For those wondering if the United Nations is nothing more than a wealth-redistribution agency, look no further than Secretary of State John Kerry’s announcement today that he would increase the United State’s climate aid to climate-vulnerable countries. Kerry, speaking at the Paris Climate Talks, has promised to increase financial assistance to $860 million a year, twice the previous amount. So far the summit has created a 29-page “draft of an international accord to fight global warming”, yet it doesn’t resolve many key sticking points: whether to remove all carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions or just reduce them. Or how to do either.
Kerry, who is focusing much of his attention on global warming, would need to get congressional approval for this staggering new amount of money and he seems unconcerned his pecuniary promises come at a time when America is still reeling from recent terrorist attacks here and abroad. He also appears unaware that most Americans consider global warming a back-burner issue and have ranked it dead last in its list of concerns. A Pew survey across 40 countries also shows what most Americans already know: they don’t think global warming is a serious problem and it’s not one of their top concerns.
Prior to the climate summit, a November poll showed 97 percent of registered voters aren’t worried about global warming. More telling, 94 percent of Democrats aren’t concerned about global warming either. Which may explain why United Nations Secretary-General Ban Ki-Moon said on Monday that “even though global warming can’t be seen or felt by humans, the world should still agree to an international treaty to cut carbon dioxide emissions.”
Without congressional approval, Kerry would have to raid another agency’s budget and have it bundled as a “grant,” effectively bypassing the will of the Congress. Both the public and politicians have signaled that using taxpayer dollars to pay for another country’s weather-related events will do little, if anything, to avert global warming. The current amount, $420 million, has already been promised and may already be included in other aid packages.
The United States’ contribution would go toward a trillion dollar slush fund that the United Nations would dole out to developing countries under the auspices of “climate relief.” According to one peer-reviewed study from the Global Policy forum, the “cuts already on the table in Paris will reduce warming by 0.306 degrees Fahrenheit for the princely sum of $1 trillion a year worldwide.”
Developing nations and poorer countries have been demanding more money from richer countries at the ongoing climate summit in Paris this week. Those countries won’t sign any new climate treaty without the United Nations giving them, at a minimum, a $100 billion per year by 2020. They want the money for adaption to weather risks, even though extreme weather has not increased, contradicting all the computer models that the U.N.’s IPCC relies on when determining climate threats.
Observable data also shows there has been no increase in hurricanes/typhoons forming or making landfall, no increase in sea level rise since the last glacial period ended 10,000 years ago, no catastrophic melting of existing glaciers (Antarctica is home to the most glaciers), no increase in tornadoes, a record increase in Antarctic ice, rebounding of Arctic sea ice year over year, no increase or severity in droughts, further greening of the Saharan desert, no increase in floods or rainfall, and a complete standstill in global temperatures for the past 19 years.
But the United Nations has created a climate hegemony and is requiring richer countries like the U.S. to dole over more money to prevent non-existent threats. All this comes as China (the largest CO2 emitter) and India (the third highest CO2 emitter) refuse to sign any legally binding agreements that would prevent them from continuing their progress. They point to the United States as already having an Industrial Revolution and say that it is now their turn.
The Associate Press (AP) is also reporting that a “coalition of rich and poor nations calling for a binding and ambitious global pact on climate change is emerging as a new, potentially powerful bloc in U.N. climate talks outside Paris.” While the EU has taken the lead in recruiting more nations into this climate alliance, “major developing countries like China and India aren’t a part of it.” In fact, China is being accused of “trying to weaken the new global climate accord due to be finalized by Friday.”
Ban Ki-Moon is so desperate for this treaty to pass that he invoked a favorite meme of environmentalists that the world has a fever, we are the virus, and that we need to prevent its temperature from going up 2 degrees Celsius (3.6 degrees F). A meaningless temperature at best unsupported by facts and meant to conjure up the hopelessness of mankind’s future without the U.N.’s intervention.
One of the IPCC’s top bureaucrats, economist Hoesung Lee, also said there was no global warming hiatus, even though the very spotty temperature record shows the Earth warming and cooling roughly every thirty years. This despite the slow rise of the trace gas carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. According to the Daily Caller, the statement is an “obvious effort to completely ignore the satellite records showing there’s been no statistically significant warming for the last two decades.”
Meanwhile, climate activist Alec Baldwin chimed in at the summit, telling the AP he would “love to see a major oil company go out of business in the United States” and that it would be a “tremendous sign of progress.” While he may see oil companies as evil, they are part of many people’s 401K portfolios and pensions, employ hundreds of thousands of people, are at the forefront of new technology, and generate billions in taxpayer dollars (that Kerry wants to send to the United Nations). Baldwin was at the climate summit to receive the Equator Prize for his part in fighting climate change.
The climate summit is expected to end Dec. 11. Any treaty or legally binding agreement would require congressional approval, which is likely not going to happen amid the more immediate threats of domestic terrorism and a faulting global economy.