I was never Bill Clinton's biggest fan during the nineties, but I did manage to admire him on a few counts. One of which was his refusal to commit to anything other than a symbolic assent to the appalling Kyoto Treaty--a treaty that basically said the United Nations could dictate environmental policy. And by that I mean the environmental policies of nations that feed the rest of the nations who get to dictate environmental policy.
I remember the cacophonous screeching that ensued shortly after the senate ensured it was a non-binding action. But even Bill Clinton understood the free markets enough to know that the UN was more concerned with killing Jews that to really grapple with an understanding that perhaps the countries that feed their tin-horn dictatorships should perhaps be allowed to pollute more than others.
Still, this didn't stop others, Europe and Japan included--from indexing their checkbooks to the whims of that giant hotbed of anti-semic enono-ignorance. And now it's come home to roost:
Does this sound familiar? Such as in the recently-floated "carbon offsets"--a sort of ecological shell game championed by Al Gore that basically says that you can pay someone else to not pollute as much in order to accommodate your private jet emissions accrued during private screenings of An Inconvenient Truth. The price tag for their recalcitrance? 46 Billion. To. The. UN.Twenty nations including Japan, Italy and Australia may be releasing more greenhouse-gas pollution than they agreed to under the Kyoto treaty to curb global warming.
They're failing to rein in carbon-dioxide output enough to meet their pledges signed in 1997 in Kyoto, Japan, according to reports by individual countries. As a penalty for missing their goals under the treaty, the nations are required to buy permits for every excess ton of the heat-trapping gas released through 2012. That will total 2.3 billion permits for 20 nations, New Carbon Finance, a research firm in London, has estimated.
If I remember correctly, Martin Luther hammered his parchment to the door of an equally-corrupt organization, objecting to the exact same thing: Indulgences.
Besides, I doubt the UN will be concerned with environmental impact studies when Ahmendinejad detonates a dirty bomb at the Dome of the Rock.
-R
2 comments:
The UN is an anti-Semetic organization concerned with killing Jews?
Of course we have the right to write about our political views whether people agree with them or not. (And, that we don't agree on political matters has been previously established.) Therefore my problem is not with your espousing your views, it's with the at times extreme and absurd ways in which you choose to espouse them.
You don't think the US should be subject to the Kyoto protocol or the UN. Granted. The very nations who helped to form and signed off on the Kyoto protocol are having problems meeting the standards. Granted. The UN has had some corruption problems. Granted. Obviously there are some problems with the UN and obviously there are some countries involved who have a voice that are anti-Semetic. But to levy a blanket charge of anti-Semetism and to state that the UN is "concerned with killing Jews" is extreme and absurd.
Absurd and extreme? I doubt it. The UN is little more than a hotbed of anti-semitic leaders and diplomats, whose only concern is making sure the jews never see another acre of land in the middle east--and then wink at any and all atrocities committed against them. Go look at their actual record. Oh yeah, they make staments like "Darfur is a bad thing," but only after everybody's dead anyway.
I'd contend that you characterizing the UN as having had "some corruption problems" is the understatement of the ages--kind of like saying John Belushi was remotely encumbered by drugs.
And as far as exressive freedom goes . . . well, I guess I'm just utilizing what's left. They won't be around much longer, I'm afraid.
Post a Comment