by Harrison Price
Earlier this month, Al Gore released a lot of CO2 into the atmosphere by flying to England to talk about how man is “changing” the temperatures worldwide. While in England, Gore seemed to reveal his true purpose for “fighting” global warming:
But it is the awareness itself that will drive the change and one of the ways it will drive the change is through global governance and global agreements.
For some reasons, Democrats always want to tie the U.S. into global rules, as if this will somehow equate with perfection. Whenever a U.S. president says they will not sign an agreement Democrats get upset. Take Kyoto, for example (even though Congress voted it down) under Clinton or Bush’s refusal to sign a U.N. Gay Rights Declaration (because it would commit the federal government on matters that fall under state jurisdiction).
There are several interesting points raised regarding the taxation of “global warming” and reinforce my opinion that the entire thing is simply a scheme to raise government income and re-distribute wealth:
The environmental group Friends of the Earth advocated the transfer of money from rich to poor nations during the 2007 UN climate conference.
A climate change response must have at its heart a redistribution of wealth and resources,” said Emma Brindal, a climate justice campaigner coordinator for Friends of the Earth.
The 2007 UN conference was presented with a report from the Swiss Federal Office for the Environment titled “Global Solidarity in Financing Adaptation.” The report stated there was an “urgent need” for a global tax in order for “damages [from climate change] to be kept from growing to truly catastrophic levels, especially in vulnerable countries of the developing world.”
Of course, all of these “damages” are to be assessed by some inter-governmental worldwide body to determine which ones are man made and which ones are not. Perhaps this body will meet at the UN, the same organization that put countries like Libya on the human rights commission.
RSS Feed