The upcoming United Nations Climate Change Conference to be held in Copenhagen from December 7-18 is now being talked about all over the blogosphere. This is because of a speech that Lord Christopher Monckton, a former adviser to Margaret Thatcher, gave at Bethel University in St Paul, Minnesota, on October 14. In his speech he warned about the dire consequences of signing the Copenhagen Treaty.
He warned that most people have no idea what is actually in the Treaty, yet most nations around the world seem prepared to sign it, even though it may involve giving away national sovereignty, and handing over inordinate power to a global governing body. This is a part of what he had to say in his speech:
“At Copenhagen, this December, weeks away, a treaty will be signed. Your president will sign it. Most of the third world countries will sign it, because they think they’re going to get money out of it. Most of the left-wing regimes from the European Union will rubber stamp it. Virtually nobody won’t sign it.
“I read that treaty. And what it says is this, that a world government is going to be created. The word ‘government’ actually appears as the first of three purposes of the new entity. The second purpose is the transfer of wealth from the countries of the West to third world countries, in satisfaction of what is called, coyly, ‘climate debt’ – because we’ve been burning CO2 and they haven’t. We’ve been screwing up the climate and they haven’t. And the third purpose of this new entity, this government, is enforcement.
“How many of you think that the word ‘election’ or ‘democracy’ or ‘vote’ or ‘ballot’ occurs anywhere in the 200 pages of that treaty? Quite right, it doesn’t appear once. So, at last, the communists who piled out of the Berlin Wall and into the environmental movement, who took over Greenpeace so that my friends who founded it left within a year, because [the communists] captured it – Now the apotheosis is at hand. They are about to impose a communist world government on the world. You have a president who has very strong sympathies with that point of view. He’s going to sign it. He’ll sign anything. He’s a Nobel Peace Prize [winner]; of course he’ll sign it.”
Since that speech was given, warnings have gone around the world. The full video of his talk, along with a slide show, and the four-minute conclusion, are in video form and have been seen countless times by millions. He has since done a number of radio and TV interviews as well. I list all of the relevant links below.
Now I have not read the entire draft Treaty. It seems somewhat difficult to come by, at least on the mammoth UN website, and there seem to be various forms of it around. This seems to be the actual document in question: http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2009/10/un-fccc-copenhagen-2009.pdf
Now this is not a final version of the Treaty, and presumably – or at least hopefully – much discussion and debate will take place next month. But if even half of what Lord Monckton says is true, we all have great cause for alarm. There are many problems associated with it, not least of which is the proposal for some trans-national body to implement the Treaty’s recommendations.
There is also the fact that every month more and more evidence seems to emerge that the whole concept of man-made global warming is simply a beat-up. The number of scientists who are sceptical about anthropogenic climate change seems to be growing each passing day.
But all the scare-mongering about the end of the world makes things much easier for the globalists and enemies of freedom and democracy to implement their agenda. Plenty has been written about all of this, but let me refer to just two recent Australian commentaries on this.
Janet Albrechtsen of the Australian made a number of points worth repeating here. She begins with these words:
“Shame on us all: on us in the media and on our politicians. Despite thousands of news reports, interviews, analyses, critiques and commentaries from journalists, what has the inquiring, intellectually sceptical media told us about the potential details of a Copenhagen treaty? And despite countless speeches, addresses, interviews, doorstops, moralising sermons from government ministers, pleas from Canberra for an outcome at Copenhagen, opposition criticism of government policy, what have our elected representatives told us about the potential details of a Copenhagen treaty?”
She has read the 181-page document. “The word government appears on page 18. Monckton says: ‘This is the first time I’ve ever seen any transnational treaty referring to a new body to be set up under that treaty as a government. But it’s the powers that are going to be given to this entirely unelected government that are so frightening’.”
She continues, “It is impossible to fully understand the convoluted UN verbiage. Yet even those incomprehensible clauses point to some nasty surprises that no politician has told us about. For example, Monckton says the drafters want this new world government to have control over once free markets: the financial and trading markets of nation-states. ‘The sheer ambition of this new world government is enormous right from the start; that’s even before it starts accreting powers to itself in the way that these entities inevitably always do,’ he says.
“The reason for that power grab is clear enough from the draft treaty. Clause after complicated clause sets out the requirement that developed countries such as Australia pay their ‘adaptation debt’ to developing countries. Clause 33 on page 39 says that by 2020 the scale of financial flows to support adaptation in developing countries must be at least $US67 billion ($73bn), or in the range of $US70bn to $US140bn a year.”
Herald Sun columnist Andrew Bolt has written in more detail about the economic costs of all this. Says Bolt: “So here’s the question: is Rudd really going to approve a draft treaty that could force Australia to hand over an astonishing $7 billion a year to a new and unelected global authority? Yes, that’s $7 billion, or about $330 from every man, woman and child. Every year. To be passed on to countries such as China and Bangladesh, and the sticky-fingered in-between.
“And a second question, perhaps even more important: is Rudd really going to approve a draft treaty which also gives that unelected authority the power to fine us billions of dollars more if it doesn’t like our green policies? It is incredible that these questions have not been debated by either the Rudd Government or the Opposition, whose hapless leader, Malcolm Turnbull, on Monday admitted he did not even have a copy of this treaty. Australia’s wealth and sovereign rights may soon be signed away, so why hasn’t the public at least been informed?”
He continues, “But wait, there’s still more. You’d think this draft treaty that Rudd has worked on would at least give us a say over how our billions are spent. But no. UN bodies are already notoriously hard for any one nation to supervise or restrain. Even the United States, the biggest donor of all, could not stop the corruption at UNESCO two decades ago, and was forced to walk out in protest. Nor could it stop dictatorships such as Libya and Cuba from later holding key roles in the UN’s human rights bodies. And with this new global warming body, the vote of the paying West will be overruled even more decisively by the spending rest.”
Bolt concludes: “As for Turnbull … well, it’s tragic. Badgered by Alan Jones on 2GB on Monday on this very point, he said: ‘Of course the poorest countries are going to need assistance … (But) there is no way that anything like this would be accepted without extensive debate.’ So where is that debate, Malcolm? Why aren’t you screaming from the rooftops for reassurances that our wealth won’t be squandered and our powers handed over? Just this week the European Union said it would pay its share of an $82 billion cheque to this new body if countries such as ours come on board, too – so who’s applying the brakes? Not our politicians, for sure. So if you oppose this surrender of our billions and our freedom, better start saying so now, before it’s all too late.”
To conclude, our Prime Minister finally did speak out on all this, just yesterday. But what he had to say is not at all reassuring. He mentioned the Treaty and those concerned about it. And his response? They are basically all a bunch of conspiracy theory nuts.
He simply dismisses the concerns of people like Monckton and others about ceding away national sovereignty. And he also dismisses the tens of thousands of scientists who are sceptical about the whole premise of this debate. Rudd makes it clear that he is a true believer, and all these doubters are a bunch of fruit cakes united in some grand conspiracy theory.
So if you were worried about how Australia might respond in Copenhagen next month before his speech, you all should be a whole lot more worried now.
Here are all the relevant links:
The 4-minute conclusion to Monckton’s talk:
The full Monckton speech:
The accompanying slide show:
Monckton’s talk updated with slides:
The Alan Jones interview:
The Glenn Beck interview:
The Janet Albrechtsen article:
The Andrew Bolt article:
The Prime Minister’s address to the Lowy Institute: