«
»

From The Copenhagen Climate Change Treaty

October 5, 2009, 9:40 am

The treaty draft is really hard to read, as it has all kinds of alternate language in brackets.  However, a few folks have already started reviewing the treaty, and what they are finding is less of a climate treaty and more of a blueprint for world socialism.  One example, via Anthony Watt, from page 122 of the draft:

17. [[Developed [and developing] countries] [Developed and developing country Parties] [All Parties] [shall] [should]:]
(a) Compensate for damage to the LDCs' economy and also compensate for lost opportunities, resources, lives, land and dignity, as many will become environmental refugees;
(b) Africa, in the context of environmental justice, should be equitably compensated for environmental, social and economic losses arising from the implementation of response measures.

Compensating for "lost opportunities?" Isn't that number just whatever they want it to be? And don't get me started on lost "dignity."

Tags: , , , ,
Category: Environment
  • MJ

    Compensating for "lost opportunities" belongs in the same category as "jobs saved or created". Obama and his administration should love this proposal.

  • http://homeownerinsurancehq.com/ HO

    Compensating for "lost opportunities" belongs in the same category as "jobs saved or created". Obama and his administration should love this proposal.

  • Stan

    How do they expect to be taken seriously with stuff like this? Nobody in their right mind would touch this with a ten foot pole, unless you happen to know in advance you are a "victim" country. What is this, reparations for stupidity?

  • OnlyMe

    From Page 122 of the draft "treaty" on global warming:

    " 17. [[Developed [and developing] countries] [Developed and developing country Parties] [All Parties] [shall] [should]:]
    (a) Compensate for damage to the LDCs’ economy and also compensate for lost opportunities, resources, lives, land and dignity, as many will become environmental refugees;
    (b) Africa, in the context of environmental justice, should be equitably compensated for environmental, social and economic losses arising from the implementation of response measures."

    ok, LDC's I presume are Lesser Developed Countries aka everyone outside Europe and USA ...

    In plain english.

    Developed and maybe developing countries shall or should* pay blackmail to everyone else on earth because we sold you or used our resources, global warming never killed anyone, we still have our land but are trashing it cause as a whole we are dictators, despots, tyrants and dont care squat for our nation's population and we have the audacity to engage in this blackmail rather than beg or offer something of value in return for said money

    b.) Africa should get the majority of the blackmail money because ... well ... some liberals somewhere invented a term Environmental Justice and applied it to we in Africa and we really want to extort even more Billions from you and who really cares about anyone outside Africa anyhow so we can call this equitable because, just because, and you have done nothing nearly as horrendous to our populace as we ourselves and you havent damaged the land in our countries though we have and we kill our own people and can't even manage to run a farm without help and we can in no way skim enough graft to line our pockets without this additional extorted moneys so there, cough up or we will call you meaningless names.

    *because of discredited graphs showing an abrupt rise in global temperatures when you look at about 12 tree rings from all the trees in the whole world and when you use as few as 45 tree rings from within 200 miles there is no abrupt rise in temperatures shown on the graphs but who cares because Al Gore said the world will end in about 10 years and everyone knows he invented the internet.

    Thanks to the Copenhagen Draft Treaty for this bit of beautiful prose.

  • Rob

    Doesn't this excerpt imply that the compensation is due because the underdeveloped countries will not have the opportunity to develop (in an "unclean" manner) like the currently developed nations?

    Or better yet, who is going to prevent these underdeveloped countries from using "dirty" technology to improve their standard of living?

    Am I the only one who can see a war being fought over pollution? This will be a justified war in the Liberals eyes.

  • tomw

    This must have been written by the same guys that wrote the EU 'constitution'. Obama will love it because it fits in perfectly with his desire for 'redistribution'.
    Copenhagen sure has a lot of stuff goin' on what with the IOC and the IPCC ... Who did they bribe?
    I think those would be much more lucrative, at least profitable, conferences to host than the Olympics them self.

    tom

  • http://mickysmuses.blogspot.com Ayrdale

    Thank you for that. I have lifted it, with attribution...