The daft treaty

With just 43 days until COP15 ( that’s 15,000 environmental jet-setters winging their way into Copenhagen) begins deciding on “the future of the earth”, the world’s press has been struck dumb. The traditional questioning-button has been turned off. It’s a matter of “don’t ask—don’t tell”, it seems. 

Where is the media investigation into what is planned for the planet in the 800 pageCopenhagen Treaty on climate change? Where are the general details of what the Rudd government has been involved in, at the various meetings in Barcelona, New York,Bangkok and other closed session venues — planning, plotting and engineering the outcome of Cop15? Why the deathly quiet? Why the lack of investigative journalism? Is the act of questioning what is going on, now on the political-correct “don’t list”? 

How many Australians have even heard off COP15, let alone what has been going on behind the scenes? What has Wong and Rudd been discussing, offering, accepting and what are Wong and Rudd planning to commit Australia to be part of? The awful secrecy surrounding COP15, a secrecy at which the UN and its professional functionaries and complacent supporters are expert at, is extraordinary. And the actual web of execution that is the modus operandi of COP15 is something straight out of Stalin’s Russia. You don’t get much spookier than titles like The Supreme Body — which COP15 is. 

Those curious enough to sift through the 800 page draft agreement are alarmed, not at the misguided noble intentions, but at the control-freak nature of the document. There is no doubt that if the Copenhagen Treaty is agreed to, in its present, most virulent form, then the world is in for a change – and that change ain’t climate, baby! 

Page 122, Item 17 states that Developed countries (and possibly some developing countries) : “(a) Compensate for damage to the LDC’s (Least Developed Countries) economy and also compensate for lost opportunities, resources, lives, land and dignity, as many will become environmental refugees.” And (b) “Africa, in the context of environmental justice, should be equitably compensated for environmental, social and economic losses arising from implementation of response measures.” 

Why are the above two items so vital and in need of robust media examination and debate? Because they are an obvious device to win the votes of third-world countries. Any UN Charter requires the vote of member nations, and as third-world countries have the majority of the 192 member states of the UN, their support for the above items almost guarantees a passing of the COP15 agenda and the passing of the Copenhagen Treaty. 

Are countries like the US, Australia, Great Britain, Japan, and the nations of Europe ready and prepared to transfer their economic wealth and treasure to countries of the third world? Are Japan, China and India? 

Be in no doubt. The deals have been done. The treaty objectives have been agreed to, in conclave, by the likes of Obama, Rudd, Brown and the Europeans. 

The most pressing items needing discussion in Copenhagen in December will not on the science of climate, economic impact, social will of the people, democratic rights or just plain common sense, but on whether various articles in the Treaty will be written as “should” or “shall”. World leaders will be asked to tick-the-boxes. 

A nation’s freedom to act in the best interests of its citizens, the moral imperatives of being a good global nation, the freedom to respond to sound scientific evidence, will be gone. The Copenhagen Treaty has the potential (or is it the intention) to become a cargo-cult of global proportions. 

Another motherhood article (16) talks of correcting adverse economic, social and environmental consequences by supporting economic diversification, funding, insurance and the development, transfer and dissemination of win-win technologies in the affected countries (Least Developed Countries). This is seen as an attempt to deny copyright and patent protection to inventors and developers of new technologies such as clean coal.  

While noble in intent, this would obviously kill any incentive for technologies to be developed by private enterprise, and leave such invention to government bodies. A very dubious proposition. 

What has not been made clear by Minister Wong and Prime Minister Rudd is the actual cost of the Copenhagen Treaty. We have some scant information about what the ETS will cost local industry and the Australian consumer should it pass the Senate. What we are not told is what the costs will be for the “externals”.  How much we will be paying to the COP15 Bank for our emissions, for our “transfer of technologies”, for compensation to LDC’s (Least Developed Countries), and how much we will be paying Africa for past sins? 

As GE (General Electric) is putting up its hand as a possible alternative to the World Bank as COP15’s banker, the big boys have certainly got a whiff of the money involved and the transfer of wealth that will accompany the passing of COP15. 

As Lord Monckton points out, the loss of democratic rights of peoples to decide their own futures, through their elected governments, is about to be stolen. 

Whether the climate is the issue or whether there are other forces at work is yet to unfold, but what is obvious is that the outcome of COP15 will rest on the decision of countries such as those in the third world; ­the South American block, the African block and the Arab-Muslim nexus — those countries with the most to gain from tying the western economies into obligation and treaty knots. It’s pay-back time! 

Thankyou IPCC for creating a problem we may not have, and finding a solution we do not want. Well done!