Copenhagen Treaty: Premises and Motivations

We are fast approaching the stage of the ultimate inversion: the stage where the government is free to do anything it pleases, while the citizens may act only by permission; which is the stage of the darkest periods of human history, the stage of rule by brute force.

Ayn Rand1

Industrial civilization has been a dirty affair. While it helped give rise to the wealth we see in the Industrialized core nations—typically associated with the United States and Europe—it has also led to an unprecedented centralization of power and left the people of the world dependent on its industrial infrastructure; and so for example, 75% of humans today live in the city, away from farms and the soil. To be sure, the city has allowed us much opportunity, not among the least of which is a tight knit framework in which to trade ideas, materials and useful stuff. All of this stuff, though, had to come from somewhere, and to meet that need importation from ghostly elsewheres has kept cities the world over running. And now, monumental problems face all of us as individuals and communities today, and the challenges and associated tasks ahead threaten the fairness strived for and achieved by concerned ancestors similar to ourselves. The gains of these people’s are encapsulated in such documents as the Magna Carta, Declaration of Independence, US Constitution and Bill of Rights. A history of arts, also, reminds of our sometimes vibrant past. However, plans by political, financial and industrial elites to forge new institutions unaccountable to the people represent new monopolies on force and favors which threaten the very social fabric of civilization.

In an article published by the Wall Street Journal, Janet Albrechtsen covers what she describes U.N. plans for a new government “scary.” She states:

We can only hope that world leaders will do nothing more than enjoy a pleasant bicycle ride around the charming streets of Copenhagen come December. For if they actually manage to wring out an agreement based on the current draft text of the Copenhagen climate-change treaty, the world is in for some nasty surprises. Draft text, you say? If you haven’t heard about it, that’s because none of our otherwise talkative political leaders have bothered to tell us what the drafters have already cobbled together for leaders to consider. And neither have the media.

The article cites for the most part the words of Lord Chris Monckton, the former advisor to Margaret Thatcher, who, at an address at Bethel University in St. Paul, Minnesota in November, blew the whistle and exposed the new governmental entity. He exposed the 181 page draft text, which entails United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change, planned to be signed in December.

The ultimate aim of the treaty, as Monckton and myriads others are warning, is to erect a transnational government.

There is a provision under the Convention calling for a “government” which will have the power to directly intervene in the financial, economic, tax and environmental affairs of all nations that sign the Copenhagen treaty.

And so institutions which need not answer to the public are taking it upon themselves to solve environmental problems, but what do we do when their solutions are astoundingly wrongheaded?

The treaty requires developed countries to pay what is termed an “adaptation debt” to developing countries under the guise of supporting climate change mitigation. But the premise that the nation-state is the keystone institution in our social system is a misnomer, for the corporation fills that role. The largest associations and bodies are corporations and, as we will see, it is, to use a phrase made popular in the past year, the too-big-to-fail corporation which owes the rest of a massive “adaptation debt.” Moreover, many of the developing countries are servicing crippling IMF debts. It is therefore unlikely representatives of the West, especially Britain and the US, are interested in repaying the developing nations; unless, of course, much of these credits go towards fueling speculative economies in which those who sit on enough capital can line their bulging pockets.

Politically concerning are the number of “alternatives” and “options” featured in the treaty which officially undermine the democratic and republican bases of the modern Democratic Republics and give plenipotentiaries and policy makers room to do as they please.

In an interview with Alan Jones on Sydney radio Monday, Lord Monckton said, “This is the first time I’ve ever seen any transnational treaty referring to a new body to be set up under that treaty as a ‘government.’ But it’s the powers that are going to be given to this entirely unelected government that are so frightening…. The sheer ambition of this new world government is enormous right from the start—that’s even before it starts accreting powers to itself in the way that these entities inevitably always do.”

So, the power grab initiated last year with the collapse of Lehman Brothers—what actually was an assassination by other oligopolists—continues.

In his talk at St. Paul Monckton told attendees: “in the next few weeks, unless you stop it, your President will sign for freedom, your democracy, and your prosperity away forever.”2

Ron Paul echoed Lord’s sentiments, stating November 9, 2009 on the Alex Jones show:

If it works it will work for a little while and companies like Goldman Sachs and a few others will rip us off and get even more wealth. But it cannot help the economy; it has to hurt the economy. And it can’t possibly help the environment because they are totally off track on that. It might turn out to be one of the biggest hoaxes of all history this whole global warming terrorism that they’ve been using.

Paul is referring to the siren song of global warming, which is being touted by many of the well-connected as the sole reason for a revolutionary reorganization of human life on our planet. In fact, in books published by the Club of Rome, a premiere think tank, climate change is touted as a mean by which the global order based on the nation-state ought to be reconstructed; the think tank champions the politically useful reasons for this as opposed to concerning themselves with the environment—of which we the people are a part—at hand. When the threat is global warming, the Club of Rome has stated:

The common enemy of humanity is man. In searching for a new enemy to unite us, we came up with the idea that pollution, the threat of global warming, water shortages, famine and the like would fit the bill. All these dangers are caused by human intervention, and it is only through changed attitudes and behavior that they can be overcome. The real enemy then, is humanity itself…. The old democracies have functioned reasonably well over the last 200 years, but they appear now to be in a phase of complacent stagnation with little evidence of real leadership and innovation…. Democracy is not a panacea. It cannot organize everything and it is unaware of its own limits. These facts must be faced squarely. Sacrilegious though this may sound, democracy is no longer well suited for the tasks ahead. The complexity and the technical nature of many of today’s problems do not always allow elected representatives to make competent decisions at the right time.3

A who’s who of popular political figures and CEO’s has echoed the sentiments of that of the Club of Rome.

I believe it is appropriate to have an ‘over-representation’ of the facts on how dangerous it is, as a predicate for opening up the audience.

— Al Gore, Climate Change activist

I believe that the mere mass of industrial civilization poses a threat to the biodiversity of the planet: the building blocks which are responsible for us, for our ideas and emotions, inventions and systems. But, it is increasingly lucid that the framework by which climate-change and environmental degradation is framed by social engineers through political enunciations and the corporate media leaves much to be desired. For brevity’s sake, I will only mention that there is an intimate connection between plant life and carbon dioxide. So, why have we determined carbon dioxide is the main threat? We exhale it! Should we continue playing our roles, hanging on the false realities created by the leaders?

Humanity is sitting on a time bomb. If the vast majority of the world’s scientists are right, we have just ten years to avert a major catastrophe that could send our entire planet’s climate system into a tail-spin of epic destruction involving extreme weather, floods, droughts, epidemics and killer heat waves beyond anything we have ever experienced — a catastrophe of our own making.

— Al Gore, An Inconvenient Truth

This is rather alarming rhetoric for someone who, in the same breath, claims to have the near-ubiquitous support of the scientific community in his corner. He admits himself though that he is a pathological liar? Jokes on us if we let him cash in on our apathy and ignorance. By the way, when politicians and the propagandists refer to the “scientific community” they usually mean scientists who are members of corporate or governmental funded associations. Independent thinkers need not apply.

Isn’t the only hope for the planet that the industrialized civilizations collapse? Isn’t it our responsibility to bring that about?

— Maurice Strong, founder of the UN Environment Programme

Ok, so bringing down industrial civilization sounds pretty damn cool: Can we keep The Clash and Kurt Vonnegut? Hmm, I guess I could get a beer with this Maurice Strong fellow. Thing is, we probably have different ideas about ways, means and outcomes. Rule of thumb: During crises, the rich have almost always outsurvived poor, in many cases benefitting. For instance, the founder of the Krupp fortune, a wealthy burgher during the time of the Black Death of 1349, bought up the properties left vacant by families eradicated by the plague for pennies on the dollar. His descendants greatly prospered. I highly suspect Strong has an idea of this.4

In the US a Cap-and-Trade bill has been proposed, but as of yet not passed. While arguing the bill would leave to capital flight from the US, Ron Paul stated:

The Cap and Trade Bill HR 2454 was voted on last Friday. Proponents claim this bill will help the environment, but what it really does is put another nail in the economy’s coffin. The idea is to establish a national level of carbon dioxide emissions, and sell pollution permits to industry as the Catholic Church used to sell indulgences to sinners. HR 2454 also gives federal bureaucrats new power to regulate a wide variety of household appliances, such as light bulbs and refrigerators, and further distorts the market by providing more of your tax money to auto companies.

Spain legislated such progressive energy policy by massively diverting capital from the private sector into politically favored environmental projects for nearly ten years. Their economy currently has a 20 percent unemployment rate, and for each green job created, 2.2 normal jobs are eliminated.

The legislation in the US will cement more governmental regulations, taxes, fees and bureaucracy dissuading companies from doing business in the US, as well as how many employees they can afford to hire. This added governmental red tape will cause capital flight and job losses. Jobs, therefore, are increasingly likely to go overseas.

Over the summer, approximately 30,000 scientists signed a petition disputing the claim that global warming is an anthropogenic phenomenon.4 What’s more, the US Department of Defense is the largest polluter in the world, producing more hazardous wastes than the five largest US chemical companies together. Hazardous wastes employed by the military include, among others, pesticides and defoliants, like Agent Orange, many solvents, petroleum, perchlorate, lead mercury and depleted uranium.5

Health problems associated with these toxins include miscarriages, low birth weight, birth defects, kidney disease and cancer. Most affected are those on whom such weapons are used, those in the military, and those who live near a military site. In the US one out of every ten persons lives within ten miles of a military site listed as a priority cleanup site. Many corporations are right up there with the DoD. So, then, why are their fellow conspirators the ones wording such legislation? The best argument in favor of the environment, I conclude, is also an argument against war. Therefore any true and honest environmental movement has, at its core, an argument against war!

Depleted Uranium (DU) has been a hot topic since the war began, similar to Agent Orange use in Vietnam. As a radioactive and chemically toxic heavy metal, it remains wherever it is lodged, in the body on the ground or in rivers, for decades. In the human body particles of depleted uranium are a source of alpha particles. Much research suggests that DU is linked to serious damage to the human body.

In Iraq alone hundreds of tons of Depleted Uranium have been fired and exploded in high populated areas such as Basrah, Baghdad, Nasriya, Dewania, Samawa, and other cities. Exploration programs have found Depleted Uranium related contamination over most Iraqi territories.6

Iraq’s Minister of Environment said in July of 2007 in Cairo that “at least 350 sites in Iraq are contaminated with Depleted Uranium.” She also said that Iraq is facing an unprecedented number of cancer cases and called on the international community to help Iraq alleviate this problem. I will spare you the photos, but encourage you to look.6

On domestic turf, the United States Forest Service and Bureau of Land Management sell trees from public forests—that is trees owned, I mean shared, by all of us—to big timber corporations at reduced prices; in short, we subsidizes the destruction of the biodiversity which gave rise to ourselves. In the Tongass National Forest in southeastern Alaska, four-hundred-year-old hemlock, spruce and cedar are sold to timber corporations for less money than a cheeseburger. Taxpayers funded, also, are the construction of the logging roads. The Forest Service—the public—loses hundreds of millions of dollars a year on timber-sale programs. Now we are being told we have to pay taxes in order to preserve our collective land base.

In the continental United States just five percent of native forest still stands. 440,000 miles of logging roads run through National Forests, despite that the Forest Service maintains there are 383,000 miles. The National Forest Service, exactly like the major financial institutions such as Goldman Sachs, JP Morgan, Bank of America, Citigroup and Well Fargo, cook the books and routinely lie.7

The logic behind the new global authority is flawed. It targets nations funded by taxpayer’s—us. But damage caused by human households is nowhere near as criminal as the damage done by corporations. Municipalities and individuals consume ten percent of the nation’s water. The other 90 percent is guzzled by agriculture and industry. Individual consumptions of energy, furthermore, accounts for about one-fourth of all energy consumption. The other 75 percent is consumed corporations. Municipal waste represents three percent of total waste production in the US.8

So we now see that we the people are unjustly carrying the burden of climate-change. Further, there are strong indicators that a current push for power accumulation employs climate-change and environmental degradation as its smoke and mirrors.

Many analysts are insisting the only in which to rebalance and harmonize the global human community is by revolution, and many of them contend violent revolution is inevitable. I don’t necessarily think “violent” need be so; but, it has to be global. We have to aim for the fences and raise consciousness all over the globe.

The push for global government and the New World Order must be slowed by us and our environmental communities—our land base, families and friends—protected.

  1. Quote featured in the 7 November edition of Bob Chapman’s The International Forecaster. []
  2. Janet Albrechtsen. “Has Anyone Read the Copenhagen Agreement?Wall Street Journal, 10-28-2009. []
  3. The Green Agenda and the First Global Revolution []
  4. Howard Bloom. 2000. Global Brain: The Evolution of Mass Mind From the Big Bang To The 21st Century. John Wiley and Sons: New York. [] []
  5. Ron Paul. “Cap and Trade Another Nail in the Economy’s Coffin,” June 29, 2009. []
  6. Lucinda Marshall. “Military Pollution: The Quintessential Universal Soldier.” Dissident Voice, March 29 2005. [] []
  7. Dr. Souad N. Al-Azzawi. “The Responsibility of the US in Contaminating Iraq with Depleted Uranium.” Global Research, Nov. 9, 2009. []
  8. Derrick Jensen and George Draffan. Excerpt from Strangely Like War. []
Justin O'Connell blogs at The Handshake Times. He can be reached at: justin@libertycpm.com. Read other articles by Justin.

36 comments on this article so far ...

Comments RSS feed

  1. bozh said on November 14th, 2009 at 11:46am #

    The meanings are not in any constitution; the meanings are in people and not in or on any piece of paper regardless of what words or sentences is writtn eon it.
    Laws also have no meanings; they’re as dead as door nail; come alive only when read and, perforce, interpreted.
    But by whom? But, of course, only by people with econo-military power, or rather, by people appointed by them and the loop is completed.

    We’ve had laws since hamurabbi of babylon. We have them today in US. We have even int’l laws. They are interpreted by more powerful nations. Which can use their military if need be to make only their interpretation valid. tnx

  2. Justin said on November 14th, 2009 at 2:14pm #

    I agree. Our natural bonds are what define us, not political decrees.

  3. Jonathan Willbanks said on November 15th, 2009 at 5:17pm #

    This is fantastic work. I’ve read the entire Copenhagen Treaty (twice actually) and was both astounded and profoundly disturbed by its contents. It is truly all that you say and more.

    It is absolutely imperative that the public begin looking at this agreement in greater detail and begin spreading the word about what it will really mean – while there is still time to stop this insane and suicidal document from ever being signed. If we do not, then the last remnants of American sovereignty and freedom will be swept away with the President’s pen (and perhaps a vote of congress, if we’re lucky), and the failure of the Great Experiment that was once a beacon of freedom to the world will finally be complete. Once that happens, the Orwellian/Huxlian nightmare will arrive before most Americans even realize what hit them.

    The web has been sorely lacking for an informed, rational, level-headed, concise, and well-documented critical analysis of the Copenhagen Agreement. This article meets that dire need in spades. To say that this is the story of the decade is probably a severe understatement, and the silence of the mainstream media on this has been absolutely deafening (if not unsurprising). So thank you, Justin O’Connell, for being a real reporter, and for actually REPORTING – on what (if it is signed) will surely be among the most significant events in American – if not WORLD – history .

    You are most sincerely appreciated.

  4. Don Hawkins said on November 15th, 2009 at 5:32pm #

    It is absolutely imperative that the public in the United States begin to hear the truth about climate change in greater detail and begin spreading the word about what it will really mean. For some reason we don’t hear the truth spread that little fact around. If we do not, then the last remnants of American sovereignty and freedom will be swept away along with much of the rest of humanity.

  5. Don Hawkins said on November 15th, 2009 at 6:07pm #

    Not everything that can be counted counts,
    and not everything that counts can be counted.
    ~Albert Einstein

    Facts do not cease to exist because they are ignored.
    ~Aldous Huxley

  6. lichen said on November 15th, 2009 at 7:19pm #

    Yes, polluting scum will be governed; will be stopped. A green world order will happen–you don’t have the right to pollute, take oil, coal, or gas out of the ground and use it. I’m glad the UN will oversee this. ayn rand, wrong paul, and other corppratist, pro-poverty, climate change denying scum should be thrown in jail.

  7. russell olausen said on November 15th, 2009 at 11:59pm #

    Al Gore’s motto “whats yours is mine and whats mine is mine”. All you global warming firebrands pick your target, ten dollars to a donut it will be someone smaller and weaker than you.

  8. Don Hawkins said on November 16th, 2009 at 3:24am #

    http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/world/la-fg–obama-climate-qa16-2009nov16,0,6041967.story

    A benefit of the long down time at home was that I finished my book (Storms of My
    Grandchildren), which will be published 8 December. I hope it makes clear that the “solutions”
    favored by Congress (Waxman-Markey in the House and related cap-and-trade bills in the
    Senate) would lock-in disastrous outcomes for young people. Among other things.
    [A solution must attack the fundamental problem by placing a rising fee on carbon,
    collected at the mine or port of entry. 100 percent of the fee should be distributed monthly to the
    public. I have argued for 100 percent as a uniform dividend, but 50 percent dividend and 50
    payroll tax deduction would make sense. The dividend is needed because not everyone is on a
    payroll. Fee-and-dividend is a progressive tax, most low-income people will gain more than they
    lose, and it stimulates the economy – it gives the public the means to replace carbon-clunker
    technology with low- and no-carbon technologies, allowing the market place to choose winning
    technologies. Cap-and-trade is a hidden regressive tax, benefitting the select few who have
    managed to get themselves written into the 2000-page bill. How could Washington possibly
    choose lock-in failure over what is obviously the essential approach (they ignore the Larson bill,
    for example)? As I discuss in the book, think revolving door between the government and Wall
    Street. Think revolving door between Congress and lobbyists. Goldman-Sachs makes a mint
    with cap-and-trade (off the public). Goldman-Sachs does not make one thin dime with fee-anddividend. James Hansen

    The United States could refuse to agree to any specific reduction targets in Copenhagen. China and India could also refuse or they could set targets that U.S. senators find unacceptable. It’s still possible that negotiators might not agree on even a scaled-back declaration in Copenhagen — and that could set treaty talks back considerably.

    Facts do not cease to exist because they are ignored.
    ~Aldous Huxley

    And so it goes the easy way out better known as short term thinking.

  9. Don Hawkins said on November 16th, 2009 at 3:28am #

    Cap-and-trade is a hidden regressive tax, benefitting the select few who have
    managed to get themselves written into the 2000-page bill.

    As I discuss in the book, think revolving door between the government and Wall
    Street. Think revolving door between Congress and lobbyists. Goldman-Sachs makes a mint
    with cap-and-trade (off the public). Goldman-Sachs does not make one thin dime with fee-anddividend. James Hansen

    Start spreading the new’s.

  10. Annie Ladysmith said on November 16th, 2009 at 3:38am #

    Yeah! The fear-mongering global warming Nazi’s are just waiting for that jackboot to drop on our heads at Copenhagen, it figures it would be in Copenhagen, a pot-smoking, free-loving hippie utopia if there ever was one. People of such a stupidity that they jump on any ‘green’ band-wagon to take them all back to mother nature were they can smoke their pot and live free on the mother-nature state . This is what they think freedom is!!! They have no clue that the global government will certainly not tolerate their hippie ways and the freeloaders among them will go to camps.

    I am very much in agreement with Rodney Atkinson, a UK political economist, here’s the quote. “There is no greater danger to mankind than those politically motivated global power-seekers who use scare tactics to acquire control over the masses and supranational constitutional over free nations”.

    “The quality of the politicans in the rich Western democracies is now so poor that groups of scientists and businessmen and ideologically motivated world government enthusiasts can easily manipulate them. The man-made global warming craze is a modern equivalent of medieval religious hegemony and the new enslavement would be no less terrifying than the INQUISITION”.

    WOW! I don’t want to be dragged in front of the Inquisitor, do you? Think these things out before giving your heart and soul to a hegemony of any kind that is the creation of rabid foaming-at-the- mouth scientists and barking-mad global bureaucrats. THINK! DO YOUR OWN RESEARCH! MAKE UP YOUR OWN MIND WITH THE FACTS NOT GORES HYSTERIA!

  11. Annie Ladysmith said on November 16th, 2009 at 3:38am #

    Yeah! The fear-mongering global warming Nazi’s are just waiting for that jackboot to drop on our heads at Copenhagen, it figures it would be in Copenhagen, a pot-smoking, free-loving hippie utopia if there ever was one. People of such a stupidity that they jump on any ‘green’ band-wagon to take them all back to mother nature were they can smoke their pot and live free on the mother-nature state . This is what they think freedom is!!! They have no clue that the global government will certainly not tolerate their hippie ways and the freeloaders among them will go to camps.

    I am very much in agreement with Rodney Atkinson, a UK political economist, here’s the quote. “There is no greater danger to mankind than those politically motivated global power-seekers who use scare tactics to acquire control over the masses and supranational constitutional over free nations”.

    “The quality of the politicans in the rich Western democracies is now so poor that groups of scientists and businessmen and ideologically motivated world government enthusiasts can easily manipulate them. The man-made global warming craze is a modern equivalent of medieval religious hegemony and the new enslavement would be no less terrifying than the INQUISITION”.

    WOW! I don’t want to be dragged in front of the Inquisitor, do you? Think these things out before giving your heart and soul to a hegemony of any kind that is the creation of rabid foaming-at-the- mouth scientists and barking-mad global bureaucrats. THINK! DO YOUR OWN RESEARCH! MAKE UP YOUR OWN MIND WITH THE FACTS NOT GORES HYSTERIA!

  12. Don Hawkins said on November 16th, 2009 at 3:39am #

    and the failure of the Great Experiment that was once a beacon of freedom to the world will finally be complete. Hay how about that carbon tax that will not benefit the few see any problems there come on put on that old thinking cap. In ten then twenty years on this path what might the World look like. Deep do do that’s what it will look like. Knowledge, working together, focus and so far how does that look from the few? Fox New’s where the truth can be found tea party that should do the trick.

  13. Justin said on November 16th, 2009 at 6:19am #

    I am not sure the camps will be necessary with all of the chemspraying and conglomerative control of food.

  14. LJ said on November 18th, 2009 at 1:04am #

    Hmmm – let’s see – First imminent threat I recall was worldwide famine from overpopulation – humanity is still here. Then there was acid rain killing the forests – dropped. Then it was Global cooling & the next ice age – that didn’t work. Now the latest TREND is Global warming – whoops, no, pardon me, now re-labelled Climate Change. If you really enjoy being frightened half to death by POLITICISED science and are happy to accept the touted “wisdom” of the moment without checking up on it, fine. As for myself, I can always tell when politicians of all walks are lying – I can see their individual and collective mouths moving. Simple really.

  15. Annie Ladysmith said on November 18th, 2009 at 1:16am #

    NO! dear LJ, the first imminent threat to your little grubby life is actually THE WRATH OF GOD. All else pales in comparison. It will hit you when you least expect it and it will last for an eternity. You’ll know it when it happens–, guaranteed!

  16. LJ said on November 18th, 2009 at 2:09am #

    Annie Ladysmith, I’m apalled! What a most un-christian thing to say.

  17. b99 said on November 18th, 2009 at 9:20am #

    LJ – the politicized science came out of the mouths of those who repeated the words that corporate ‘scientists’ fed them. Real scientists are measuring actual climate change – it’s real. Just as millions of humans HAVE starved and ARE starving, and acid rain HAS denuded the forests and HAS killed all life in millions of ponds and lakes around the world, global climate catastrophes ARE manifesting themselves in upheaval and will CONTINUE to do so. So if politicians are lying – those are your politicians. And for whatever the Obama Administration is worth – and it might not be much – at least they are not hiring non-degreed hacks to re-write the work of scientists to mesh with the official political position of the Bush Administration.

  18. Steve Pozoglou said on November 21st, 2009 at 1:09am #

    A friend sent me an email recentlyof a radio interview with Lord Monkton, Radio 2GB.COM.AU. I couldnt believe what I was hearing. This body of self appointed leaders and lawmakers in a form of world government. This is so possible in todays world where everything is ‘connected’ or being so electronically. Where we sign away our rights as a Democracy. Climate change is really a veil. Everyone should listen to this interview, even read the Copenhagen treaty. Ive never been part of a dictatorship and dont want to be. Lets scream at our leaders NOT to sign. All this Climate change thing was blah blah to me, until now.

  19. Annie Ladysmith said on November 21st, 2009 at 1:40am #

    To LJ, well taken Sir, you are a good sport, and of course God would rather pour out his love and not the terrible wrath. Choose life, whatever happens to the climate is of superficial importance.

  20. Susan said on November 23rd, 2009 at 6:58am #

    I think this treaty is a stepping stone for the UN to gain control over the world for it’s own selfish and unfathomable evil motivations !!
    How dare they lie to us and expect us to sit back shut up and do as they say ???
    NOOOO WAY !
    Mr Rudd wake up and smell the fishy bussiness going on please !
    Are these men that naive to the working of the UN and “Climate Change ‘
    No man can change the climate what a load of crap and any one with half a brain ought to know this !
    I do not care what people think about climate change what I do care about is been lied to and our world been set up to have some crazy world government dictate our lives !!!
    And as to why Rudd has NOT told fellow Aussies what the hell is going on in Copenhagen does ring alarm bells especially when Alan Jones was told by Lord Monckton first instead of Mr Rudd telling us first ?
    I pray Mr Rudd will not sign this as it is dangerous ground if he does and no one deserves to live under a one world government as it is not only a dictatorship but a frightening thought !!

  21. Shabnam said on November 23rd, 2009 at 7:50am #

    {I think this treaty is a stepping stone for the UN to gain control over the world for it’s own selfish and unfathomable evil motivations !!}

    Why do not you say the correct name of responsible party instead of UN? Who runs the fu*king UN? It is the UNITED STATES. Is it that difficult to understand this fact? Who runs the United States? It is the fu*king Zionist terrorists and their puppets who run the congress, senate and the WH where have recently elected a black puppet to prove that they are color blind when are choosing a servant to fool American public. They are interested in people who can serve zionist interest the best, sacrificing American interest regardless of being white or black. The black puppet is more useful at this juncture since no White puppet has ever repeated our demand to say “undivided Jerusalem as capital of Israel” like Barak Obama did.
    The American fools must wake up and shake their behind to remove Zionist terrorists and their puppets, white and black, from the power. You are supporting war and destruction abroad and feeding the zionist terrorists and their puppets in the country. Stop repeating the right wing analysis of events to make the UN as escape goat. Only the fools buy this rubbish.

  22. Susan said on November 24th, 2009 at 5:52am #

    I am an Australian thanks !! I do not live in America !
    And I do not support the UN .

  23. i-miracle said on December 2nd, 2009 at 6:03am #

    How can you believe people who have tremendous record of lying. First they lied about 9/11 and then about WMD. All lies. A lying nation is holding the torch with such a confidence to show light and lead other non-lying nations. Its simply amazing! My friends be aware of tongues that can speak so well that magic faints. what is the guarantee that this time they speak truth?

  24. Don Hawkins said on December 2nd, 2009 at 8:39am #

    No one deserves to live under a one world government, hello anybody out there not so much a one World government we are all under now this very day but just who are the deciders come on who? Who controls media, policy, business, our thoughts? The little God’s and they seem to be angry now as in control of an out of control system. There answer illusion, magic and pay no attention to the person behind the curtain all part of the show popcorn, peanuts, candy bars.

  25. rachella said on December 2nd, 2009 at 7:23pm #

    I’m scared. I am really scared. This is insanity. But the world has always gone down the path of insanity. And no doubt this generation will be no different.
    I pray it won’t be so, but global warming, oops sorry “climate change”, has been turned into the new world religion and those that dare question it’s VERY questionable ‘science’ are branded ‘evil’.
    Isn’t the New World Order, the One World Government, and the new “religion” all warned about in Revelations. Yes. Methinks I’ll be reading that book again tonight.
    Anyway, Australia now has a Govt that panders to political correctness when before it had a Govt that had the courage of its convictions and did what may not be popular but what was right. And I blame the Eastern bloody states!!!

  26. jubilee said on December 4th, 2009 at 8:05pm #

    Thank you for doing such extensive and conclusive research. I think i was put on this planet to taste the drip of a sweet revolution. Im happy to know there are people out there that are truly desiring this. Keep writing and keeping us glued!

  27. Juan Claffinco said on December 6th, 2009 at 4:42pm #

    I’m glad to see that this was the first result on the page after googling “copenhagen treaty”. I have respect to you and many others who make their opinions public. It feels like we are getting nowhere but where would we be without hope!

  28. Juan Claffinco said on December 6th, 2009 at 4:52pm #

    Plus, I am Irish, and recently we passed the controversial “Lisbon Treaty”. The government used the recession as an excuse to pass the treaty. It was vetoed the first time around (53-47). The government ran a second referendum this October, and backed a massive campaign supporting the treaty which unfortunately was then passed at a shocking 67-33. People can be manipulated so easily, this is going to continue until some sort of massive global collapse, whether it be oil, climate change or something of huge importance to the worldwide economy. In my opinion a disaster of some sort is just what the human race needs, something to blow it back into the stone age and give us all another chance.

  29. JR Richmond said on December 6th, 2009 at 5:35pm #

    You are damn late to the party: our vaunted free press failed us; our free speech was useless without earnest listeners; freedom of religion and/or politics a farce in two time; the popular vote a joke; the conscience of the nation a bawdry tale. When every thing is merely for sale, then the highest bidder takes all. Perhaps the epitaph of “The Great American Experiment” should be, “They Tuned In the Wrong Channel”. In the final hearing, it will be “We the people” who God holds in contempt. JR Richmond

  30. Thomas Rhodes said on December 9th, 2009 at 8:13pm #

    This may backfire on the UN machine as they have now exposed their intentions to a degree not seen before regarding global government. Americans must wake up. Yes, there are conspiracies to loot the largest pool of cash is history, The American Taxpayer. Why is so hard to believe? There are no theories, just conspiracies. If any man or group places America in a position to lose our sovereignty, then a successful prosecution with The Death Penalty must be called for.

  31. Milton Black - Astrologer said on December 10th, 2009 at 1:11pm #

    Climate Change will continue to be the big issue in December throughout the global community and especially in Copenhagen. With the Jupiter -Neptune planetary aspect forcing climate issues to be debated at the conference by global representatives and government heads and I’m predicting there will be no signed bipartisan agreement reached, only a lot of maybes?

    With Mercury and Pluto forming an unsure link in Capricorn from the 6th, the Copenhagen conference will be struggling to come to a signed agreed solution on the issue of how effectively countries can respond to a funded treaty against climate change in the years ahead. In 1992, the United Nations Earth Summit in Rio de Janeiro introduced a landmark treaty on climate change that was supposed to stabilize greenhouse gas concentrations in the atmosphere. The idea of the treaty implied that Co2 emissions be reduced no matter what the cost. At that time the agreement was signed and ratified by more than 186 countries, including the United States. This was also followed up in Bonn in 2001, where millions of dollars were supposed to have been agreed too and distributed to third world countries to help subsidise those local economies that were affected by heavy pollution of Co2 emissions from industrialized countries. To date, all past climate change negotiations have either failed or had little effect on greenhouse gas emissions globally and there has been no proof of a detectable rate of emissions growth in the atmosphere? Also, where did all the fund money go? There appears to be no record and or documented accountability of those collected funds and no United Nations authority wants to investigate it. With Neptune (planet of climate and gasses) in transit through Aquarius until February 2012, you can be sure there will be no documentary proof of increased Co2 emissions during this period, thus making the whole emission trading scheme a fiasco and nothing but a big scare tactic and a monetary fraud plan.

    The Prime Minister Kevin Rudd is willing to spend around 7.3 billion dollars of tax payers’ money to compensate companies through the introduction of a carbon reduction scheme. Tell me, where on earth is this money going to come from? You can rest assured we the general public will be the losers if this in any way occurs, because we (the tax payers) will have to pay for it. The Australian taxpayer will be slaughtered if this legislation became law. We would have higher utilities costs, food, petrol hikes and a severe increase in our overall cost of living, of which the average household could not afford with pending interest rate rises in 2010. Australian companies would either close down or go off shore to survive. Unemployment would rise and the average Australian will be worse off financially.

    Carbon emissions such as Co2 account for around 18% globally and Australia’s share is 0.18 %. These have not increased for decades, so what it the problem here? Simple, the ETS plan is nothing but a fraudulent way internationally of making the rich richer and the poor poorer. Will it change the climate……….you must be joking, as the answer is a big fat NO. Will it change the way you and your family live in the future…….Yes, you can bet on that and you will eventually curse the Kevin Rudd government for introducing the scheme.

    Do we want clean fuel……..of course we do, then what about turning to Ethanol, we have some of the best sugar cane country in the world with room for more, but Mr Rudd and his government does not want to know about it? If Brazil can do it……..why can’t we?

  32. Mark M Aldridge Independent said on December 12th, 2009 at 6:06am #

    HopenHagen the land of the confused

    What in the world is going on, Copenhagen will end up the laughing stock of the world, there are some 30,000 delegates trying to make sense of hundreds of ongoing news conferences and different meetings, with the uneducated hope of saving the world in one foul swoop.

    The draft treaty which I have just tried to read for the forth time, is a repetitive mumble of what could be seen as to many cooks trying to stir the pot, with the goal being to keep Co2 at below 400ppm with the hope of limiting the global temperature from rising any further than 2 % on today’s estimated emissions.

    The Treaty goes on to blame drought, lack of food production and the like to Co2 emissions, why have they not considered huge population growth, land clearing and the diversion of food crops towards the production of fuels in the debate astounds me.

    Plant growth and tolerance to lower water usage increase along with higher co2 concentrations, yet we are trying to reduce co2 output, makes no sense to me, and with huge population growth how can we divert our inadequate crop production to meet the green fuel agenda let alone ignorance of increased water storage and power production.

    Sections of the treaty are reliant on the developing nations receiving financial support from the more industrialized nations like the USA and Australia, on top of that we are expected to reduce emissions by 15 to 20% over the next decade at a huge cost to our economy, while developing nations are free to increase their emissions up until 2020.

    The Treaty reads more like a communist style attempt to equally share all our good fortunes with very little actual reduction in global co2 production in the short term.

    We lower our emissions while others can increase theirs and we pay a high price to boot, estimated at between 150 and 400 billion dollars, somewhat akin to doubling the GST.

    Important issues that seem not to be addresses include who and how do they access any countries Co2 production and associated reductions, the effects to that of our economy, stock markets, retirement and super savings and the like.

    Handing over billions of our hard earned dollars in such hard economic times is one thing, but whom we hand it to and where it ends up are just as important, and I have yet to even address the fact that Co2 caused warming is not based on fact, but rather speculation.

    I dare not bring up my skepticism of the cause of warming or whether in fact warming is actually occurring, as I will be disenfranchised as a denier or intolerant of my worlds future, but that is irrelevant, I do support lowering pollution, putting in place measures to address future disasters and investment in clean energy, but only if we do so in an informed and sustainable manner.

    To blindly follow in the wake of the information before me, would be a crime in itself, to allow others to determine my country’s future with out regard to our expected democratic processes are in excusable in any ones language.

    Trying to holt population growth and deforestation seem of the agenda, increased water storage and collection also seem unimportant to the Copenhagen agenda, helping poorer nations secure adequate food, power and water resources is also not mentioned, all I have seen is the redistribution of money, increased powers over democratic society’s and huge profits for those whom run the system.

    The treaty must be read over and over by our political representatives so they make any future decisions based on fact rather than spin and assumptions, I have heard over and over that our green future will create jobs, yet the treaty is clear that all advances in scientific and agricultural findings must be shared equally, so any money we pour into research will not provide much of a financial benefit to our own industries.

    Being told by a non elected power to dramatically increase our cost of living and to provide billions of dollars to developing nations, with out any input into how it is spent, while at the same time being forced to survive on around half of what we were used to, based of debatable science is a very stupid move in anyone’s eyes.

    Spending our hard earned taxes on increased supply’s of potable water, clean power generation, sustainable and self reliant food production, would be my first step, a simple but effective way to curb pollution is to introduce a variable rate tax system to reward initiative in the manufacturing sector.

    We should expose the myth that population growth is the only way to increase our economic growth and work towards a sustainable future with out the un wanted spin of greedy multinational interests, and then only then can we put our sights on increasing our support of the worlds developing nations, lead by example rather then follow those who might just be headed in the wrong direction.

    Mark M Aldridge
    Independent Candidate

  33. Beatrice said on December 13th, 2009 at 9:59pm #

    to quote gandalf

    YOU SHALL NOT PASS!

  34. coco said on December 15th, 2009 at 4:51pm #

    omg!! im soo disapointed in steven harper!!
    i honeslty thought he would do something good 4 the environment, i mean, like its the most important thing to think about right now! think about the future generations, and what the animals around the world have to deal with because of our actions!! we should make bigger petitions to stop climate change! whos with me?

  35. samy said on December 15th, 2009 at 4:54pm #

    i totally agree! steven harper is no good!
    he does should not represent canada!!
    g0 environment!!

  36. Rob said on December 16th, 2009 at 6:46pm #

    Hey coco and samy, wake up. Taxing the crap out of us and giving it to developing nations will do nothing. The developed nations of the world have already given billions of dollars to the third world to eradicate hunger and poverty, and has proved futile. The money ends up in the hands of the dictators of these nations making them richer while oppressing their citizens more. The Copenhagen treaty is more of the same but on a much larger scale, Throwing money at a problem has never worked, only sound solutions work.