[BITList] Fw: Will Rudd pay the UN $7 billion?

[David Harvey]

An interesting opinion piece from Andrew Bolt.

 

 

 

 

> Please feel free to forward this onto others but please take our email

> details off first , (as we have for the person who sent this to us )

> 

> Read this folks.   Let your friends know.  send this email along.

> Column - Will Rudd pay the UN $7 billion?

> 

> Andrew Bolt

> Wednesday, November 04, 2009 at 07:20am

> 

> NEXT month Kevin Rudd flies to Copenhagen to help seal a United Nations

> deal to cut the world's emissions - and to make Australia hand over part

> of its wealth

> 

> So keen is the Prime Minister to get this new global-warming treaty

> signed that he's been appointed a "friend of the chairman" to tie up

> loose ends.

> 

> So here's the question: is Rudd really going to approve a draft treaty

> that could force Australia to hand over an astonishing $7 billion a year

> to a new and unelected global authority?

> 

> Yes, that's $7 billion, or about $330 from every man, woman and child.

> Every year. To be passed on to countries such as China and Bangladesh,

> and the sticky-fingered in-between.

> 

> And a second question, perhaps even more important: is Rudd really going

> to approve a draft treaty which also gives that unelected authority the

> power to fine us billions of dollars more if it doesn't like our green

> policies?

> 

> It is incredible that these questions have not been debated by either

> the Rudd Government or the Opposition, whose hapless leader, Malcolm

> Turnbull, on Monday admitted he did not even have a copy of this treaty.

> Australia's wealth and sovereign rights may soon be signed away, so why

> hasn't the public at least been informed?

> 

> In case you think what I'm saying is just too incredible - too

> far-fetched

> * to be true, let me quote this draft treaty.

> 

> Here is paragraph 33 of annex 1, which has already been discussed at UN

> meetings involving Australian negotiators in Bangkok and now Barcelona.

> Brackets indicate phrases which still need final agreement:

> 

> "By 2020 the scale of financial flows to support adaptation in

> developing countries must be [at least USD 67 billion] [in the range of

> USD 70-140 billion] per year."

> 

> Plus, says paragraph 17 of annex III E, developed countries such as

> Australia should "compensate for damage" to the economies of poorer

> countries "and also compensate for lost opportunities, resources, lives,

> land and dignity" allegedly caused by our gases.

> 

> And here comes the bill, in paragraph 41 of annex 1 of this extortion

> note: "[Financial resources of the Convention Adaptation Fund"] [may]

> [shall] include: (a) [Assessed contributions [of at least 0.7% of the

> annual GDP of developed country parties] ... "

> 

> In fact, deeper in the draft our bill for our "historical climate debt,

> including adaptation debt" climbs to at "at least [0.5-1 per cent of

> GDP]".

> 

> Wow. Let's do the sums. Australia's GDP is about $1000 billion a year.

> So this demand for 0.7 per cent of our annual wealth works out to $7

> billion a year, to be handed over to a new global agency of the United

> Nations.

> 

> That's your money, folks. Billions to be sent to Third World governments

> and authoritarian regimes to allegedly deal with a warming that actually

> halted in 2001. And all funnelled through the UN, which brought us such

> fast-money wheezes as the Oil-for-Food corruption scandal.

> 

> Never have the Third World's demands for the First World's cash been so

> brazen.

> 

> But wait, there's more. Because never has the Left's mad goal of world

> government been so close, either.

> 

> This draft treaty, on which Climate Change Minister Penny Wong has

> worked, also calls for the creation of a new "board" of global warming

> bureaucrats appointed by the countries signing the Copenhagen deal.

> 

> The powers this board will have over us are astonishing. For a start, it

> will check our emissions, and could "impose financial penalties, at a

> minimum of 10 times the market price of carbon, for any emissions in

> excess".

> 

> Work it out: if we exceed our emissions target by, say, as much as Rudd

> warned two years ago we'd overshoot by 2012, we'd be up for a fine of

> $1.4 billion even with the very lowest carbon price under Rudd's plan.

> 

> Even more outrageously, this new world body could impose "penalties and

> fines on non-compliance of developed country parties" such as Australia

> that failed to honour "commitments to ... provide support in the form of

> financial resources, technology transfer and capacity building".

> 

> All this gives a remote and unelected world body a huge and

> unprecedented say in how we run our own economy and our foreign affairs.

> For instance, any Australian government that decided to keep gassy

> coal-fired power stations running to avoid blackouts or to save

> Australian jobs potentially faces huge fines from foreigners.

> 

> Likewise, if it stopped handing over technological breakthroughs to a

> China or some African leader it no longer trusted, it could be fined

> again.

> 

> But wait, there's still more.

> 

> You'd think this draft treaty that Rudd has worked on would at least

> give us a say over how our billions are spent.

> 

> But no. UN bodies are already notoriously hard for any one nation to

> supervise or restrain. Even the United States, the biggest donor of all,

> could not stop the corruption at UNESCO two decades ago, and was forced

> to walk out in protest. Nor could it stop dictatorships such as Libya

> and Cuba from later holding key roles in the UN's human rights bodies.

> 

> And with this new global warming body, the vote of the paying West will

> be overruled even more decisively by the spending rest.

> 

> 

> Under this draft treaty, the new board's biggest spending arm - the

> "adaptation fund" - will be managed by a "governing board comprising

> three members from the five United Nations regional groups, two members

> from small island developing nations and two members from the least

> developed countries".

> 

> That formula means the industrialised nations which pay most could hold

> just one of the nine seats on the body which will then spend their cash.

> Our cash.

> 

> That's the treaty being prepared for the Copenhagen meeting. That's the

> billions we risk having to hand over. That's the power we risk losing

> over our own affairs.

> 

> Now ask: why hasn't this been the subject of furious debate? Where's the

> Government? Where's the Opposition?

> 

> Well, here's Rudd's one response to this threat, given only this week:

> "At this stage there's no global agreement as to what long-term

> financing arrangements should underpin a deal at Copenhagen."

> 

> That's a "trust me", with no bottom line. In fact, Rudd is already

> reaching into his - your - wallet: "Australia, once a global agreement

> is shaped, would always be prepared to put forward its fair share."But

> how much? Seven billion dollars a year? Five? Three? Hello?

> 

> As for Turnbull ... well, it's tragic.

> 

> Badgered by Alan Jones on 2GB on Monday on this very point, he said: "Of

> course the poorest countries are going to need assistance ... (But)

> there is no way that anything like this would be accepted without

> extensive debate."

> 

> So where is that debate, Malcolm? Why aren't you screaming from the

> rooftops for reassurances that our wealth won't be squandered and our

> powers handed over?

> 

> Just this week the European Union said it would pay its share of an $82

> billion cheque to this new body if countries such as ours come on board,

> too

> * so who's applying the brakes?

 

> 

> Not our politicians, for sure.

> 

> So if you oppose this surrender of our billions and our freedom, better

> start saying so now, before it's all too late.

> http://blogs.news.com.au:80/heraldsun/andrewbolt/index.php/heraldsun/com

> <http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/andrewbolt/index.php/heraldsun/com>

> 

> This e-mail and files transmitted with it are privileged and confidential 

> information

> intended for the use of the addressee. The confidentiality and/or 

> privilege in this e-mail is

> not waived, lost or destroyed if it has been transmitted to you in error. 

> If you received this

> e-mail in error you must

> (a) not disseminate, copy or take any action in reliance on it;

> (b) please notify the Department of Agriculture and Food, WA immediately 

> by return e-mail to the sender;

> (c) please delete the original e-mail.

> 

> This email has been successfully scanned by

> McAfee Anti-Virus software.

> Department of Agriculture and Food WA

> 

 
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.bcn.mythic-beasts.com/pipermail/bitlist/attachments/20091126/ff18b713/attachment-0001.shtml