The draft lays out three options for how to proceed after -- ranging from non-binding talks over the next two years to a deadline for adopting a new global pact at a U.N. meeting in in late 2009.
Rich nations should consider ways to step up efforts to curb emissions of greenhouse gases by setting "quantified national emission objectives," the draft says.
Poor countries should take "national mitigation actions ... that limit the growth of, or reduce, emissions," it says. It adds that "social development and poverty eradication are the first and overriding priorities" for poor nations.Got that? So "rich" nations need to set emissions standards that will drastically reduce "emissions levels" while "poor" nations will be able to ignore this standard in order to socially and economically develop. See the hypocrisy there? The USA is considered a rich nation, but with a large population of poor people. By buying into this system, we surrender economic freedom over the UN and the damage it will have economically on our nation will do nothing to help the poor people but will in fact, do more, to destroy the middle class and create a larger pool of poor people. Conversely, China (a nation completely exempt from The Kyoto Protocol) is considered poor and can do whatever they want, in fact, their levels of emissions make ours look tiny. So got that? USA bad, China good.
Next, let's look at what exactly the UN is getting at by dividing the world into "poor" and "rich" nations, while completely ignoring the socio-economic differences within a nations borders, be it from East to West, rural to urban, etc. The UN is attempting to mandate that "rich" nations re-distribute the wealth into poorer nations under the guise of "Global Warming":
Currently, adaptation money comes from two global funds that rely on voluntary donations from wealthy nations, but falls far short of what is needed. Rich nations have pledged a combined $220.4 million, but as of September had delivered only $116.6 million – a "pathetic" amount, says Ms. Raworth, who puts the immediate needs among the poorest nations at $1 billion to $2 billion a year.
That's right, we all need to pony up for the failings of other nations to develop themselves, and damn it to hell, if that means making those of us who have politically and socially developed tactics that will allow us to grow foot the bill and let those who have made these choices poorly to have exactly what we have, but not to work for it. Sure there are natural advantages, but how does that matter? Should we feel guilty that we have resourceful land? Absolutely not, we should feel blessed. For as much whining the left does about outsourcing jobs the "carbon credit" industry that Al Gore his cronies are making a killing off of, in part by fueling the fear over this hoax, is doing just that:
Under the protocol, a company can earn emission credits by building emissions-cutting projects in developing countries – dubbed a clean-development mechanism (CDM). CDM credits can be traded on the international carbon market, with 2 percent of the value set aside in an adaptation fund. But by some pessimistic estimates, that levy is only likely to generate several hundred million dollars a year. So developing countries want to expand the levy to cover all carbon credits issued under the protocol – not just those issued via the clean-development mechanism. Their goal here is to put the protocol's adaptation fund squarely on the agenda for the protocol's first operational review, slated for next year. The protocol's first commitment period takes effect Jan. 1. In addition, developing countries are pushing to streamline and cut the high cost of applying for adaptation money.
Meanwhile, you still can't get any Democrats on board for Wind Farms because Teddy Kennedy doesn't like the sight of them while sailing, and Democrats specifically blackballing hydrogen and nuclear energy (the only reliable source of clean energy available) from their doomed-to-fail energy bill, while raising taxes immensely on oil companies. Their efforts are reckless and baseless. They ignore the energy solutions that will work and respond the damaging effects of highly inflated gas prices by trying to shove a tax increase what will be passed along and funded by the tax payers. Luckily, President Bush and the Administration are taking a "thanks, but no thanks" approach to the lunacy in Bali as well as the Democrats latest logic lacking bill. Finally, for your consideration, I give you this excellent post by Stephen Milloy, entitled, The Greenest Hypocrites of 2007, a must read.