“EU Carbon Trading Rocked By Mass Killings
”, “Armed Troops Burn Down Homes, Kill Children To Evict Ugandans In Name Of Global Warming
These two headlines from today’s Global Warming Policy Foundation update ought to finally shake some sense into any of the many US companies pushing for our involvement in the Kyoto debacle. That’s a demand invented by Enron (greenies, I was in the room, don’t bother), and I particularly recall DuPont’s rep whining like a child to the US representative about their being denied the right to cash in, at a State Department briefing at one global confab I attended in 2002.
This is particularly true on the heels of the experience of Coca Cola and Unocal with the 1789 Alien Tort Claims Act, under which they were sued to pay for the actions of a government in whose country they operated.
Specifically, news reports indicate that:
“Armed troops acting on behalf of a British carbon trading company backed by the World Bank burned houses to the ground and killed children to evict Ugandans from their homes in the name of seizing land to protect against ‘global warming,’ a shocking illustration of how the climate change con is a barbarian form of neo-colonialism.
The evictions were ordered by New Forests Company, an outfit that seizes land in Africa to grow trees then sells the ‘carbon credits’ on to transnational corporations. The company is backed by the World Bank and HSBC. Its Board of Directors includes HSBC Managing Director Sajjad Sabur, as well as other former Goldman Sachs investment bankers...
Villagers told of how armed ‘security forces’ stormed their village and torched houses, burning an eight-year-child to death as they threatened to murder anyone who resisted while beating others.
‘We were in church,’ recalled Jean-Marie Tushabe, 26, a father of two. ‘I heard bullets being shot into the air.’
‘Cars were coming with police,’ Mr. Tushabe said, sitting among the ruins of his old home. ‘They headed straight to the houses. They took our plates, cups, mattresses, bed, pillows. Then we saw them getting a matchbox out of their pockets.’
‘But in this case, the government and the company said the settlers were illegal and evicted for a good cause: to protect the environment and help fight global warming,’ reports the New York Times.”
To beat some too-typical greens to their punch, no, this is not what happens when one introduces “market mechanisms” into environmental schemes.
The only armed goons I’ve read about under our Clean Air Act, with its cap-and-trade scheme (designed quite differently, to keep the price of coal-fired energy affordable, not make it “necessarily skyrocket”) came from EPA.
This is what happens with the UN running things
And of course, as the UN’s own lead economist on these issues, Ottmar Edenhofer has acknowledged
, “One has to free oneself from the illusion that international climate policy is environmental policy. This has almost nothing to do with environmental policy anymore”; no, instead, “one must say clearly that we redistribute de facto the world’s wealth by climate policy.”
For a detailed treatment of how one line in the Judiciary Act of 1789 would be abused to imperil our industries while chilling international investment -- when the real problem is the UN and its scheming little UN schemes -- see my paper expanding on a discussion originally written for the Federalist Society, both of which are available here
Keep these things in mind as you hear the usual green hysteria and demands in the run-up to November’s annual Kyoto negotiating session, this year’s “last chance to save humanity (or at least schemers’ schemes) in Durban, South Africa.
Then at Rio’s World Environment Summit in June, during our presidential campaign, which State Department officials privately insist Barack Obama will not
attend, even as other heads of government do.
Mmm. This is “Rio-plus 20”, celebrating the 1992 confab where the ‘global governance’ gang ultimately behind the present massacre first roped us into the Kyoto process. As I recall, the president at the time also said he
wouldn’t go. And that fella didn’t even promise to reverse the oceans’ rise (which the oceans have decided to do for themselves
, incidentally, unless a mere inauguration and some crushing rules in the pipeline were enough to do the trick).
Don’t just say no to statist, global governance-types and rent-seeking companies trying to tie us down into these regimes promising to transfer them power and wealth, and secure markets for phony commodities and uneconomic goods where none would exist, and otherwise pick your pocket at the further cost of eroding our liberties. Say no, and let everyone know why