Saturday, June 23, 2012

Report: UN classifies climate change agenda

Washington Examiner
Joel Gehrke

United Nations officials refuse to allow observers to read the draft agenda for the Rio+20 conference on climate change, after an earlier draft called for the economic “contraction” of major countries.
“It seems the UN has taken the final pre-conference draft and classified it!” Lord Monckton, a climate skeptic with the Center for a Constructive Tomorrow reported in an email. “We were promised transparency. This is unacceptable.”

A proposal within an earlier draft agenda for the conference called for the “contraction and convergence for over- and under-consumers of natural resources,” CFACT noted. Given President Obama’s oft-repeated statistic that the United States produces 2 percent of the world’s oil but uses 20 percent, this proposal would affect the American economy significantly.

“We aspire to nothing less than a global movement for generational change,” UN Secretary General Ban Ki-Moon said earlier this year.

Another proposal would spread the cost of green investment throughout society, at an estimated cost of $1,300 per American family.  “We call for the fulfilment of all official development assistance commitments, including the commitments by many developed countries to achieve the target of 0.7 per cent of gross national product for official development assistance to developing countries by 2015,” the earlier draft says.

Help Us Transmit This Story

  Add to Your Blogger Account
  Put it On Facebook
  Tweet this post
  Print it from your printer
  Email and a collection of other outlets
  Try even more services


  1. The web-logging about C&C would be more accurate and more useful if it related to the C&C source-material: -

    rather than ill-informed and agitated third party commentary about it.

  2. That's the link to the previous draft mentioned in this article.

    The story is the rush to implement policy and to keep the final decision of such policy classified. Policy based on the premise of catastrophic anthropogenic global warming - a concept backed by woefully inadequate science and a gullible population that refuses to take a critical look at what's going on. We have truly arrived at the state of "idiocracy".

  3. The story that that 'the UN suppressed this report' is inaccurate. It was started by normally alarmist Christopher Monckton.

    'The report' in question here was an NGO draft which NGOs were debating as input to the UN [i.e. Governments] Report that was eventually published.

  4. Did the UN refuse to release the draft of the report or not? "Alarmists" are people pushing CAGW, not disputing CAGW. Seems it may have been eventually published after Monckton's complaint.

    Monckton's a bit "oily", but nothing indicates his willingness to forfeit credibility by making that type of false accusation. It's not even needed.