LIMA – No real science backs the notion that humans are the main cause of global warming. In fact, this reality is one of the reasons why the term global warming has been changed twice since its inception. For a few years, we’ve heard the mainstream media call it climate change, as if changes in the Earth’s climate are not normal and natural. Then came the term, climate disturbance, the latest in a list of names that intends to distract people from the science of climate change to focus them on how bad humans are to the planet and how this fact requires that the planet be depopulated massively.
It seems that the leaders of the fake environmental movement, the proponents of cutting CO2 emissions as a way to reduce global warming and mitigate the supposed consequences they attach to it, always talk about cutting down emissions globally as if they do not have to reduce their footprint themselves. For example, the first climate meeting in Rio in 1992 had 1,000 delegates participating in the discussions. Last week in Lima, there were 11,000 people from almost every single country on the planet.
The climate talks are a failure for two main reasons: Firstly, climate science as it is presented on the main stream is pseudo-science. If it wasn’t all the scientific community would be undoubtedly on board. Second, scientists and delegates are not the ones discussing what needs to be done, corporations are. One of the reasons why very little agreement is achieved every time there is a new climate meeting is because more delegates from different countries continue to realize that global warming is a hoax and that the so-called “science” that backs it up does not have anything scientific behind it.
The question is, if with every new climate meeting less is accomplished, why bother having these meetings? The leaders of the corporate world who are behind the global warming hoax understand that in order to have the masses of people on board, they need to make them feel part of it, so they call on national representatives to appear on climate meetings to “work together” on policies that have already been decided on. This is more easily understood if you live in North America, where local and regional meetings on global warming and Agenda 21 are held everywhere to make people feel included.
Neither the latest UN summits nor the previous ones are effective in moving forward on curbing CO2 emissions – assuming CO2 is a threat for real. The balance of Lima has been especially painful. After the US and China announced the signing of a new emissions deal, it appeared that the magic key to open the door of paralysis would finally be opened, but it was not. Hopes fell apart like sugar cubes in the last few hours where the ambitious objectives, once again, vanished. All that delegates at the latest Lima COP20 Climate Talks have to show for is hope that the next meeting in 2015 will render anything more significant than what they accomplished this year.
The abject failure of the climate talks has some people suggesting that the format of the event should be changed. Perhaps, some say, there are too many people involved. Yvo de Boer, Executive Director of the Climate Change Convention of the UN, said the problem is that the UN negotiators have no authority. Listen carefully here. The UN wants more power, enough power to ignore the representatives of the world nations so it can decide whatever its corporate sponsors want to adopt as “climate policy”. “If the leaders of the G-20 met and said, ‘Gentlemen, let’s do this,’ this whole debate would be over in 30 minutes,” he told Reuters. Do you understand it now?
The failure to reach an agreement is a two prong issue. Firstly, it means there is a strong opposition from developing countries to surrender their right to have better living conditions, and, second, the United Nations can claim it does not have enough power to decide so countries vote to provide that power to decide unilaterally. Things would not change much if such power were awarded, after all, the G20 nations already decide what economic and social policies are implemented worldwide.
What could be wrong with giving the G20 more power when it comes to climate policy? It would only mean the leaders of the “free world” would be able to codify the policies they have already implemented – by stealth for a long time – to de-industrialize the West while keeping developing nations poor. This along with their depopulation policies would result in the much desired goal to massively reduce the planet’s population by as much as 90%.
In Lima many world delegations already knew about this, so hostilities resumed when their representatives made their voices heard to demand less responsibility in action against global warming. De Boer proposed to correct errors ahead of the summit in Paris 2015, and tried to “identify the cornerstones of work to do” and that “a technical process needs to unfold as opposed to a political one.” The problem is that the COP20 meetings are filled with politicians and representatives from the global industry, which makes it impossible to achieve technical goals. De Boer‘s hope is that Paris marks a turning point after nearly two decades of climate diplomacy with poor results since Kyoto was adopted in 1997.
The covenant of Lima is poor because countries are only invited (but not required) to submit their plans for reducing greenhouse gases. This is so, because as explained earlier, the actual policies that corporate leaders seek to approve have already been written. All that they want is developing countries to sign on the dotted line and comply with their desires.
Teresa Ribera, former Secretary of State for Climate Change, notes, however, that the solution must be political negotiations at the UN. Mrs. Ribera, much like former and current political leaders thinks that besides being a forum, the UN should be awarded the power to force policy on countries much as it does already on so-called conservation of natural resources. (See Agenda 21 for details). She says that along with the political side, there must be a technical one, the complex and mixed messages require “policy responses by politicians”, as opposed to science based decisions.
She proposes the descentralization of negotiations so that the “consensus” required by the UN does not paralyze countries poised to achieve more ambitious targets to limit greenhouse gases. However, her proposal to achieve this goal is filled with more red tape. She wants to create a “club of the 50 fastest countries” so that the process can not broken. By the way, Mrs. Ribera is the director of the Institute for Durable Development and International Relations, a French think tank that works under the socialist French government.
Ribera finds it curious that developing countries do not demand more from industrialized countries such as China, for example. The reason for this is that China, Russia, the United States and some European nations -either through their government or their corporations – finance investments and develop collaborative projects in these countries, so a “call to action” from third world nations would mean a considerable reduction in such an investment.
Some observers thought that the Lima talks were so weak that the result shows that the multilateral UN process is not the best for climate action. They are absolutely correct. Each nation should independently establish its own environmental goals as opposed to having a global bureaucracy telling them what they must do while the largest polluters in the planet buy their way through policy and law by purchasing carbon credits that encourage more pollution of the environment.
“We continue negotiating to take adopt vague agreements only to save the multilateral system, so that it gives governments some legitimacy on the issue, but that can no longer continue,“ explained Llorenç Serrano, former environment secretary of CCOO, when questioned about this issue. José Manuel Entrecanales, president of Acciona, said referring to the poor results achieved in Durban, South Africa, in 2011, that “the lack of agreement on climate change shows that politicians do not have a strong mandate from their constituents. The fault is ours,” he said.
“While negotiators struggled to get even a modest agreement, the UN is not the only key player,” said Nathaniel Keohane, from the Environmental Defense Fund. “The announcement of the US and China before the summit did provide a fundamental change in establishing the division of responsibilities between developed nations and developing countries to produce a convergence of effort. But in Lima a lot of developing countries retreated,” said Elliot Diringer of the Center for Climate and Energy Solutions.
The result is that the United Nations considers that it is already clear that the promises of action to limit warming to be talked about in Paris in December 2015 are below the goal of preventing a temperature rise of 2 degrees above the preindustrial era.
“We’ll have to work a lot,” said French Foreign Minister Laurent Fabius of the task ahead for Paris.
Luis R. Miranda is the Founder and Editor of The Real Agenda. His 16 years of experience in Journalism include television, radio, print and Internet news. Luis obtained his Journalism degree from Universidad Latina de Costa Rica, where he graduated in Mass Media Communication in 1998. He also holds a Bachelor’s Degree in Broadcasting from Montclair State University in New Jersey. Among his most distinguished interviews are: Costa Rican President Jose Maria Figueres and James Hansen from NASA Space Goddard Institute. Read more about Luis.