Environmental Protection or Global Governance? Reality Vs Spin

Those who are determined to impose global governance on the rest of us have made great sport out of attacking anyone who dares oppose their plans. They have attacked those who challenge their claims of global warming by calling for “Nuremburg-style” show trials. Al Gore has actually called for violence against climate “skeptics.” The Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC) has called those who oppose the policies of Barack Obama domestic terrorists. But if you watch and listen long enough, you will hear incredible things come out of their mouths. You will find that they really are lying about their intent. It’s not really about saving the environment — but about controlling the world — just like we opponents said. Amazing, isn’t it? Here, let them tell you in their own words:

We said the issue over Climate Change wasn’t really about protecting the environment but about redistribution of wealth. They called us “deniers.” But who is really denying the truth?

“First of all, developed countries have basically expropriated the atmosphere of the world community. But one must say clearly that we redistribute de facto the world’s wealth by climate policy. Obviously, the owners of coal and oil will not be enthusiastic about this. One has to free oneself from the illusion that international climate policy is environmental policy. This has almost nothing to do with environmental policy anymore, with problems such as deforestation or the ozone hole.”  — Ottmar Edenhofer, German economist and official of the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC).

But then there is the spin of “Climate Crisis.”

If current trends continue, if current patterns of production and consumption of natural resources prevail and cannot be reversed and ‘decoupled,’ then governments will preside over unprecedented levels of damage and degradation.” —  UN Under-Secretary General and UNEP Executive Director Achim Steiner

So, which is it — disaster or redistribution of wealth? Well, both actually. The disaster they are talking about is not “environmental” but political. And only redistribution of wealth can prevent it. Observe the following quotes:

Eradicating poverty is the greatest global challenge facing the world today and an indispensable requirement for sustainable development. In this regard we are committed to free humanity from poverty and hunger as a matter of urgency. — Second paragraph of the draft copy of the official Rio+20 document “The Future We Want.”

And how will poverty be eradicated? Redistribution of wealth (your wealth), of course:

We emphasize the need to enhance tax revenues through modernized tax systems, more efficient tax collection, broadening the tax base and effectively combating tax evasion. We stress that these efforts should be undertaken with an overarching view to make tax systems more pro-poor.

We recognize that for significant international financing to give strong support to the various commitments made in the outcomes of Rio+20, the developed countries agreed to provide new and additional resources exceeding UD 30 billion per year from 2013-17 to the developing countries in their efforts toward promotion of sustainable development.

We also pledge that for a more sustained and longer-term financial support we agree to enhance the mobilization to UN 100 billion per year from 2018 onwards and work towards setting up a financial mechanism, including a possible sustainable development fund. — Pages 72 and 73 of the draft copy of the official Rio+20 document “The Future We Want.”

This all means redistribution of wealth, away from developed nations to the Third World. It would give the UN 0.7 percent of a nation’s gross national product — equal to $1,325 per year for an American family of four. The “spin” is environmental protection. The “reality” is UN control of our economy.