Cancun climate change connivers
Much like last year's Copenhagen meltdown, the thrust of the United Nations' Cancun climate meetings beginning today will have little to do with "global warming" and a lot to do with wealth redistribution.
An official with the United Nations' Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change candidly admits as much in an interview with Germany's NZZ Online:
"Basically it's a big mistake to discuss climate policy separately from the major themes of globalization," says Ottmar Edenhofer. "The climate summit in Cancun ... is not a climate conference, but one of the largest economic conferences since the Second World War."
You see, wealthy nations like the United States have "basically expropriated" the world's atmosphere, says Mr. Edenhofer. So, "one must say clearly that we redistribute de facto the world's wealth by climate policy."
At stake are astronomical sums of money. Global warming-mongers in Copenhagen discussed wealth transfers of up to $100 billion annually. Yet to save the planet, big polluters like India and China would be exempt from emissions restrictions.
Supposed "climate change remedies" are nothing more than an excuse to achieve what the U.N. long has sought: a concerted redistribution of the world's wealth from developed to poor nations. Scrape away all the IPCC's disputed "science" and what's revealed is a pathetic money grab.
Show commenting policy
TribLive commenting policy
You are solely responsible for your comments and by using TribLive.com you agree to our Terms of Service.
We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.
While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.
We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments either by the same reader or different readers.
We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.
We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.
We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.
We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.