Here Come the Black Helicopters!

Until June 2012, the United States showered the world with foreign aid. We couldn’t afford it. It went to the pockets of third world tyrants and dictators. Countries who received our largesse snubbed us at every turn. And some of the money went to our outright enemies.

But at least we had control over how much we gave and who received the money.

In June 2012, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton journeyed to Rio to attend the twentieth anniversary of the original Rio Conference on global sustainability. There, she set a bold new precedent: She committed the United States to giving the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP)—an incipient global EPA—$2 billion toward an eventual fund of $100 billion, in turn to be given to the nations of the third world, nominally to assist in their adjustment to global climate change.

There’s nothing new about the $2 billion commitment. But what is new is that:

a) It implied an American commitment to an even more massive transfer of wealth running to the full $100 billion; and

b) It left it up to a new “Green Climate Fund” headquartered in Switzerland to decide how to spend the money. We would have no control over who received the funds.

The Green Climate fund was formally created at a UN climate conference in Durban, South Africa, in December 2011. It is to be administered by a twenty-four-nation interim board of trustees. Its short-term goal is to amass $100 billion, including $30 billion in “fast start-up” money that has already been pledged by member nations. Hillary’s $2 billion was part of that fund.

Hillary’s pledge was made at the Rio+20 Conference, where 190 nations gathered on the twentieth anniversary of the 1992 Rio Conference on global sustainability. They committed themselves to the development of a worldwide “green economy in the context of sustainable development and poverty eradication.”¹

Achim Steiner, UN undersecretary-general and UN Environment Programme (UNEP) executive director, proudly reported that at the Rio+20 Conference, “world leaders and governments have today agreed that a transition to a Green Economy—backed by strong social provisions—offers a key pathway towards a sustainable 21st century.”²

By lumping a “transition to a green economy” and “strong social provisions” in the same statement, Steiner really announces a new global quid pro quo between the developed and less developed world—a historic linkage between payoffs to third world dictatorships and environmental goals. The conference “agreed that such a transition [to a global green economy] could be an important tool when supported by policies that encourage decent employment, social welfare, and the inclusion and maintenance of the Earth’s ecosystems from forest to freshwaters.”³

Third world autocrats no longer need to beg for foreign aid, but instead can demand payoffs as necessary preconditions for their cooperation in protecting the environment. “If you don’t pay us off,” these nations are in effect saying, “we will chop down rain forests and refuse to cooperate with you in achieving your green goals.”

The novelty of this new form of global extortion, enshrined at the Rio Conference, is that it is the first major step in a global scheme to redistribute resources from the first world nations, whose industry and hard work has created them, to world dictators who can stash the money in Swiss bank accounts.

In more civilized language, the Rio Conference noted that its “decision supports nations wishing to forge ahead with a green economy transition while providing developing economies with the opportunity for access to international support in terms of finance and capacity building.”⁴

And who will pay the bill for the “decent employment and social welfare” in third world countries? And who will provide developing nations “wishing to forge ahead with a green economy transition… the opportunity for access to international support in terms of finance and capacity building?”⁵

We, the taxpayers of developed nations (a category that does not include China or India), will have that privilege. The Rio+20 Conference admitted the “reality that a transition to an inclusive green economy and the realization of a sustainable century needs to also include the footprints of developed nations as well as developing ones as they aim to eradicate poverty and transit towards a sustainable path.”⁶

To be sure the money actually flows as directed, “the Summit also gave the go-ahead to a set of Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) to bring all nations—rich and poor—into cooperative target setting across a range of challenges from water and land up to food waste around the globe.”⁷

These Sustainable Development Goals are not about eating your broccoli and remembering the starving millions when your children eat their supper. It is a far larger effort to regulate every aspect of our global economy, consumption patterns, modes of transportation, lifestyles, and economic decisions in the name of achieving the holy grail of “sustainability.”

For the greens and globalists, the Rio+20 Conference is the first big step toward global governance, establishing regulations affecting all aspects of our lives, bending every effort toward their environmental priorities.

It was as a down payment on this transfer of wealth that Secretary of State Clinton proudly chipped in the first $2 billion courtesy of the American taxpayer (without asking Congress first) to “mitigate the effects of climate change” in third world countries.⁸

The third world dictatorships are seeking a Global Climate Fund of $100 billion they say is to help them rein in climate change. At the Copenhagen Conference on Global Warming in December 2009, the rich and poor nations of the world agreed to raise $100 billion “in climate aid by 2020, starting with $30 billion by 2012 for ‘fast track’ financing.”⁹

But negotiators from the rich and poor nations have not yet approved the deal. The New York Times reports that “from its inception, the fund has been hamstrung by a lack of practical details of where the money should come from, and by competing visions for how it should achieve its aims.”¹⁰

But there are still high hopes for the $100 billion fund. David G. Victor, an energy expert at the University of California, San Diego, says that “for people focused on the lack of progress in the diplomatic talks, the $100 billion was the great hope for bringing countries together and making a deal. For people keen on fixing the world’s economic ills, the $100 billion was supposed to help jumpstart a green economy. For people who want to re-allocate the world’s wealth, the $100 billion was a new way to move money from North to South.”¹¹

In October 2011, the negotiating committee of twenty-five delegates from rich countries and fifteen from poor ones completed its draft treaty to set up the $100 billion fund, but the US and Saudi Arabia blocked its approval. In explaining the reason for the American position, the Times noted that “the administration of President Barack Obama has come under pressure from prominent Republicans and others to limit financing for UN climate protection initiatives.”¹²

Likely the approval of this slush fund for climate aid is one of those areas in which President Obama is waiting for the increased flexibility he expects in his second term, when he will not have to listen to the conservative voices back in Washington.

Negotiations between the rich and poor nations were briefly imperiled in June 2012 when representatives from the developing nations stalked out of the talks “because wealthy countries were refusing to include the transfer of money and technology” in the deal.¹³

The British newspaper the Guardian explained the problem: “amid a global economic slowdown and austerity in Europe rich nations are reluctant to put cash on the table.”¹⁴

In a statement of unfathomable arrogance, Brazilian negotiators said this was no excuse. “We cannot be held hostage to the retraction resulting from financial crises in rich countries. We are here to think about the long term and not about crises that may be overcome in one or two years,” said Luiz Alberto Figueiredo, undersecretary at the Brazilian foreign ministry.¹⁵

Figueiredo equates being “held hostage” with not getting his hands on our money!

THE THIRD WORLD CAN’T WAIT TO STEAL THE MONEY

But what good is aid if you can’t steal it?

The third world recipients of the generosity of developed nations are insisting that they be “immune from legal challenges and lawsuits not to mention outside inspections, much like the United Nations itself cannot be affected by decisions rendered by a sovereign nation’s government or judicial system.”¹⁶

Why are these third world countries so hung up on immunity from investigation, prosecution, and financial controls?

Fox News reports that they want protection from charges of:

• possible conflicts of interest in their duties,

• breaches of confidentiality in their work,

• violations of the due process rights of those affected by their actions,

• making decisions or actions that are beyond the legal mandate of the organization or its subsidiaries.¹⁷

Already the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) has come under fire in a study by consultants for the European Commission that criticized it for a “lack of transparency,” “inconsistency of decisions,” “conflicts of interest,” and extensive support for “unsustainable technology for emissions reduction.”¹⁸

Fox News, one of the few media organs to report on the request of immunity, noted that “the move to grant such immunity to an organization engaged in the redistribution of tens of billions of dollars between some of the wealthiest and the poorest nations in the world unavoidably raises questions and concerns.”¹⁹

Who can forget the outright plundering by UN officials—including then secretary-general Kofi Annan’s own son—of Oil-for-Food funds in the 1990s. As documented by an investigation by former Federal Reserve chairman Paul Volcker, the theft of funds ran into the hundreds of millions of dollars that were intended for Iraq’s poor.

Since no UN official was prosecuted for stealing Oil-for-Food money, many of these same folks are in on the operations of the UNFCCC and are hungering after the vast sums a Global Climate Fund would bring in.

But the $100 billion is never enough!

The third world wants “$1.9 trillion per year… for incremental investments in green technologies,” according to UN sources. About $800 billion of this sum will be earmarked for third world countries. Fox News reports, “If the UNFCCC has its way, the new Green Climate Fund would not be answerable to the laws of any nation on earth, while it annually redistributed funds equal to roughly half of President Obama’s proposed budget for 2012.”²⁰

Instead of helping poor countries adjust to climate change, most of the money would likely flow instead into the Swiss bank accounts of third world dictators and UN officials. Otherwise, why would they care so passionately about getting immunity?

TOWARD A GLOBAL EPA

Also central to the globalist agenda was the expansion and empowerment of the United Nations Environment Program (UNEP). The Rio+20 Conference expanded UNEP membership from the current fifty-eight nations to include all the world’s governments. Its financial resources were augmented. And it was given the mandate “to use international and national laws to advance sustainability, human and environmental rights and the implementation of environmental treaties.”²¹

For now, the UNEP has only the power to issue advisory opinions and to suggest regulations to sovereign nations. But more is coming. A report to the UN in advance of the Rio+20 summit declared that “scaled-up and accelerated international cooperation” is required, with new coordination at “the international, sub-regional, and regional levels.” Stronger regulation is needed, and “to avoid the proliferation of national regulations and standards, the use of relevant international standards is essential”—an area where the UN can be very helpful, the report indicates.²²

For those not fluent in UN-speak, “scaled-up and accelerated international cooperation” means empowering the UNEP to bind nations to its will. New coordination at “the international, sub-regional, and regional levels” means making nations listen to its regulations and obey them. The statement that stronger regulation is needed, that “to avoid the proliferation of national regulations and standards, the use of relevant international standards is essential,” means that the United Nations Environment Programme should have the right to override national regulations and impose its views by fiat on the nations of the world.²³

These are the real aspirations of the globalist/socialists for the UNEP. Their ultimate game plan is spelled out in Only One Earth, written by Felix Dodds and Michael Strauss, with a forward by the inimitable Maurice Strong.

That volume, published on the eve of the Rio+20 Conference, calls for an International Court for the Environment (ICE). Noting that “there is currently no mechanism for compliance and enforcement in sustainable development, as exists in other areas, such as war crimes or trade,” Dodds and Strauss call for the court to “become the principal court dealing with international environmental law.”²⁴

It would, they explain, “help to clarify existing treaties and other international environmental obligations for states and for all other parties including trans-national corporations. It would do this through dispute resolution, advisory opinions, and the adjudication of contentious issues presently unclear or unresolved.”²⁵

The Rio+20 globalists also established a ten-year plan to shift governmental procurement—in all nations and at all levels—toward goods and services that enhance their environmental goals. Noting that such purchases account for 15–25 percent of the economies of developed nations and an even larger share in poorer countries, the Rio+20 Conference sought to get all countries to alter their purchasing policies to make them greener.

But the real future thrust of environmental regulation will come against private businesses. The Rio+20 Conference lamented that only “an estimated 25 per cent of the 20,000 companies tracked by Bloomberg are reporting their environmental, social and governance footprints—but 75 per cent are not.”²⁶

The conference urged all companies to report their environmental and social impacts. That, of course, is the first step. Armed with this disclosure, the global/environmentalists will seek to reward and punish companies based on their environmental and social policies.

Rio called for helping “pension funds to invest in companies with a long-term perspective of profits through sustainability reporting while assisting governments in measuring the contribution of multi-nationals towards national sustainability goals.”²⁷

In other words, if you pay off the third world, the UNEP will make sure you get contracts, investments, and regulatory support. If not, watch out!

As part of their plan for reshaping our global economy, the Rio+20 Conference called for the replacement of Gross Domestic Product (GDP) as the central measurement of national wealth. Condemning the “narrowness” of GDP as a measurement of economies, it called for a new measurement that would “encourage governments to push forward on requiring companies to report their environmental, social, and governance footprints.”²⁸

Once private companies measure the extent to which their operations drain the world’s wealth through adverse economic or social policies, the UN wants to recalculate the GDP of each country to subtract the negative consequences of its growth.

The vector of this new push is easy to recognize. It would have each company admit and quantify how much it has subtracted from world and national wealth by extracting minerals, endangering the environment, laying off workers, closing plants, etc. By measuring this “environmental and social damage,” the UN lays the predicate for fining or taxing or otherwise regulating companies and nations for their damaging policies and programs.

The participants at the Rio+20 were not happy with the outcome despite its evident progress toward global governance. They want mandatory and binding global governance to control all issues related to the global economy, environmental policies, third world development, and the transfer of wealth to poor nations. Anything less is inadequate. But they are patient and keep coming back for more bites at the apple.

The New York Times reported sadly that the Rio+20 conference agreed on “so few specifics, so few targets, so few tangible decisions… that some participants were derisively calling it ‘Rio Minus 20.’”²⁹

Kumi Naidoo, executive director of Greenpeace, was particularly dissatisfied, calling the Rio+20 Conference “a failure of epic proportions.”³⁰

The radical greens all piled on. Lasse Gustavsson, executive director for conservation at the World Wildlife Fund, said that “sophisticated UN diplomacy has given us nothing more than more poverty, more conflict and more environmental destruction.”³¹

The Times noted that “the final statement from Rio… is 283 paragraphs of kumbaya that ‘affirm,’ ‘recognize,’ ‘underscore,’ ‘urge’ and ‘acknowledge’ seemingly every green initiative and environmental problem from water crises and creeping deserts to climate change and overfishing. Women’s rights, indigenous peoples, children, mining, tourism, trade unions and the elderly also get shout-outs in the document. The word ‘reaffirm’ is used 60 times.”³²

The German daily newspaper Süddeutsche Zeitung editorialized:

Doubtless, the greens would have been much happier if, instead of the words “affirm,” “recognize,” “underscore,” “urge,” and “acknowledge,” the Rio final document included more robust prose like “require,” “regulate,” “mandatory,” and “dictated.” But, there’s always tomorrow.

But the conference did provide a clear indication of where the environmentalists and globalists are heading. The Washington Post reports that “some of the biggest issues activists wanted to see in the document that didn’t make it in included a call to end subsidies for fossil fuels, language underscoring the reproductive rights of women, and some words on how nations might mutually agree to protect the high seas, areas that fall outside any national jurisdictions.”³⁴

The Post quotes Greenpeace’s Kumi Naidoo as saying: “[W]e saw anything of value in the early text getting removed one by one. What is left is the clear sense that the future we want is not one our leaders can actually deliver. We now need to turn the anger people around the world are feeling into creative, thoughtful and meaningful action.”³⁵

Rio may not have given the globalists all they wanted, but they received a lot. And we will give them more and more and more unless we realize that their real goal is the forcible transfer of our wealth to them and the surrender of our national sovereignty to a world body.