THE UNITED NATIONS today added two cents’ worth on the NSW bushfires, claiming “rapid cuts in emissions” would avoid “doom and gloom” events in future. The UN — already in ways a global irrelevance — should butt out rather than push domestic agendas on behalf of international communists.
I must begin, of course, with an apology: I’m well aware of the overvaluation I have accorded to the UN’s statement. It is not, of course, worth two cents; in fact, it is worth nothing at all. But it does warrant a response.
The declaration by Christiana Figueres, executive secretary of the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change, that rapid cuts in emissions could help to avoid the kind of “doom and gloom” events signified by the bushfires currently raging in NSW is perverse, counter-intuitive, driven by ideology, and patently offensive.
I’ll suggest readers take a look at this article from The Guardian, and in particular to watch the video presentation embedded in it. Very illuminating indeed.
At the risk of stating the obvious, the UN was set up (in short) to mitigate the risk of a third world war; there’s little doubt that much good has been done in its name over the years despite it being dominated by Communists and other Leftist movements, but the UN has overstepped its charter many times, and — in buying into the debate over climate change — is doing so again.
Needless to say, the contributions of the UN just happen to dovetail perfectly with the agenda of the international Left.
Figueres’ interjections were made in light of the pending abolition of Australia’s carbon tax, and whilst she conceded the Abbott government was not abandoning the objectives of the Gillard government’s so-called Clean Energy package, it was made very obvious that she disapproved of the means with which Abbott intends to pursue them through direct action.
It seems only a matter of time before her line “we need to put a price on carbon so we don’t pay the price of carbon” becomes an election slogan for the Greens and/or the ALP, so blatantly interventionist is its impact.
As usual, too, there is no advocacy or even mention of the one existing technology — nuclear — that is efficient, clean, cheap, safe, and could slash world emissions drastically.
And I would suggest — with some deference — that the “figures” at the OECD, IMF and the World Bank alluded to by Figueres should perhaps stick to economic matters rather than providing fodder for the environmental doomsday theories of rancid socialists.
Irrespective of whether it works in environmental terms, so-called carbon pricing — at least in the form in which it has been utilised to date in Australia — is a wrecker of economies, of livelihoods, and of living standards.
In the short time such “pricing” has been in effect in Australia, energy bills for consumers and businesses have rocketed; left unchecked these will push households to the brink, cutting discretionary expenditure from the economy, pushing already stressed businesses into terminal territory through reduced demand, inducing economic slowdown and/or recession.
Destroying jobs and families in the process, and pulling living standards lower.
And let’s not forget: for all the macho rhetoric about “terminating” the carbon tax, Kevin Rudd and his cronies omitted the bit about the European price their floating mechanism was to be tied to; within five years projected to sit at almost double the rate of the carbon tax they so graciously pledged to scrap.
Well, there are two — and two only — considerations that are of any relevance whatsoever; one leads directly to the other, and if they collectively draw a blank then listening to the likes of the UN and its edicts on carbon pricing should be the last of this countries concerns.
Firstly, is “climate change” indisputably proven, beyond reasonable doubt, to be the direct result of human activity? Clearly it isn’t, and as many observers have noted in media across the world, overall global warming stopped 15 years ago despite localised variations that occur, constantly, across the world.
Figueres is quoted talking about “…wildfires, … droughts, … all sorts disturbances to the hydrological cycle.”
Yet in a fashion typical of the most ardent climate change propagandists or their associates in the hard core of the global Left, there is no mention of record cold winters in the Northern Hemisphere or other variations in the opposite direction that are inconvenient to a highly dubious and debatable argument.
In fact, none of the so-called “settled science” is anything of the kind; it can’t conclusively rule out that global temperature changes aren’t part of a natural long-term cycle that has continued, listlessly, through millenia.
And secondly, why (for the love of God, why?) is it Australia’s responsibility to solve the world’s problems, when our emissions are a piddling proportion of the world total, and when the really big emitters (China, the USA, the EU, India, Russia) are laughing at us from behind their collective hand: how could any country be so stupid and gullible?
The United Nations does a lot of worthy work as a diplomatic forum, and in other areas such as with refugees and with children (although seeking to use UN treaties to override sovereign constitutions — as the Greens seek to on asylum seekers — is probably useful to provide a pointer to which of those treaties Australia should unilaterally repudiate).
Its involvement in the distribution of foreign aid from the free world to the oppressed and underprivileged is, in my view, an abuse of the pretext it was established upon, notwithstanding the fact I endorse the notion that Australia pays far too much money in foreign aid, and that much of what it does pay is misdirected.
But for the UN to be interfering, in an activist capacity, in the politics and taxation aspects of climate change is just not on.
Any input from the United Nations on this issue is irrelevant. It should butt out.
If the imperatives of carbon taxes, emissions cuts and turning cheap energy derived from coal into a commercially unviable proposition are so high, let it first try to bully America, China, and all the other countries whose emissions, annually, dwarf those of Australia.
It won’t, because the US isn’t interested in crippling its economy and will do little more than pay lip service in response. China — from a UN perspective — is off-limits.
And if the so-called principles at stake are so discretionary as to effectively leave the USA and China to their own devices, then we don’t need this rubbish peddled in Australia either.