Climate change believers and global governance supporters won a major victory this month; with the adoption in Paris of the Framework Convention on Climate Change. It is a setback, albeit temporary, for freedom, democracy, and rule of law as well as a direct assault on U.S. sovereignty.
The U.S. Congress must act early next year and shut this process down using robust oversight, deregulation, as well as the power of the purse. Early in the year, Congress must cut any agency funds that could be used or re-programmed in 2016 by the Obama administration to advance COP21 goals.
The climate change Framework Agreement spawns from a long line of liberty-eroding international agreements including the Kyoto Protocols on climate change and many others such as the Law of the Sea, a whole stack of treaties and agreements, some ratified by the Senate, that limit America’s ability to project power in outer space and result in NASA, literally, giving away U.S. know-how and technology. For free.
When U.S. globalists fail, as they invariably do, to secure support from the Congress for big government policies such as carbon emissions reduction, they turn to unaccountable and unelected international organizations to advance their agenda. They’ve been at this since the end of World War I, institutionalized it after World War II, and perfected it during the Cold War. There is no entangling alliance they’ll avoid.
As soon as globalists secure international support for something that they really want to do, such as this climate change agreement, they return to home countries and abuse the regulatory superstate to put their plans into action. In the United States they do so, usually, without Congressional approval. And when Congress does weigh in lately, the oversight is flaccid.
The climate change Framework Agreement is flawed for many reasons. It is based on unproven scientific thinking, for starters, about the causes of alleged global warming. That should be enough to put this thing to bed. It is also a direct assault on private property rights because, ultimately, unaccountable regulators will tell you how to use your property. By the way, the word “property” and “private property” does not appear anywhere in the text. That should tell you something (Tip: nothing good).
These sort of agreements are also a massive redistribution of wealth and know-how to countries in the developing world. Only nations that can’t compete with American free enterprise lobby for these kind of agreements, especially when it comes with money that you, essentially, give away. When Congress approves money for the State Department, and other federal agencies, invariably some of your taxpayer dollars are used for these programs.
Congress needs to bury the Framework Agreement, along with a whole host of other such accords. Permanently.
The agreement is embedded at the end of this post. Here are some preliminary observations and highlights:
- It is a wealth transfer scheme;
- The terms “property” or “private property” are not mentioned once in the entire agreement, yet this agreement, if allowed to go into force, would be a direct assault on property rights;
- The seed money for this enterprise is about $100 billion, per year, donated by taxpayers in wealthier nations, such as the United States, to corrupt, socialist foreign governments in the developing world (see paragraph 54);
- The Agreement makes permanent what they call an Ad Hoc Working Group that includes China, a serial polluter and environmental basket case and it creates a new Committee to oversee implementation of the overall accord;
- The term “shall” is used over 140 times in a 32 page document (any lawyer, or businessperson, worth his or her mettle understands the risks of using “shall” in an agreement);
- It creates two champions, or I’d rather call them Climate Czars, to evangelize and encourage member nations to move quickly to legally adopt the agreement;
- It also creates mandatory reporting requirements by the United States to the United Nations of implementation progress reports (reporting requirements mean staff and resources in the U.S. government need to be allocated to make it so);