U.N. 'Climate Change' Plan Would Likely Shift Trillions to Form New World Economy

[Johnny Punani]

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,510937,00.html

A United Nations document on "climate change" that will be distributed to a major environmental conclave next week envisions a huge reordering of the world economy, likely involving trillions of dollars in wealth transfer, millions of job losses and gains, new taxes, industrial relocations, new tariffs and subsidies, and complicated payments for greenhouse gas abatement schemes and carbon taxes — all under the supervision of the world body.

Those and other results are blandly discussed in a discretely worded United Nations "information note" on potential consequences of the measures that industrialized countries will likely have to take to implement the Copenhagen Accord, the successor to the Kyoto Treaty, after it is negotiated and signed by December 2009. The Obama administration has said it supports the treaty process if, in the words of a U.S. State Department spokesman, it can come up with an "effective framework" for dealing with global warming.

The 16-page note, obtained by FOX News, will be distributed to participants at a mammoth negotiating session that starts on March 29 in Bonn, Germany, the first of three sessions intended to hammer out the actual commitments involved in the new deal.

In the stultifying language that is normal for important U.N. conclaves, the negotiators are known as the "Ad Hoc Working Group On Further Commitments For Annex I Parties Under the Kyoto Protocol." Yet the consequences of their negotiations, if enacted, would be nothing short of world-changing. more...

link to UN Documents

http://www.foxnews.com/projects/pdf/032709_informationnote.pdf

[Toe Jam]

That sounds a lot like steps towards a one world "community".

Maybe I'm looking too much into it though.

[Midnight Judges]

I think that article just set a new record for Republican catch phrases in one paragraph.

[Vicious]

That sounds a lot like steps towards a one world "community".

Maybe I'm looking too much into it though.

oh nos that would terrible, human kind working together.

[PeterMP]

Is there a particular part that you find concerning?

Is this particularly worrisome if you take it in the context of other widespread international treaties (e.g. the Geneva Convention and the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty)?

[Larry]

I gave up after reading about halfway through the article.

Near as I can tell, the document doesn't say a single thing that Fox could even take out of context and object to. Rather, Fox observes (roughly every other sentence) that the document doesn't contain any specifics whatsoever. Therefore, Fox announces that not containing specifics is obviously part of the conspiracy, and speculates as to what the worst possibility might possibly be.

[GibbsFactor]

It is something we as a democratic republic, having a constitution explicitly stating this cannot happen to our country, should have a public vote on.

[Larry]

It is something we as a democratic republic, having a constitution explicitly stating this cannot happen to our country, should have a public vote on.

Trying to figure out what you're talking about.

[hkHog]

Is there a particular part that you find concerning?

Is this particularly worrisome if you take it in the context of other widespread international treaties (e.g. the Geneva Convention and the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty)?

I am concerned by the fact that they are using global warming to justify the transfer of trillions of dollars. I have no problem with international treaties as long as they are based on fact and substance. Also, wealth transfer helps nobody, it will certainly stunt growth considerably in the 1st world while most of the money will be embezzled by the despots and members of the suffocating ruling classes in developing countries as is the case in almost all purely monetary aid to the third world. This entire idea is ridiculous in my opinion.

[PeterMP]

I am concerned by the fact that they are using global warming to justify the transfer of trillions of dollars. I have no problem with international treaties as long as they are based on fact and substance. Also, wealth transfer helps nobody, it will certainly stunt growth considerably in the 1st world while most of the money will be embezzled by the despots and members of the suffocating ruling classes in developing countries as is the case in almost all purely monetary aid to the third world. This entire idea is ridiculous in my opinion.

Where does the linked document say anything about transferring trillions of dollars?

[Prosperity]

the UN documents didn't say anything about trillion dollars of wealth transfer, and the phrase "millions of job losses and gains" is just stupid, there are millions of lost AND gained jobs everyday.

looks like another hack job by Fox News, if there was no link to the UN documents they would have probably fooled more people

[Johnny Punani]

http://www.iaee.org/en/publications/kyoto.aspx

We find that the shortterm U.S. abatement costs of implementing this Protocol are likely to be substantial. These costs can be reduced through international trade in emission rights. The magnitude of the costs will be determined by the number of countries participating in the trading market, the shape of each country's marginal abatement cost curve, and the extent to which buyers can satisfy their obligation through the purchase of emission rights.

So I guess this wouldn't be transfering wealth from industrialized nations to other countries through emissions trading and formation of a new global economic market?

This paper uses the newly developed RICE-98 model to analyze the economics of the Kyoto Protocol. It analyzes versions of the Kyoto Protocol that have different approaches to trading emissions rights and compares these with efficient approaches. The major conclusions are: (a) the net global cost of the Kyoto Protocol is $716 billion in present value, ( the United States bears almost two-thirds of the global cost; and © the benefit-cost ratio of the Kyoto Protocol is 1/7. Additionally, the emissions strategy is highly cost-ineffective, with the global temperature reduction achieved at a cost almost 8 times the cost of a strategy which is cost-effective in terms of "where" and "when" efficiency. These conclusions assume that trading in carbon permits is allowed among the Annex I countries.

This shows the projected global cost to be close to a trillion dollars (716 billion) and these projections were made in 1999. Anyone want to say its not going to be over 1 trillion by now? Good luck. After reading several papers on the economic cost of reducing CO2 levels per the kyoto accord. The avg price in GWP (global world product) is from 1-5% of GWP. In 2008 the world GWP was valued at 78 trillion dollars. That would make the price from 780 billion dollars to 3.9 trillion dollars with the US paying 2/3 of the total price.

This paper assesses the economic impacts of carbon abatement programs proposed under the Kyoto protocol: the distribution of economic burden across countries and regions, the implications for international competitiveness, and the consequences of international permit trading. Our analysis is based on a dynamic global trade model which accounts for systematic differences in the energy efficiency of production in industrial and developing countries. Emission limits adversely affect the welfare of industrial and some developing countries, including all of the oilexporting countries. Imports from AnnexB countries become more costly while demand for most developing country exports is reduced. Oil prices simultaneously fall, so the net impact on oilimporting developing countries is ambiguous. Energyintensive industries have a strong economic incentive to relocate production to lowenergy cost developing countries. Global trading in emission rights provides the lowest cost path to Kyoto, but it is unclear whether there are incentives for all nonAnnex B countries to participate.

According to this, industrial nations would be adversely affected and energy intensive industries would have a strong economic incentive to relocate production to low energy cost developing countries. That means utilities, manufacturing, etc would move to countries with lower energy costs since our energy costs would be at a much higher rate. So, millions of jobs would be transfered from industrialized nations to developing nations.

So, we have a shift in wealth in the trillions of dollars from industrialized nations to developing nations, the migration of millions of jobs from industralized nations to developing nations, and the formation of a global ecoonomy based in the trading of carbon credits. Glad to have clear that up for those who didn't get it...