United Nations Framework Convention on
Climate Change (UNFCCC)
Durban, South Africa
by Cathie Adams
|Further Reading: United Nations / Global Warming|
|November 29, 2011|
"We're all going to die in five years" unless a legally binding framework to cut greenhouse gas emissions is accepted by the 192 parties attending the United Nations' confab in Durban, South Africa. That is how a question was couched to a group of environmental extremists who claimed that the United States, Japan, Canada and other developed countries are roadblocks to a "progressive and aggressive solution," thus turning the annual UNFCCC meeting into a "traveling circus that cannot decide."
Jonathan Pershing of the U.S. State Department is the American head of delegation this first week of the conference. He affirmed the Administration's support of the Cancun Agreements, including the $30 billion Fast Start Fund and the $100 billion annual Green Climate Fund, a global tax proposal to be included in the "Durban package." Pershing bragged that the U.S. has already donated $5.1 billion for climate change projects in 126 countries in the last two years.
On the opening day of the UNFCCC meeting, Executive Secretary Christiana Figueres proclaimed that the world must know that we are ready for "required reassurances," adding that, "adequate and sustainable funding" will be necessary with the Green Climate Fund as the centerpiece that would unlock other issues aiming to "save tomorrow today."
Funding fortunes and promises for more are wholly inadequate tokens to Nnimmo Bassey, chair of the extremist environmental group Friends of the Earth International. Embracing sustainable development, which amounts to a utopian call for economic, social and environmental equity, she rejected sound science as she bemoaned expectations at the Durban meeting "extremely low," and a "new Durban mandate void of content." Believing the U.S. insistence that ALL major economies be a part of a new legally binding greenhouse gas emissions protocol would take 20 years to negotiate, she would rather leave major producers of greenhouse gases including China and India out of the equation.
Like the infamous "Occupy Wall Street" protestors, the extremists labeled the failed carbon markets "a means of avoiding responsibility" and "greed" the continued use of fossil fuels and the corporate control of forests. Yet they are demanding NEW funds for climate justice, which is a Marxist call for massive government controls to supposedly produce absolute equity of economies, the environment and of society. They labeled nuclear energy, hydraulic fracking for natural gas, drilling for oil and World Bank loans for energy plants "talking left, but walking right." They summed up their discontent stating that while governments "talk, we are trying to save the planet."
Another extremist group, Climate Action Network, a coalition of 700 organizations from 90 countries, called for a progressive and aggressive outcome to the Durban meeting citing a new report from the UN's International Panel on Climate Change claiming a link between extreme weather events and manmade global warming. The World Wildlife Fund, a member of CAN, called for a legal mandate for GHG emissions by 2015 and the establishment of the Green Climate Fund, a UN global tax scheme to which "no nation has said no."
The "Durban Package" could change the world if the UN gains the authority to tax and sets in motion economic devastation of Biblical proportions. With the global economy severely distressed, it remains to be seen whether a deal can be struck. Nonetheless, the UN Independent Expert on Human Rights and International Solidarity Virginia Dandan said, "The world is calling for genuine international solidarity and multilateralism, and for its leaders to take a leap of faith in unison, and as one....There is great need for a radical mindset change in order to bring back to the negotiating table the time-honoured values of humanity that have been forgotten after decades of market and profit-driven orientation."