The world leaders and activists who attended the UN Climate Summit in Paris last December are all about saving the world, saving the environment, right? That’s the standard narrative, isn’t it?
Well, critics, ourselves included, have insisted that the UN climate agenda is really about power and wealth. More precisely, it is about getting the power to redistribute global wealth — through carbon taxes, carbon pricing, carbon trading, and carbon regulation, etc. But don’t take our word for it; the top climateers have said so themselves.
Take, for instance, Dr. Ottmar Edenhoefer — not exactly a household name in America, however, Dr. Edenhofer is a big name in climate policy circles. He says, “We redistribute de facto the world’s wealth by climate policy.”
From 2008 to 2015 Dr. Edenhofer was co-chair of the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change working group on “Mitigation of Climate Change.” He is also deputy director and chief economist of the Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research in Germany, one of the climate centers helping write climate policy for the EU, the UN, and the World Bank, and one of the most-cited sources on climate in the mainstream media. During an interview in 2010, Dr. Edenhofer candidly declared, “One has to free oneself from the illusion that international climate policy is environmental policy. This has almost nothing to do with the environmental policy anymore, with problems such as deforestation or the ozone hole.”
And, he added this shocking admission: “We redistribute de facto the world’s wealth by climate policy.”
What is the takeaway of this confession? It is nothing less than a shocking admission that man-made global warming is all about politics — Marxist, socialist, collectivist politics — masquerading under the false labels of science and environmental concern.
But Dr. Edenhofer is far from being alone in the confessional. The UN’s climate czarina, Christiana Figueres, has also been quite vocal in explaining that the UN’s imposing climate change agenda extends far beyond mere environmental concerns, such as stopping alleged global warming. She made an especially telling statement at the UN’s 2012 Climate Summit in Doha, Qatar, where she said:
It must be understood that what is occurring here, not just in Doha, but in the whole climate change process is a complete transformation of the economic structure of the world. [Emphasis added.]
Now that’s fairly arrogant, isn’t it?
{modulepos inner_text_ad}
Figueres went on to say:
We are inspiring government, private sector, and civil society to [make] the biggest transformation that they have ever undertaken. The Industrial Revolution was also a transformation, but it wasn’t a guided transformation from a centralized policy perspective. This is a centralized transformation that is taking place because governments have decided that they need to listen to science. So it’s a very, very different transformation and one that is going to make the life of everyone on the planet very different.
The “centralized transformation” Figueres so earnestly advocates would indeed “make the life of everyone on the planet very different” — and in ways that a sizable portion of the folks on this planet would vigorously object to, it is probably safe to say. Her transformative vision would also take central planning far beyond the realms already practiced during the most totalitarian epochs of Communist dictators and mass-murderers Mao Tse-tung and Joseph Stalin. Mao and Stalin, in their wildest dreams, could not have imagined a global regime for measuring CO2 and regulating every breath, every cooking fire, every watt of electricity, virtually every activity of every person on Earth. We risk belaboring those obvious points because not a single reporter or commentator in the so-called mainstream media, as far as we’ve seen, has seen fit to remark on, let alone express alarm over, this stupendous grab for global, tyrannical power.
The complete, centralized, guided “transformation” envisioned for the whole world by Figueres and her fellow globalists is a chilling one to contemplate, and one that every freedom-minded person must oppose.
