Climate Treaties and Laws are Not Meant to Aid Developing Countries But to Systematically Transfer Wealth from Developed Countries to Private Financiers Through Carbon Taxes and Carbon Markets

Leaked G20 Documents Shed Light on Global Carbon Tax

This “public finance” will of course be raised by the developed nations through taxation, thus amounting to an indirect carbon tax on the population of the developed world

November 15, 2009

The Corbett Report - ...In addition to the expansion of the African Union and the population reduction goals that Estulin has identified as key G20 talking points, the documents also shed light on how the financial oligarchs hope to establish a global fund of “predictable public finance” to fight the phoney global warming problem.

Startlingly, the draft document admits that the fund could be administered by “an existing international financial institution.” Although this potentially explosive language was removed from the bland, politically palatable final version of the G20 communique, attendee notes indicate the nature and operation of this fund was a key discussion point during the conference.

Although the paragraph on climate change in the final version of the document seems like an afterthought, inserted as the last point before the summation, the draft communique indicates it was in fact one of the highest priorities, originally coming right after the opening preamble. The final version has also exorcised all but the most mealy-mouthed political language.

Compare this sentence in the final version: “Public finance can leverage significant private investment” to the original:

“Substantial additional and predictable public finance from developed countries is essential, and should serve as a foundation for private finance, carbon markets and domestic public resources of developing countries to contribute to climate action. Public finance can also leverage significant private investment.”

The draft text opens the kimono on the financier’s plan to establish a process for systematic wealth transfer from developed countries not to aid developing countries (who will also contributing “domestic public resources” to fight the non-existent carbon dioxide scare) but to help prop up private financiers and carbon markets. This “public finance” will of course be raised by the developed nations through taxation, thus amounting to an indirect carbon tax on the population of the developed world.

Perhaps the most egregious language in the draft document comes from the final sentences of the climate change paragraph, also replaced by bland platitudes in the final communique:

“…serious consideration should be given to the creation of a new fund, as a complement to existing mechanisms, to support projects, programmes and policies, possibly with multiple windows, to support adaptation and mitigation, technology cooperation and capacity building in developing countries. It should have balanced representation and operate under the policy guidance of, and be accountable to, the Conference of the Parties, with its operation possibly entrusted to an existing international financial institution.”

In other words, the carbon tax revenue deposited in this new wealth transfer fund will be given directly to the very institutions that have been shown as a tool of Anglo-American imperialist hegemony again and again and again.

Ultimately, the G20 defers the decision on what type of carbon tax/wealth transfer mechanism to set up to the UNFCCC, the similarly unelected and unaccountable United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change that will be meeting in Copenhagen next month. Although it is clear the UNFCCC is fully on board with the global carbon tax scheme, the controlled corporate media is now reporting that the Copenhagen summit is unlikely to finalize a broad international treaty. Once again, however, the smuggled G20 documents again say otherwise.

One attendee’s handwritten note under the heading “US-Geithner” reads:

“President optimistic have basic elements in place in US in next year.”

Another, under the heading “Address issues ahead of Copenhagen – Wayne Swan” reads:

“More agreement than think. Need find public way of communicating.”

Perhaps such self-consciousness about the deep unpopularity of the proposed bankster carbon tax explains why the more controversial elements of the draft communique were removed.

Rich Nations' Climate Cash Offers Still Not Clear

November 13, 2009

Reuters - Just weeks from a major U.N. climate summit, rich nations have yet to unveil specific amounts to help poor countries fight global warming, Canada's finance minister said on Friday. Funding to help poorer nations adapt to rising seas and more chaotic weather is a make-or-break issue for talks to try to seal a broader climate pact in Copenhagen next month.

The U.N. climate chief has called for an initial $10 billion in funding to be offered by rich nations in Copenhagen. EU leaders say developing countries would need 100 billion euros ($148 billion) by 2020.

But Canada's Finance Minister Jim Flaherty said there were still no specific numbers on the table during high-level discussions at a recent G20 meeting or during a gathering of Asia-Pacific leaders, ministers and CEOs that ends on Sunday.

"At the G20 meeting in Scotland (last week) we talked about financing options but we did not talk about numbers," he told Reuters on the sidelines of the annual Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation summit.

Three weeks from the start of the Dec 7-18 meeting in Denmark, that remained the case, he said. The G20 finance ministers made very little progress during their talks on climate funding in Scotland, with heated arguments over who should foot the bill.

Developing nations, where per-capita emissions are a fraction of those in the developed world, say rich countries are responsible for most of mankind's greenhouse gas emissions since the Industrial Revolution and so must help them adapt.

The chairman of global accounting firm PricewaterhouseCoopers said he didn't expect the Copenhagen talks to make major progress.

"I think it will move forward but I'm not looking for any major breakthroughs at this point," Dennis Nally told Reuters.

The United Nations has set a goal for nations to agree on the outlines of a broader, and tougher, framework in Copenhagen in which all countries share the burden of fighting climate change, but lack of progress in negotiations and worries over the fragile global economic recovery have dimmed hopes of success.

Nally said he didn't expect developed nations' economies to recover for another 18 to 24 months, making it hard for them to make major financial commitments for climate funds.

"I don't think you're going to see governments committing big time until they have a better feel for what that economic picture is going to look like."

"The economic environment that we're dealing with right now, that creeps into that whole discussion and I think until you get some clarity around this recovery period and what does it look like, that is going to be the cloud that hangs over all that."

U.N. Official Says Leaders Want Fast Climate Deal

November 12, 2009

Reuters - World leaders are setting their sights on completing an international deal on combating global warming by the middle of next year, a U.N. official said on Thursday, now that there is broad agreement next month's deadline will not be met in Copenhagen.

With hope all but gone that December's international climate change summit in Copenhagen will reach a final deal on new goals for reducing emissions of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases, negotiators are focusing on when such a pact can realistically be produced.

Janos Pasztor, climate adviser to U.N. Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon, told reporters that Ban "has consulted with a number of heads of state and so far the general feeling seems to be that we should try to complete the job earlier than later." He added, "So, more like the six months than the 12" for additional negotiations.

Whether it is six or 12 more months of intensive work on a climate change deal depends largely on when next year the United States Senate can pass domestic legislation reducing the country's carbon pollution from smokestacks.

Democratic leaders in the Senate had hoped the full Senate would have passed a bill by December 7, when the Copenhagen summit is set to begin. But the effort has become bogged down, with U.S. lawmakers preoccupied with healthcare reform legislation and many also hesitant during economic hard times to pass a climate change bill that would raise energy prices.

Asked during the telephone press conference why a six-month extension might not be enough time, Pasztor said:

"If the U.S. Senate is not able to move forward in early spring, then we're back in the same situation, so we need to take that into account."

While Copenhagen is not expected to produce a deal that's ready for participating countries to ratify, Pasztor said the summit in the Danish capital still can produce a detailed framework.

Asked whether Ban expects the Copenhagen summit to nail down emission-reduction targets, the amount and type of aid developing countries would offer to poor nations and other details, Pasztor answered:

"Yes. That's exactly what is the expectation and that is what we feel that is possible."

The United States, the world's second largest carbon polluter, is the only developed country to have failed so far to commit to specific emission reductions. But a bill passed by the U.S. House of Representatives would set a 17 percent reduction by 2020, from 2005 levels, and 83 percent by 2050.

Similar legislation approved by a Senate committee calls for a 20 percent cut by 2020. But many senators want a less ambitious plan, possibly in the range of 14-17 percent.

Without a proposal by the United States, other countries attending the Copenhagen summit are unlikely to move forward.

Alden Meyer, who works on climate change issues for the Union of Concerned Scientists, said U.S. negotiators are "actively considering" several options for Copenhagen, including offering up a "provisional target subject to final action by Congress," proposing a target range or a minimum goal.

Both Pasztor and Meyer agreed that whatever carbon emission goals countries settle on next month or next year, governments later on will have to "ratchet up" their efforts to avoid the worst effects of rising temperatures that bring polar ice melting, drought, flooding, famine and the spread of disease.