THOUGHT FOR THE DAY!

"... the only way to fully comprehend U.S. policies toward the third world is to posit ..."the threat of a good example."Insurgencies in the third world do not challenge U.S. military security or even, ultimately, investments by U.S. corporations... What they represent is the possibility that emerging nations may demonstrate by example that the United States may not be the last word in democracy, freedom, and opportunity. That threat is much greater if weighed from the perspective of those who see it in their interest to preserve unchanged the present U.S. economic and political order." -- Frances Moore Lappe', Rachel Shuman, and Kevin Danaher, authors

YOUR RANDOM DHS MONITORED PHRASE OF THE DAY

enigma

Paid advertising at What Really Happened may not represent the views and opinions of this website and its contributors. No endorsement of products and services advertised is either expressed or implied.

 

How did human caused global warming bring about one world government?

Jay Mock
How could that have happened?
 
On the road to solving human caused global warming there arose a world government.
 
How did it happen, step by step?
 
First let's look at the current state of our world government, brought to you by the United Nations.  
 
The United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change, (UNFCCC) entered into force in 1995.  It has a Strategic Plan.  The Strategic Plan is developed at the Conference of Parties (COP).  The Conference of the Parties are held periodically and you may be familiar with COP 17 in Durban, South Africa, just this last Dec. 2011 or COP 16 in Copenhagen, Denmark, 2009
 
The most up to date agreement before Copenhagen was made available in Sept. 2009, just before the Copenhagen COP 16 meeting of the nations making up the Conference of Parties.  The paper is called, the UNFCCC, AD HOC WORKING GROUP ON LONG-TERM COOPERATIVE ACTION UNDER THE CONVENTION, (AWG-LCA).  The paper was to be further discussed and refined at Denmark and possibly signed by the world's participating nations.  Downloadable at this link:  http://unfccc.int/resource/docs/2009/awglca7/eng/inf02.pdf
 
I'm not sure what has changed since but you might be interested in what it said back in 2009.
 
As the Wall Street Journal puts it:

The "scheme for the new institutional arrangement under the Convention" that starts on page 18 contains the provision for a "government." The aim is to give a new as yet unnamed U.N. body the power to directly intervene in the financial, economic, tax and environmental affairs of all the nations that sign the Copenhagen treaty.
 
The reason for the power grab is clear enough: Clause after complicated clause of the draft treaty requires developed countries to pay an "adaptation debt" to developing countries to supposedly support climate change mitigation. Clause 33 on page 39 says that "by 2020 the scale of financial flows to support adaptation in developing countries must be [at least $67 billion] or [in the range of $70 billion to $140 billion per year]."
 
END OF QUOTE FROM WALL STREET ARTICLE
 
This is just a small number of shocking agreements COP has written up to solving human caused global warming.  For more and further explinations, go to these Australian comments:  http://www.sosnews.org/newsfront/?p=447
 
To get a clearer picture of how this came about, follow this timeline:
 
1967 — The Report from Iron Mountain, New York Times bestseller published.  The purpose of the study was to explore various ways to “stabilize society,” later understood to mean "preserve government."  The report said, only during times of war or the threat of war are the masses compliant enough to carry the yoke of government without complaint.  In the past, war has been an indispensable condition for “stabilizing society.”  Under a new scenario, independent nations will no longer exist and governments will not have the capability to wage war.  The report concludes that there can be no substitute for war unless it possesses three properties. It must (1) be economically wasteful, (2) represent a credible threat of great magnitude, and (3) provide a logical excuse for compulsory service to the government.  On (2) credible threat, invasion by aliens from outer space was given serious consideration however the threat was not “credible.”  The final candidate for a useful global threat was pollution of the environment. This was viewed as the most likely to succeed because it could be related to observable conditions such as smog and water pollution– in other words, it would be based partly on fact and, therefore, be credible. Predictions could be made showing end-of-earth scenarios just as horrible as atomic warfare.

1969 — Peace activist, John McConnell, introduced the idea of a global holiday called "Earth Day" at a UN conference on the environment.

1970 — The first Earth Day proclaimed and adopted later by the UN in 1971. 

1979 — The first World Climate Conference (WCC) takes place.

1988 — The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change is set up.

1990 — IPCC’s first assessment report released. IPCC and second World Climate Conference call for a global treaty on climate change. United Nations General Assembly negotiations on a framework convention begin.

1991 — First meeting of the Intergovernmental Negotiating Committee (INC) takes place.  Worldwatch Institute, CFR member, Lester Brown, wrote in the Institute’s annual report, entitled, State of the World, “the battle to save the planet will replace the battle over ideology as the organizing theme of the new world order.”  In The Club of Rome's, 1991 book entitled The First Global Revolution, we find this:  In searching for a new enemy to unite us, we came up with the idea that pollution, the threat of global warming, water shortages, famine and the like would fit the bill. … All these dangers are caused by human intervention. … The real enemy, then, is humanity itself.

1992 — The INC adopts UNFCCC text. At the Earth Summit in Rio, the UNFCCC is opened for signature along with its sister Rio Conventions, UNCBD and UNCCD.  In Earth Summit's official publication, The world community now faces together greater risks to our common security through our impacts on the environment than from traditional military conflicts with one another.”
 
1994 — United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) enters into force.
 
1995 — The first Conference of the Parties (COP 1) takes place in Berlin.
 
1996 — The UNFCCC Secretariat is set up to support action under the Convention.
 
1997 — Kyoto Protocol formally adopted in December at COP3.  Enron became one of the biggest corporate boosters of the Kyoto Protocol. Enron was a natural gas distributor, and Kyoto would kill coal-fired electric generation, boosting demand for Enron’s product. Enron’s energy traders also expected to make juicy commissions on the purchase and sale of carbon credits and profits from creating the trading markets for those credits. According to an internal Enron memo, Kyoto would “do more to promote Enron’s business than almost any other regulatory initiative outside of restructuring the energy and natural gas industries in Europe and the United States.”

2001 — Release of IPCC’s Third Assessment Report. Bonn Agreements adopted, based on the Buenos Aires Plan of Action of 1998. Marrakesh Accords adopted at COP7, detailing rules for implementation of Kyoto Protocol, setting up new funding and and planning instruments for adaptation, and establishing a technology transfer framework.
 
2005 — Entry into force of the Kyoto Protocol. The first Meeting of the Parties to the Kyoto Protocol (MOP 1) takes place in Montreal. In accordance with Kyoto Protocol requirements, Parties launched negotiations on the next phase of the KP under the Ad Hoc Working Group on Further Commitments for Annex I Parties under the Kyoto Protocol (AWG-KP).
 
2007 — IPCC’s Fourth Assessment Report released. Climate science entered into popular consciousness. At COP13, Parties agreed on the Bali Road Map, which charted the way towards a post-2012 outcome in two work streams: the AWG-KP, and another under the Convention, known as the Ad-Hoc Working Group on Long-Term Cooperative Action Under the Convention.  DuPont calls for legislation to curb greenhouse gas emissions, stating: “We believe that voluntary measures, while constructive, are not sufficient to address an issue of this magnitude by themselves.”  Under a mild cap-and-trade program, similar to the one envisioned in Sen. Jeff Bingaman’s draft legislation, DuPont would realize more than a 900 percent return on investment of $472 million per year.  Hearing on the U.S. Climate Action Partnership Report -- Cap and trade, as it is known, is often described as market-based, because there is buying and selling involved. This is a misnomer. In fact, cap and trade is an ugly combination of two of the greatest ills to affect the market economy over the past two hundred years – cartelization and central planning.
 
2009 — Copenhagen Accord drafted at COP15 in Copenhagen. This was taken note of by the COP. Countries later submitted emissions reductions pledges or mitigation action pledges, all non-binding.
 
2010 — Cancun Agreements drafted and largely accepted by the COP, at COP16.
 
2011 — The Durban Platform for Enhanced Action drafted and accepted by the COP, at COP17.
 
 
Further reading:
 
http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Hearings.Testimony&Hearing_ID=9d420df7-802a-23ad-4615-a240504c6347&Witness_ID=0c43573e-35d0-4cd3-b15f-9dcee707e5e6
Hearing on the U.S. Climate Action Partnership Report
 
http://farmwars.info/?p=4881 Report from Iron Mountain
 
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/1813229/posts
 
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703574604574500580285679074.html  Has Anyone Read the Copenhagen Agreement?
 
http://www.sosnews.org/newsfront/?p=447
 
http://cjonline.com/interact/blog/reasonmclucus/2009-06-01/enrons_kyoto_protocals_for_global_warming
Enron's Kyoto Protocals for Global Warming
 
http://www.theforgottenstreet.com/Enron-The-Godfather-of-Kyoto.html
Enron: The Godfather of Kyoto

SHARE THIS ARTICLE WITH YOUR SOCIAL MEDIA