BONN, GERMANY, October 25, 1999 — As a Texan, let me explain to outsiders that it is rude to ask a Texas rancher how many cattle he owns or how many acres are on his ranch. When the United Nations asks, then, how many cattle a rancher owns because they want to figure how much methane gas they produce, it’s beyond insult; it’s outrageous! The UN is worried that cattle produce one of the “global warming” gases: methane.
Delegates from 150 countries are meeting to negotiate the implementation “rules” for the UN Kyoto Protocol in Bonn, Germany through November 5. They are considering a “rule” that would force Texas ranchers to declare how many cattle they own and what they feed them in order to estimate how much “global warming gas” they produce!
Consider the same “rule” in India where cows are considered “sacred.” The cows are not owned and no one knows what they eat. Since the number of cows in India is unknown, it would be impossible to determine how much methane gas they expel.
Methane gas is only one of the six “greenhouse gases” that delegates from 150 countries are trying to define the “rules” by which the U.S. is to meet her target to reduce greenhouse gases by 7% below 1990 levels by 2008-2012. The delegates are also to determine what the “consequences” will be if the U.S. fails to comply with that target. It is conceivable that in the near future the UN will “rule” that global citizens become vegetarians in order to reduce methane gas levels!
Yesterday, I attended a workshop of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), the body charged with producing the science that proves the globe is warming. They have yet to produce a glossary! Regardless, they claimed they “will scope the uncertainty” of global warming and present ways to “manage these uncertainties,” adding that “justice must be done and be seen to be done.”
The bottom line is that this “global warming” treaty presents the ultimate government control mechanism. If they can create “rules” about how much methane gas cows can produce, then imagine the extent to which they will try to press their unscientific agenda to create “rules” for every American industry from automobile manufacturers to widget makers.
During this UN conference, delegates are also to define and measure “sinks,” nature’s own air cleaners that take in the “global warming” gases-trees for example. How many trees will the UN busybodies require a Texas rancher to plant in order to offset his cattle’s methane gas production? The situation would be funny if the UN was not dead serious!
It may be a good thing, however, that the UN wants to tangle with Texas farmers and ranchers because they know how to handle hot air producers. They simply tell them they are “all hat and no cattle!” Too bad the White House can’t handle such a simple task.
BONN, GERMANY, October 29, 1999 — United Nations bureaucrats commonly pervert words in order to manipulate unsuspecting people. Take “capacity-building” for example, a double-barreled word used in the UN’s Agenda 21 written in Rio de Janeiro in 1992 and currently at the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change in Bonn, Germany.
How might Americans interpret “capacity-building”? American parents send their children to schools in order to “build their capacities” to be all they can be. A builder increases his “capacity to build” by purchasing more properties on which to build more houses. A baker buys a new oven to “capacity-build” quality and quantity of his baked goods.
The UN has yet another meaning for “capacity-building” revealed at a UN Development Program workshop entitled “Capacity-building for sustainable development and climate change policies.”
A panelist from Red China focused on building self-reliance. The Chinese are indeed becoming self-reliant by buying political favors from President Clinton in order to obtain some of America’s most sensitive technologies; they have hood-winked American industries into abusing Chinese citizens for slave labor; and they have secured both ends of the world’s most important waterway, the Panama Canal. The Chinese are “capacity-building” at America’s expense.
A panelist from an African country mumbled a few words about sustainability and that the 38 nations bound by the Kyoto Protocol (the balance of the countries are exempt) must assist developing countries in “capacity-building.” Then he confessed that he really didn’t know what he was supposed to talk about!
Finally, a presentation by a panelist from Columbia described how “capacity-building” is to be used in this “radically different approach to pollution control”: the Kyoto Protocol. The representative, Thomas Black Arbelaez, interpreted the Kyoto Protocol to mean “international capacity-building” in which “national institutions must be developed” in order to trade greenhouse gases.
The UN contends that greenhouse gases, mostly carbon dioxide, the gas produced by burning fossil fuels AND by humans when we breathe out, are warming the globe. If ratified by the U.S. Senate, the Kyoto Protocol would limit America’s greenhouse gas emissions to 7% below 1990 levels by 2008-2012. Since American industries have grown since 1990, it would mean a reduction in our industrial strength by 25%! Science has not proven that the globe is warming or that industrial burning of fossil fuels (or humans breathing out) could cause it if it does exist. Science has yet to figure out how to measure greenhouse gases or how to measure “carbon sinks” such as trees that remove carbon dioxide from the air. Regardless, President Clinton signed the Kyoto Protocol last year during another “global warming” meeting in Buenos Aires, Argentina. He has yet to send it to the Senate for ratification.
Arbelaez said that, using the White House’s own numbers, Columbia could probably export $450 million per year in carbon dioxide credits. That means that in order for the U.S. to meet her requirements under the Kyoto Protocol, at least in part, American taxpayers could send $450 million annually to Columbia to buy the “right” to operate carbon dioxide producing industries within our borders. He said that that would be higher than Columbia’s exports in gold, emeralds, bananas and coffee. No wonder he said it would be “worth working towards.” He complained, however, that if the U.S. does not ratify the Kyoto Protocol, then carbon dioxide trading would only be worth $1 or $2 per ton rather than the $15 to $30 if we do ratify the boondoggle.
The Columbian also warned that if governments build bureaucracies that support big industries while neglecting middle and small ones, then this greenhouse gas trading system would impose a big stumbling block. He rightly fears that corrupt government officials will hijack the greenhouse gas trading system. The world has already witnessed such “capacity-building” abuses in Russia.
The bottom line of “capacity-building” is that it grants developing countries the tool with which to demand more funds from U.S. taxpayers, while developing countries must build their own bureaucracies charged with distributing our “gifts.” In other words, the UN Kyoto Protocol’s greenhouse gas trading system would “build the capacity” of the UN to become the global economic equalizer.
When former President Bush signed the original Climate Change Treaty in 1992 and the Democrat-controlled Senate ratified it, America became entangled in the UN web that intends to redistribute wealth globally. The Clinton-Gore administration has enhanced it by committing to legally-binding targets. Now, the UN is discussing what “consequences” will be applied to the 38 nations that must adhere to the Climate Change Treaty follow-up called the Kyoto Protocol. If America, however, wants to retain her “capacity to build” the greatest nation on earth, then citizens must ask their U.S. Senators to demand that Clinton-Gore send the Kyoto Protocol to them. Then Senators must “build the capacity” to vote NO.
BONN, GERMANY, October 30, 1999 — A brochure presented to conferees asks the question, “Can we predict the climate for the 21st century?” As I lifted the brochure from the table, I asked the question of several official delegates from differing countries standing around the table. Every one of them laughed as they responded, NO! I asked the follow-up, “Then what are we doing here? It seems there must be an alternative agenda.” Each of them smiled politely then walked away.
The two UN agencies using political arm-twisting to push the unscientific “global warming” theory are the UN Environment Program (UNEP) and the UN Development Program (UNDP). While scientific evidence does not prove human activities cause “global warming,” the UNEP and UNDP agenda is to “reduce scientific uncertainty about climate change,” harmonize greenhouse gas measuring methods “to ensure comparable results,” link environmental issues to “population size, level of affluence and choice of technologies,” and “establish national public outreach programs.” Their predetermined outcome is to redistribute wealth, Marxism.
“According to the UN Charter, everybody is born equal, and has inalienable rights to enjoy modern technological civilization. Today the per capita consumption [of natural resources] is just one tenth of that of the developed countries, one eighth of that of medium developed countries,” claims Dr. Son Jian, State Counselor with responsibility for Climate Change and Population, to the China council for International Cooperation on Environment and Development. The Red Chinese know a “gift-horse” when they see one, and the Climate Change treaty is it!
UN Secretary-General Kofi Annan calls the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change and the Kyoto Protocol “a solid foundation for long-term action.” “Building institutions” (bureaucracies), “data-gathering”, setting “targets” and designing a “system to ensure compliance” are “signs of a maturing international regime,” explains Annan. “The Convention and the Protocol are moving with this tide” leading to “green profits.” Beware of the “maturing international regime!”
In a brochure entitled, “The International Climate Agenda,” the UN states that “governments need to recognize the close interrelations and interdependence that exists between national programs and the international programs which governments have helped to design.” U.S. participation in this UN conference obliterates national sovereignty.
David Hales, Deputy Assistant Secretary, Agency for International Development (USAID) is a member of the Clinton-appointed American delegation. He claims “climate change is not an academic phenomena,” therefore “people need real choices to change citizens’ behavior since at COP 5 [this meeting], the President recognizes we cannot wait … climate change is real.” America must “privatize production of electricity [according to international rules], have good forestry uses [according to international rules], increase the capacity of developing countries to participate and be able to predict weather better [redistribute wealth and technologies to developing countries].” The Clinton administration are betrayers of the American dream.
Joining Hales at U.S. press conferences this week was Mark Hambley, alternate head of the U.S. delegation. Hambly has led the U.S. negotiating team at numerous climate change conferences. He was Ambassador in Qatar during the Gulf War. Also in the delegation is Jefferson Seabright, Executive Director of the White House Task Force on Climate Change. Seabright was formerly with USAID and has worked for Senators John D. Rockefeller IV and Timothy Wirth. The fox is in charge of the hen house!
During a field trip to the Mulheim-Karlich nuclear power plant, I received an introduction to the issue of nuclear production of electricity. Everyone agrees that disposal of radioactive waste is the greatest negative to nuclear energy, however, it produces no greenhouse gases which the radical environmentalists claim causes global warming. They also oppose hydropower that produces about 11% of our electricity. Nuclear plants produce about 20% of America’s electricity.
In a statement to The Washington Post National Weekly Edition, October 25, 1999, presidential candidate George W. Bush claims to “oppose the Kyoto Protocol.” A closer look at his position, however, reveals that he believes there is global warming, but opposes the “current” Kyoto Protocol. In other words, he believes the Kyoto Protocol can be altered in order to become acceptable. Remember, his father signed the original Climate Change Treaty in 1992 that put America into the UN’s web.
The infamous Greenpeace organization is represented in Bonn by Bill Hare, their climate policy leader. He said this week, “Climate change is here now-temperatures are increasing, the Arctic is melting and sea levels are rising-but there is a disturbing lack of urgency in the international political negotiations which are currently moving at a snail’s pace.” Since none of his catastrophic claims are scientific, his comments seem to reveal a preference for snail darters over humans.
What a week it was!
BONN, GERMANY, November 1, 1999 — I attended a worship service on Sunday organized by the Protestant Churches of Germany with participation by Klaus Topfer, the UN Environment Program (UNEP) executive director, and members of the World Council of Churches (WCC) to the Conference of the Parties 5 (COP5) in Bonn. The WCC Program based in Geneva, Switzerland, parallels the prophetic “one-world religion” with its three-pronged agenda: justice, peace and creation.
Following a magnificent musical prelude, the pastor cited Philippians 2.:12, exhorting us to “continue to work out your salvation with fear and trembling” in the context of the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) meeting in Bonn.
“God’s creation is being damaged,” he said, which is “one of the greatest threats to human existence. The WCC is involved because the threat is deeply spiritual and rooted in the Bible. We believe they have deep ethical and religious ramifications; we must recognize this because it is a matter of justice and love. Love,” he continued, “for one another and for the earth. War, materialism and consumerism are problems,” he claimed, but, “happy are those who are humble. We are deeply concerned about the danger of climate change. May God the Creator listen to our prayers,” he concluded.
He then reviewed the evolution of the UNFCCC. Since its beginning in Rio de Janeiro in 1992, the UN has held follow-up meetings in Berlin in 1995, Geneva in 1996, Kyoto in 1997, Buenos Aires in 1998 and now in Bonn to debate the mechanisms for implementation of the Kyoto Protocol.
Unwittingly, the pastor preached the new “earth gospel” that industrialized countries are doing harm to the environment and that the world needs a far-reaching policy to achieve social and environmental “justice.” Industrialized countries must scale back our standard of living (become humble) in order to save the earth.
The WCC has co-opted unsuspecting churches in their mission to save the earth while they have chosen to be mute about the annual holocaust of 1.5 million human babies created in the image of God! The UN spews its propaganda that the earth’s carrying capacity (population explosion) has reached 6 billion people, although they cannot substantiate their numbers nor do they know how many people the earth’s resources can provide for.
Fertility rates in most “industrialized” countries are below replacement: 2.1 children per woman. The UN contends, however, that if the fertility rate in “developing” countries drops to 2.2 children per woman, the world’s population would reach 8.9 billion by 2050 (The Dallas Morning News, “Population problem hasn’t been solved,” September 11, 1999). These UN numbers require more faith than is required by any of the world’s religions!
Regardless, the world’s largest human genocide organization, Planned Parenthood (PP), preaches the UN message that “Americans gobble up 33% of the world’s energy and produce 25% of its solid waste.” Their summer 1999 West Texas newsletter states that “[w]e have real challenges ahead of us with 6 billion people, including educating the increasing numbers of children, creating jobs for swelling ranks of young job seekers and dealing with the environmental effects of population growth such as deforestation, soil erosion and falling water tables.” To the contrary, only about 5% of America’s lands are developed and 75% of the U.S. population lives on only 3.5% of our land. More than five times as much land is set aside in national parks, wilderness areas, federal forests and federal grazing lands than has been developed (Investor’s Business Daily, September 21, 1999, by H. Sterling Burnett, NCPA)
It is fascinating that the UN, the World Council of Churches and Planned Parenthood preach the same “earth gospel” that places more value on tigers and elephants than on humans. In September, for example, the UNEP reported that representatives from 147 countries met in Lisbon to strengthen international protections for the tiger and consider the status of a program allowing controlled trade in elephant ivory. In contrast, billionaires Bill Gates, Ted Turner, George Soros and Warren Buffett are contributing a lot of their wealth to the cause of the environment and population programs aimed at limiting/destroying humans.
“The Ecologist” magazine, March/April 1999 edition expounds on the spiritual aspects of the radical environmentalists in an article entitled, “Gaia’s Fever.” Gaia is a female pagan deity name for the earth. The article contends that man’s industrial activities cause the earth to warm and that mankind should not wait for “all the details in order to act” claiming scientific proof of global warming is unnecessary. Gaia’s lifespan, they contend, is ten billion years, with at least another five billion to go. If we do not act now, they claim, it “could be the end of civilization for us.”
An advertisement inside the magazine’s cover promotes a new book entitled, “The Way, An Ecological World-View” by Edward Goldsmith (http://www.uga.edu/ugapress) which puts the issue into a nutshell. Gilles MacBain of Common Ground said about the book: “One of those books, like Darwin’s Origin of Species or Karl Marx’s Das Kapital, that is going to change the world we live in.” If his assessment is true, then the radical environmentalists have surpassed Marx who convinced too many that there was no God and that man’s innate goodness could equitably distribute wealth. The new “earth gospel” teaches that the God-ordained church is to condone wealth redistribution and abortion/genocide in order to save the earth.
Christians do have a responsibility to care for our environment because God uses it to profit our health and welfare. Our responsibility, however, is first to human beings because we, including the pre-born, are eternal beings. The new “earth gospel” demands faith in MAN, that he CAN change the earth’s climate, rather than in Creator God. Their rhetoric about hurricanes and melting glaciers makes me wonder what part of climate change is causing earthquakes in various places!
In Matthew 16:2-3, Jesus told religious leaders who were testing Him by asking for a sign from heaven, “When evening comes, you say, ‘It will be fair weather, for the sky is red,’ and in the morning, ‘Today it will be stormy, for the sky is red and overcast.’ You know how to interpret the appearance of the sky, but you cannot interpret the signs of the times. A wicked and adulterous generation looks for a miraculous sign, but none will be given it except the sign of Jonah.”
This “wicked and adulterous generation” is meeting to develop rules and mechanisms to implement the Kyoto Protocol, allegedly to save the earth, rather than to seek and obey the Creator God. Let us, instead, be more concerned about the climate inside the hearts of men. Those of us who place our faith and hope in Jesus — who was born of a virgin, died on a cross and arose from the dead — will be saved from eternal destruction. As for the earth, it will be done away with, by the hand of God, not of men. The church has better things to do; we have an entire world of peoples to reach!
BONN, GERMANY, November 3, 1999 — America is following what Friedrich Hayek entitled his 50-year-old book, “The Road to Serfdom.” In the book, Hayek explains how the German “managed economy” led to the government of Adolph Hitler and WWII. While he correctly describes the nature of society and the errors of collectivism, he wrongly thought that the League of Nations, the attempted predecessor of the UN, could be used to avoid wars. If he could have foreseen how the UN is implementing the Kyoto Protocol, he would have rewritten that chapter!
The final days at the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change the Fifth Conference of the Parties (UNFCCC-COP5) meeting in Bonn, Germany are brimming with double-speak. The radical environmentalists have placed their gauntlet: adopt the implementation “rules” for the Kyoto Protocol by the 2000 COP 6 meeting and set the deadline for its entry into force at 2002. As the high level negotiations begin, however, these goals are illusive. Unbridled by national sovereignty or science, nonetheless, the U.S. has signed the treaty that will not be completed until possibly late 2000 or early 2001.
American Under Secretary of State for Global Affairs, Frank E. Loy, has arrived in Bonn “pleased and proud to be part of COP 5.” He says America is “more committed than ever to deal with climate change” because of a “growing scientific consensus on the causes and consequences of climate change.” Calling the Kyoto Protocol “the basic architecture of an international strategy,” he added that last year’s Buenos Aires plan of action “laid out a road map for turning Kyoto’s broad concepts into working realities.” Loy also touted President Clinton’s Executive Orders and record funding levels for the cause.
Careful study of Loy’s remarks unmasks unscientific folly. While there may be “scientific consensus” about global warming, there is NO scientific evidence for it. “Consensus” is based on emotions rather than facts, which is evident by the fact that “developing” countries believe that industrialized countries, primarily the U.S., are damaging their environments which will bring about imminent deaths and destruction.
Island nations, for example, are convinced that their islands will sink due to America’s industrial greenhouse gases that are supposedly causing the West Antarctic ice sheet to melt. A recent study in “Science,” however, reports that the melting is NOT as a result of global warming (AP/Richmond Times-Dispatch, October 8, 1999). And even if the ice sheet melted, it is doubtful that islands would sink. Regardless, repetition of environmental lies has led to the establishment of the “consensus” to act. Afraid to be labeled anti-environment, governments and industries are going along with the ruse.
The “rules” the parties are debating in Bonn are for the three “flexible mechanisms” of the Kyoto Protocol. Loy says the mechanisms are “market-oriented strategies that will reap rewards for developing countries that voluntarily reduce their emissions.” In reality, they are rules that surpass the “rules” of the World Trade Organization; the Kyoto Protocol will allow UN bureaucrats to manage EVERY nation’s economy.
The first mechanism is called a Clean Development Mechanism (CDM). It would allow “developed” countries to use certified emissions reductions from project activities in “developing” countries to contribute to their compliance with greenhouse gas reduction targets. Using the CDM, America could build high-tech, environmentally sound power plants in Mexico, Brazil, Saudi Arabia or one of the other 147 “developing” countries. In other words, the Kyoto Protocol would allow Americans to transfer technologies to developing countries in order to gain greenhouse gas credits and keep our “home fires” burning.
The second “flexible mechanism,” called Joint Implementation (JI), would allow America to obtain credits toward our greenhouse gas reduction target (7% below 1990 levels by 2008-2012) through project-based emission reductions in other “developed” countries through “public-private partnerships,” a.k.a. fascism.
The third “flexible mechanism” would allow America to pursue, through an umbrella group (a climate stock exchange), the implementation of a trading regime. The U.S. could buy emissions permits from countries that have already met their targets with room to spare.
Underscoring the fact that the Kyoto Protocol is NOT intended for “free people” or “free markets, verification, reporting and accountability “rules” must be developed for each of these mechanisms. New UN bureaucracies will attempt to verify greenhouse gas emissions, but how are they measured? Will Texas ranchers have to register their cows (methane gas producers) along with a description of their diets in order to appease the UN bureaucrats? Will trees and other “greenhouse gas” absorbers known as “sinks” have to be registered with the UN? What penalties will be foisted upon Americans and American industries if we do not comply? Who will impose the penalties?
Americans should demand immediate de-funding of the UN because it is the most abusive hot air producer on earth and because it recognizes no borders! While Under Secretary of State Loy believes that if a Republican is elected president in 2000, he will join in support of the Kyoto Protocol’s finished document because the “science is getting hard,” I believe weak-willed politicians who substitute sound science for “scientific consensus” do not deserve our support! And any politician who aids “the road to serfdom” should be turned out of office!
BONN, GERMANY, November 5, 1999 — The UNFCCC COP 5 in Bonn, Germany has concluded. Delegates agreed to accept the scientific consensus that human activities are causing the earth to warm even though science has not proven the emotional claims.
The scientific study group created by the UN, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), is largely responsible for creating the ruse even though they have yet to publish even a glossary for a scientific paper proving the earth is warming. Nonetheless, the IPCC says, “It is not a question of whether the earth’s climate will change, but rather when, where and by how much.”
The secretary-general of the World Meteorological Organization (WMO) Professor Godwin Olu Patrick Obasi admits that “limitations of data, and current levels of scientific knowledge for the detection and attribution of observed climate variability and change constrain the establishment of definite associations between these observed phenomena and human induced climate change to the realms of scientific debate.” He adds, “The WMO have identified some serious deficiencies in the global observing systems for climate.”
Progress has been made on last year’s Buenos Aires Plan of Action that is to lead to entry into force of the Kyoto Protocol. The deadline set for decisions on the Buenos Aires plan is next year in The Hague, The Netherlands at the sixth Conference of the Parties (COP 6).
Executive Secretary Michael Zammit Cutajar says that the Kyoto Protocol must enter into force by 2002. Federal Chancellor of Germany, Gerhard Schroder, endorsed the timetable and announced an “eco-tax” to raise energy consumption costs. No wonder Germany has one of the highest unemployment rates in the western world!
The UK blocked the EU from opposing nuclear power in the “flexible mechanism” called the Clean Development Mechanism (CDM). The mechanisms are the manipulations used by the UN to redistribute energy, and therefore, wealth around the globe. (See report #5 for an explanation of the mechanisms.) France produces more than half its energy using non-carbon dioxide producing nuclear energy. Supporters contend that the COP must acknowledge that nuclear energy is absolutely necessary to achieve Kyoto targets by industrial countries.
A minister from Finland, a socialist bastion, said “there is a need to set the framework and rules for market operations.” The Kyoto Protocol is “the framework and rules for market operations.”
Without mentioning the U.S. or Saudi Arabia directly, the radical environmentalists described their efforts in Bonn: “A conspiracy between those forces who might be embarrassed by this inaction, and those to wish to block all action.” The U.S. is accused of inaction because we have not reduced greenhouse gases, primarily carbon dioxide, that the green movement contends causes global warming. Saudi Arabia is regarded as obstructionist because it defends its oil production. They were assisted during the conference by Washington lawyers representing U.S. fossil fuel interests which irritated other developing countries. Things could get very interesting on this front at COP 6.
The Chinese minister insulted the U.S. saying, “attempts by some Parties, [the U.S.], to get developing countries to ‘meaningfully participate’ [President Clinton uses the phrase to entice the U.S. Senate to ratify the Kyoto Protocol in response to their unanimous resolution that it must pertain to EVERY nation, not only 38 countries.] were destroying confidence-building efforts between developing and developed countries.” The Chinese are consistent; they demand that the U.S. ignore its human rights abuses and its environment. The saddest part is that we kowtow to their demands!
The minister from Micronesia whose country has everything to gain and nothing to lose concluded that the complex work must “go forward in a different spirit-a spirit of being part of the search for an urgent solution to one of the greatest threats ever confronted by Mankind.” Otherwise, he warned, “future generations will ask, ‘Why did you not act, while there was still time?'” Get a grip!
Japan proposed the appointment of a “facilitator,” appointed by and working on behalf of the Polish COP 5 President Szyszko. His role would be to visit national leaders over the coming year in order to create progress through “political impetus.” At the closing press conference, Szyszko and Cutajar refused to reveal their interim agenda.
The U.S. wants “civil society” (radical environmentalist non-governmental organizations) to be involved in workshops at COP 6 on the Kyoto mechanisms and compliance schemes. That was the role the infamous, late Bella Abzug played at the Rio meeting in 1992. Former President Bush signed that treaty which led to the Kyoto Protocol and these continual COP meetings.
While nothing was decided about “sinks,” such as trees that remove carbon dioxide from the air, COP 5 decided upon a work plan to start the process for a decision at COP 6. Bureaucrats!
Developing countries are “capacity building” which means they are preparing to accept American technologies and industries as part of the “flexible mechanisms” required in greenhouse gas trading regimes. Rules for how the mechanisms will work was delayed until COP 6.
“A typical intercontinental return flight contributes as much to global warming as a small family in Bangladesh does over a full decade of daily life,” complained a representative from the European Union in a discussion about “bunker fuels.” In a formal statement, the U.S. agreed “with the common view that emissions from the aviation sector are an important contributor to climate change and that their contribution is likely to grow significantly over time in the absence of policy actions.” Expect COP 6 to pick up the debate on emissions of airplanes and develop an “implementation and reporting framework.” It is logical that if the UN gains the right to manage EVERY nation’s economy by dictating the amount and types of industrial fuels they can use and produce, then they will also want to dictate EVERY citizen’s coming and going!
On “compliance,” the UN’s goal to hold EVERY nation accountable to the Kyoto Protocol, COP 5 delegates decided that a decision SHALL be adopted at COP 6.
The World Council of Churches (WCC) contends, “The role of the churches is to press governments and societies to look seriously at simpler lifestyles and ask what is enough.” The WCC is vocal on the environment as God’s creation, but is mute about the protection of humans created in the image of God. Their alliance with the UN and its doctrines is consistent with the Biblical prophecies about the one-world religion in the end times.
The COP 6 meeting will occur after the election of a new U.S. president. Global warming and the Kyoto Protocol should become a litmus test for the candidates. If they accept “scientific consensus” of global warming caused by human activity rather than insisting upon scientific evidence, then they do no deserve our support. The Kyoto Protocol’s aim is to dictate industrial strength and thereby manage every nation’s economy. Since centralization of government leads to “The Road to Serfdom,” any politician who supports it should be shown the road back home.