-
Global Warming on 15-Year Hold
April 2, 2012 | 12 comments
-
Suddenly This Summer
March 31, 2012 | 8 comments
-
FakeGate: Just Another Day at Team Green
February 22, 2012 | 7 comments
-
“Climate” and the Campaign
January 12, 2012 | 8 comments
-
Germany’s Green Bubble Follows Spain’s; Will Congress Waste More Billions on Ours?
December 15, 2011 | 3 comments
The Spectacle Blog
Today’s ClimateWire has this item:
ECONOMY: U.N. wants 2 percent of world income put into ‘green economy’
The United Nations yesterday called for 2 percent of worldwide income to be invested in the green economy.
The investment [sic], which would amount to $1.3 trillion a year, will pay for itself by providing millions of new jobs, developing new industries, cutting greenhouse gas emissions, saving money and providing health benefits from cleaner air, the United Nations said.
This demand is set to emerge in a treaty I have noted here before, plans for which include springing it on us three weeks before an event in Rio, in the Spring of our 2012 presidential election cycle, which President Obama will attend. It is a World Environment Summit celebrating the 20th anniversary of the world taking advantage of U.S. politics to insert their rent-seeking, wealth transfers and playing-field-levelers into our national debate. Oh, and roping us into them, as well, as politicians rush to show their ‘green’ bona fides (we ratified the parent treaty to Kyoto, agreed in Rio 1992, in an embarrassing 120 days or so from agreement, knocking all but two other countries over in our stampede to do so before them).
It is called the UN Convention on Sustainable Development 2012, and more on it as things develop. The next negotiating session, the second of three, will be held this Spring. I’ve seen negotiating documents from the first session — lots of talk about how to avoid extended debate, which apparently wouldn’t serve their purposes — and can hardly wait to read more.
David W| 2.23.11 @ 2:55PM
good thing this wouldn't be taxation without representation, since our stupid representatives would approve it.
JASmius | 2.23.11 @ 3:07PM
The U.N. can kiss our broke asses - and Red Barry signing this treaty will be another nail in his 2012 (electoral) coffin.
Too Many Tims| 2.23.11 @ 3:10PM
The UN? The same UN that put Qaddaffi on the Human Rights council? That UN?
Patriot| 2.23.11 @ 3:42PM
Ask Spain how their green economy is working out for them. They've lost 2.2 jobs for every green job they created and now their unemployment stands at 20%. Of course, Chris already knows this.
Marxism is all about equal outcomes, right? Unfortunately, the outcome is always poverty.
MarkJ| 2.23.11 @ 4:45PM
My humble suggestion: kick the UN's collective, gold-digging, rent-seeking arse out of New York and turn its headquarters into a shopping mall.
But I'm thinking logically, aren't I? ;)
Thunderbottom| 2.24.11 @ 9:12AM
I was thinking, convert it to rent-controlled low-income housing - you'd get a better class of tenant.
Occam's Tool| 2.23.11 @ 4:57PM
UN=Vermin.
Negro X| 2.23.11 @ 10:24PM
The UN must destroyed.
Deborah D | 2.24.11 @ 8:11AM
I think Obama sees his next job as King of the World, so I'm sure he'll sign this thing. The Senate has to approve all treaties...luckily (thanks to the Tea Party) Democrats no longer have a filibuster-proof Senate. Americans will squeal to the rafters about this POS. No more money to the grifters at the U.N.
A Balrog of Morgoth| 2.24.11 @ 12:34PM
Treaties require 67 Senate votes for ratification, yes?
Yeah, well fat chance getting this one approved. Teleprompter Jesus can sign whatever the hell he wants. Even with the usual aisle-crossing dunces like Senator Howdy Doody from Indiana, there is no way 67 Senators voluntarily exile themselves to the Island of the Misfit Toys.
I expect the Democrats, who are defending more Senate seats in 2012, will only vote yes if they know enough Republicans will vote no to make passage impossible.