, and the additional 2 billion people expected worldwide by 2050.” That sounds more like global redistribution of wealth than worrying about the earth’s thermostat.
- That’s because it is.
The report goes on and says “one half of the required investments would have to be realized in developing countries.” In other words, $38 trillion would go
- to the developing world.
The survey details where that money would go. “Survey estimates that incremental green investment of about 3 percent of world gross product (WGP) (about $1.9 trillion in 2010) would be required to overcome poverty, increase food production to eradicate hunger without degrading land and water resources, and avert the climate change catastrophe.”"...
- Right. Eliminate hunger? Easy. Eliminate the killer ethanol market. ed.
So eradicating hunger and overcoming poverty are now
- part of the climate debate.
It’s also interesting to notice the escalating scale the U.N. is using for its costs. This is a 200 percent increase from the previous Stern Report, which called for 1 percent of global WGP. But that wasn’t enough so Stern revised his claim in 2008, warning there were “many ways of acting to make it more costly” and said 2 percent was needed. Apparently so. Now it’s 3 percent.
It wasn’t that long ago – Nov. 11, 2009 to be exact – when lefty writer Naomi Klein, author of "The Shock Doctrine: The Rise of Disaster Capitalism,” told readers the cost of going green was going to be $600 billion a year.
Eighteen months later, the price of our “one last chance to save the world” has increased $13 trillion – and that’s just over the next decade.
The Klein piece was controversial because she admitted the left was looking for the first world to pay a “climate debt,” what she described as “the idea that rich countries should pay reparations to poor countries for the climate crisis.” The new U.N. report doesn’t use those terms, but they are there in spirit.
The U.N. calls for a push toward the “green economy” even though it freely admits “there is no unique definition of the green economy.” The survey's introduction rationalizes the massive cost by explaining “the green economy concept is based on the conviction that the benefits of investing in environmental sustainability outweigh the cost of not doing so.” So, by that rationale,
- any cost is sustainable.
And, as in all things from the U.N., government is the solution: “Governments will have to assume a much more central role” in making the change to a green economy. Where there’s government, there must be control and “active industrial and educational policies aimed at inducing the necessary changes in infrastructure and production processes.”
Educational policies? They are just a start. Try energy caps “if, for instance, emission reduction targets cannot be met through accelerated technological progress in energy efficiency and renewable energy generation, it may be necessary to impose caps on energy consumption itself in order to meet climate change mitigation targets in a timely manner.”
That would lead naturally to “the prospect of ‘prosperity without growth,’” and even the U.N. admits that “may not be very appealing. No matter. We’ll all have to accept that and the “major structural transformations of economies and societies.”
Some of those “societal transformations” include living in more urban areas, as the report went on to discuss the wonders of “Japan’s compact urbanization” and bemoan the cost of individual homes filled with furniture.
The report noted that all of this $76 trillion in spending is based on the United Nations Conference on Environment and Development in Rio de Janeiro. According to that principle, Under-Secretary-General for Economic and Social Affairs Sha Zukang wrote, “in the absence of scientific consensus that a particular action or policy is harmful to the public or to the environment, the burden of proof that the suspect action or policy is not harmful rests with the party or parties implementing it.” In other words, even if the U.N. is wrong on climate change,
- we should still spend $76 trillion
- to fight it.
Ironically, the report came out just one day after climate scientists were complaining that Chinese coal use was driving a temporary bout of “global cooling.” As the liberal Huffington Post explained, the cooling is from “all that sulfur pollution in the air from China's massive coal-burning,
"UNDP withdrew $6.7 million from a U.S. line of credit without permission in 2007...UNDP has yet to explain what happened to that money, the report says."...
UN employee crimes cannot be prosecuted because the UN is above the law. If more Americans knew this it is logical they would demand our withdrawal from the UN.
"Federal prosecutors in New York City were forced to drop criminal and civil cases because the U.N. officials have immunity,"...
4/16/09, "Report: U.N. spent U.S. funds on shoddy projects," USA Today, Ken Dilanian
"Two United Nations agencies spent millions in U.S. money on substandard Afghanistan construction projects, including a central bank without electricity and a bridge at risk of "life threatening" collapse, according to an investigation by U.S. federal agents.
The U.N. ran a "quick impact" infrastructure program from 2003 to 2006 under a $25 million grant from the U.S. Agency for International Development. The U.N. delivered shoddy work, diverted money to other countries and then stonewalled U.S. efforts to figure out what happened, according to a report by USAID's inspector general obtained by USA TODAY under the Freedom of Information Act.
"Due to the refusal of the United Nations to cooperate with this investigation, questions remain unanswered," the report says.
Federal prosecutors in New York City were forced to drop criminal and civil cases because the U.N. officials have immunity, according to the report. USAID has scaled back its dealings with the U.N. and hired a collection agency to seek $7.6 million back, Deputy Administrator James Bever said. The aid agency hasn't heeded its inspector general's request to sever all ties.
- "There are certain cases where working with the U.N. is the only option available," Bever said in an e-mail....
One U.N. employee told investigators that "about $10 million of USAID grant money went to projects in other countries, to include Sudan, Haiti, Sri Lanka and Dubai." That witness said the Afghanistan country director for the U.N. Office for Project Services (UNOPS), which served as the contractor on the project for the U.N. Development Program (UNDP), spent about $200,000 in U.S. money to renovate his guesthouse. Witness names were withheld by USAID.
The development program hired UNOPS to do the work and kept a 7% management fee, the report says. The finances were "out of control," an unnamed project services manager told investigators.
An unnamed USAID contractor told investigators that the program was "ill conceived from the beginning. This was a political idea to do quick impact projects that would look good," the report said.
- Investigators found that projects reported as "complete" were actually so shoddily built that they were unusable, the report said."...
3/30/10, "UN immune from criminal prosecution. Did you know?" SciForums
MrsLucySnowe: "The international court of justice has denied allowing women from Srebrenica from suing the UN for their responsibility in the Bosnian massacre.
Srebrenica Relatives of Bosnian Muslims killed in Europe's worst massacre since World War II lost another round Tuesday in their attempt to sue the United Nations for responsibility. The Hague Appeals Court upheld a 2008 lower court ruling
- affirming U.N. immunity from prosecution.
Some 8,000 men were murdered in July 1995 by Serb forces who overran Srebrenica, which had been declared a U.N. safe zone for the Muslim civilians in the Bosnian enclave. The Dutch U.N. peacekeepers protecting the enclave were undermanned and outgunned, and failed to intervene.
- International courts have ruled the slayings were a genocide.
"How long can the U.N. retain its credibility, striving to protect human rights but at the same time
- disregarding them itself?" the lawyers said.
No comments:
Post a Comment