Friday
Mar162012
by 
Bishop Hill
Bishop Hill World government
Some time ago a journalist told me that many of his colleagues were so keen on environmentalism because they wanted to see a world government. I thought it was a bit kooky at the time and didn't really give it too much thought.
Interesting therefore to see Richard Black's article today, in which we see environmentalism being used to push just such a world government agenda. The idea appears to be that poor countries should be able to vote to transfer money from rich countries to themselves.
I expect our politicians to be fully in favour.
Reader Comments (67)
To be fair to Richard Black, the world government he’s promoting in this news item wouldn’t control every aspect of our lives. We’d still be allowed to keep our three-pin plugs and continue to drive on the left. The world government would concern itself only with “improving the lot of the planet's poorest, safeguarding nature and making the global economy more sustainable”.
Perhaps the idea is to persuade China (the only major power with cash to spare) to solve the problems of Africa and South Asia caused by three centuries of European domination.
Probably Black has no precise idea at all of what he expects world government to achieve - just a vague feeling that democratically elected governments (like Poland’s) have an irritating habit of putting the interests of their electors first, which gets in the way of superior minds (like Black’s) imposing their superior solutions.
Having bent all three political parties to the will of Brussels and the IPCC, it’s only natural that Black and his friends should try the same thing on the other 140 nations of the UN. Should be easy.
I notice that this is another of RB's articles which didn't make it to the top of the BBC Science and Environment page, Flies, Squid and Honeybees being the top three articles currently.
Is it my imagination or wishful thinking on my part or are his articles no longer given the prominence they once were?
Sandy Sinclair
One assumes a good journalist checks his sources, so clearly Black is pushing an agenda
Prof Frank Biermann, of the Earth System Governance Project,, is also the director of the Global Governance Project.
http://www.glogov.org/?pageid=24
Many of the members of the Earth System Governance Project are also mentioned in this peice at WUWT:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/03/16/seven-building-blocks-to-fairness-and-equity/
One of the key ideas in the original European idea was 'subsidiarity', a word that has like many others been beaten into almost unrecognisable shapes by those that would impose their will despite the nominal presence of democracy. It is the taking of decisions at the nearest practical level to the individual, or community, that is affected by the decision. Subsidiarity is anathema to the intellectual elites that are pushing the type of agenda espoused by Black here. Much better that policy is made in small unaccountable and invisible groups that then roll it out across the globe, for the good of the people. Never mind that you ruin peoples lives and wreck economies in the process.
Hence you have teams of UN sponsored officials roaming the world telling countries what laws they should enact and what moral code they should adopt, irrespective of the culture and democratically expressed preference of that country.
Isn't it treason to promote an undemocratic change in UK government.
Re: geoffchambers
> the world government he’s promoting in this news item wouldn’t control every aspect of our lives.
You only have to look at the Common Market to see how wrong you are about that. It is a rare government that never seeks more power or ever voluntarily gives up some of its existing power. This means that it would inevitably gain more and more control.
I too was very wary of taking the 'world government agenda' seriously, but iirc the key text was in the draft for Copenhagen, and who knows if Chris Monckton and others hadn't begun to flag this in the run up it may not have been dropped. We shouldn't underestimate the influence of these seemingly way out greens - e.g. the Chefio has recently been giving coverage to just how far the insidious Agenda 21 has embedded itself in local government in California: http://chiefio.wordpress.com/2011/12/18/foia-agenda-21/ and http://chiefio.wordpress.com/2011/12/28/marx-progressives-socialism-and-agenda-21/
I recommend reading the first dozen or so comments on Richard Black's piece - Jasonsceptic points to Richard Black And Stakeholder Forum which is a new blog to me.
Mangochutney links to info on Prof Frank Biermann, who is apparently the director of the Global Governance Project - http://www.glogov.org/?pageid=24
And the comment from Jack Hughes says it all:
I always get suspicious when organisations such as the EU seek to e.g. remove discrimination against men over driving insurance premiums (coincidentally improving the lot of insurance companies because they would then be able to get away with charging women more) or remove discrimination against women over annuity payments (coincidentally improving the lot of pension companies because they would then get away with paying men less). Of course, it happens on a totally different scale over carbon taxes as well where money flows out of industrial pockets and into the pockets of bankers and hedge funds.
Ultimately one can only assume these funds trickle into taxes and the coffers of governments to be redistributed to environmental and lobbying groups and the governments of poorer countries who trumpet similar aims.
No wonder growth is being stifled in the West.
As someone pointed out over at WUWT, so countries like Thailand and Brazil who have dragged themselves up by their bootstraps should just hand over there money now to countries that haven't work as hard.
And what if after Greece has been handed hundreds of billions of Euros (To save the Euro) it get's kicked out of the EU to then turn round and demand hundreds of billions of Euros from the EU through the world government.
And why is it always un-productive people that seem to want these totalitarian Governments.
I think I might have to learn to bare knuckle box, anyone want to sell me a caravan?
We are in the end game of UN Agenda 21 Marxist Revolution using fake climate change as the excuse to impose autocratic government on the West. The EU is deeply involved in this because carbon taxation and no need for democratic voting will allow the bureaucracy to become the new overlords.
This has been a brilliant plan because it got the support of the elite by offering them jobs in the bureaucracies and the NGOs, the Mafia by the windmills and rent seeking by landowners. Thus we had the case of nominally Tory Cameron but with rent seeking relatives writing last summer to congratulate Fabian Gillard for imposing her undemocratic carbon tax.
The latest move in Australia is to propose a University-based organisation with no democratic accountability impose censorship to the level of blogs with one hit per day with unlimited sanctions, the aim being to destroy criticism of the Labor party and climate science.
Once the public realises the IPCC climate scare is baseless, it will react against the loss of freedom. Here in the UK we also have an academic fraternity which is rising up against those who have subverted science even to the extent of reportedly teaching incorrect physics for political indoctrination.
hahahahaha......
Das BBC-Zeitung once again seems unwilling to accept comment.
@ geoffchambers
That is the attitude of a person who would meekly board the cattle truck.
World Government?
There's just 2 minor problems which would have to be overcome.
First, the objections of just about every single person on the planet.
Secondly, the objections of just about every single government on the planet.
Apart from that, it should be pretty plain sailing.
Power tends to corrupt and absolute power corrupts absolutely. Great men are almost always bad men, even when they exercise influence and not authority: still more when you superadd the tendency or the certainty of corruption by authority. There is no worse heresy than that the office sanctifies the holder of it.
(Letter to Mandell Creighton (5 April 1887))
There is no error so monstrous that it fails to find defenders among the ablest men. Imagine a congress of eminent celebrities, such as More, Bacon, Grotius, Pascal, Cromwell, Bossuet, Montesquieu, Jefferson, Napoleon, Pitt, etc. The result would be an Encyclopedia of Error.
(Letter to Mary Gladstone (24 April 1881))
Both quotations from Lord Acton.
I suppose that the present generation of 'bright young things,' like all their ilk, consider themselves to be 'beyond all that sort of thing now'; like adolescents who imagine they have just invented sex for the first time in human history.
@Paul Boyce
Unfortunately, the sheeple will be unaware until it's too late
I am not very keen on conspiracy theories. There are a lot of nut cases in the U.S.A. who think that there is an organised conspiracy to set up a world government. However, although I don't believe that there is any such conspiracy it certainly does seem to be true that among influential officials in many countries there is a deep suspicion of democracy.
As others have pointed out you only have to look at the EU to see that is the case. For many years the EU has harboured anti-democratic tendencies and the current crisis of the euro has given them the excuse to impose non-elected leaders on Greece and Italy. Here in Britain the salaries of MPs have gone up even though their responsibilities have gone down now that a great deal of our legislation is made in Brussels (and devolution to Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland also leave less work for Westminster).
Also in Britain the democratic will of the people is overridden by unaccountable foreign judges who say we must allow prisoners to vote and the craven Lib-Dems and much of the Labour Party, and also far too many Conservatives say that democracy should be ignored and the will of the judges obeyed.
In recent years, thanks mainly to public bodies, the concept of "thought crime" has moved from the pages of George Orwell's novels to become a reality.
Even bodies concerned with things like trade threaten democracy. Using the World Trade Organisation the Americans have been able to block attempts by the EU to label meat from animals treated with various hormones and genetically modified crops. Thus, under the banner of "free trade", the consumer is denied information about what he/she eats. Whatever you think about the merits of genetic engineering the ban on labelling products is hardly democratic.
In the 1960s and 70s, in the heyday of student protests, the left was loud in proclaiming that it was fighting for democracy. Today the left is in the forefront of the assault on democracy but the pseudo-right, led by people like Cameron, is not far behind.
Bish, you really have to pay more attention. At the time of the Copenhagen Climate Conference Gordon Brown made a speech talking about how the west owed developing and 3rd world countries a "carbon debt" of $100 Billion and that green taxes and levies in the west should be used to repay this debt. There is of course no such debt, this was just an opportunist attempt at a favourite canard of the marxist left "redistribution of wealth". Several of the "green" groups, NGO's, Government organisations (UN, EU etc) and left leaning politicians have spoken about climate and environmentalism and talked about "world governance". They are truely serious in wanting some form of global control of environmental policy. Obviously countries such as the US, China etc will not agree to such demands and long may this continue.
>Some time ago a journalist told me that many of his colleagues were so keen on environmentalism because they wanted to see a world government.
I thought that was obvious?
@geoffchambers
Surely the most important advantage of the advent of "world government" is that it would enable us to INSIST that EVERY "undeveloped country" used our 3-pin plug design. The one with round pins.
There are indeed many academics in the environmental sciences who would favour a world government. Frank Biermann is one.
It is rarely clear whether the desire for a world government led to an embrace of the environmental agenda, or whether care for the environment led to a desire for a world government.
I've known Frank for many years and I do not know what came first.
A little while ago, whenever I read all this sceptic stuff tracing the climate change movement right back to the Club of Rome and the mysterious Maurice Strong, my "conspiracy theory detectors" used to bleep and make me glaze over somewhat.
I find it bizarre now to find, quite suddenly, that evidence of a blatant "world government" sub-text to the climate movement is popping up all over the place.
The post by "Richard Black" the other day and the link to his http://blackswhitewash.com site showing Black's extensive links to the so called "Stakeholder Forum" was an eye opener for me.
http://blackswhitewash.com/2012/03/14/richard-black-and-stakeholder-forum/
http://www.stakeholderforum.org/sf/
Their "our people" page made my eyes bleed.
The clincher which left me really gobsmacked though was this 2010 BBC (natch) piece "Reviving the Spirit of Rio", joint authored by "Stakeholder Forum" activist in chief Felix Dodds ...........and the great man himself Maurice Strong! (making a guest appearance from retirement in Peking with his $1M cardboard money box).
http://www.canadafreepress.com/2005/marinka090805.htm
Felix Dodds' Wikipedia page is an interesting read in itself - a chronicle of rabid far left activism - pretty well from birth.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Felix_Dodds
Suddenly, I find my "conspiracy theory detector" batteries need recharging.
This has been long in the making and bit by bit they have put the pieces in place to move further towards Maurice Strong's vision of One World Government. The trouble is, when these things are pointed out, accusations of conspiracy theory are immediately used to discredit the messenger. However the evidence is all out there:
Just in January, US EPA chief, Lisa Jackson said:
"We have reached a point in human history where everyday activities – from our commerce to our transportation to our recreation – are affecting the health of our entire planet.
As Rio+20, the 20th anniversary of the 1992 Earth Summit, approaches in June, we have a chance to learn lessons, build partnerships and put in place innovative strategies that can reshape the economic and environmental future of our entire planet. It is the rarest of opportunities to truly change the world, and make a difference that will benefit billions of people. It means working together to strengthen the effectiveness of environmental governance."
In February, Ban Ki Moon said: to a KPMG Summit, entitled “Business Perspective for Sustainable Growth”:
"We are nearing the point of no return on climate change. You all understand the high stakes -- for jobs, for social justice, for the Millennium Development Goals, for the health of the planet. Only with your strong support and leadership we can change and shape the world we want and we can make this world better for all. I have been urging leaders of the world not to be prisoners of their constituencies.When they have a vision and commitment they have to carry them out."
In other words, ignore the people who voted you into power, which of course we know they do anyway.
In September 1992, Gro Harlem Brundtland made a speech to the Socialist International:
"At the Rio Conference on Environment and Development (1992) it was made clear that we are heading towards a crisis of uncontrollable dimensions unless we change course.
Securing peace, sustainable development and democracy requires that nations, in their common interest, establish an effective system of global governance and security. In an increasingly interdependent world, we must find new ways to live - both within our own countries and on a global level - that are socially, economically, and environmentally sustainable.
To pursue social justice, freedom and democracy will require that we pool our collective experiences and national sovereignties.There is no alternative to obligatory coordination of financial and monetary policies."
Brundtland was the "face on the box" author of "Our Common Future" which led to Agenda 21. She has been doing the rounds again in advance of Rio 20+ and was at the meeting in the US at which Lisa Jackson made the comments quoted above.
“In 1987, the Brundtland Report, headed by Gro Harlem Brundtland, former prime minister of Norway and former vice-president of the Socialist International, led to the UN Commission on Sustainable Development, which led to Agenda 21 and the Millennium Development Goals. The principal draftsman was Mr. Nitin Desai, UNCED's deputy secretary-general and currently a “Distinguished Fellow” at Rajendra Pachauri’s TERI organisation. William D. Ruckelshaus, the first EPA Administrator, was a member of the Brundtland Commission with Maurice Strong.”
In Dcember, John Gummer, president of GLOBE International, spoke of the GLOBE Summit of Legislators that will take place in Rio prior to the main event:
"it is essential that Rio+20 is a success for Brazil and President Dilma. Brazil has the potential to re-ignite the vision of the original Rio Summit that met there twenty years ago. Under President Dilma an ambitious agenda could be forged that would bring world leaders together in Rio next year not to talk – but to commit."
GLOBE Secretary General, Adam Matthews, said: "This will be the first time a World Summit of Legislators will have taken place. This GLOBE event will add a new and important dynamic to the international process that will both drive international commitments into national legislation and also serve to scrutinise the delivery of the commitments that governments make."
Chris Huhne was at their Durban meeting, launching the 2nd GLOBE Climate Legislation Study, with UNFCCC exec secretary Christiana Figueres, former carbon trading advisor at Idea Carbon's ratings agency, (Lord Nicholas Stern of LSE is an advisor to Idea Carbon, along with Sam Fankhauser of LSE, who is also Chief Accountant for GLOBE and a member of the UK Climate Change Committee).
http://www.globeinternational.info/2011/2nd-globe-legislation-study-launched-in-durban-with-christiana-figueres/
There are never any reports of these meetings in the media for some strange reason.
Oliver Letwin is driving Camergreen policies and has a feature article in the December issue of the UN Environmental Programme magazine, entitled "Let's Lock in Green Growth". Geoffrey Lean of the Telegraph is the editor of the UNEP magazine. Lisa Jackson of USEPA also has an article in there. Letwin said:
"The 1992 Rio Earth summit marked a momentous step forward in international cooperation on social and environmental issues. Twenty years on, we are faced with increasing pressures on the global economy, the global environment and the world’s poorest people. There could not be a better time for the world to lock in its commitment to sustainable development — and the Durban climate negotiations this winter and the Rio+20 conference, twenty years after the summit, next summer, provide the opportunity to do so."
There is a lot of detail in the two SPPI papers linked below, on how politicians work beyond the view of their electorates to stitch things up amongst themselves, whilst the MSM concern themselves with Pippa Middleton's derriere.
"United Socialist Nations"
http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/originals/un_progress_governance_via_climate_change.html
"Changing The Engine Of The Global Economy – The Next UN Strategy"
http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/originals/changing_global_economy_engine.html
As an aside, is it just me, or does Richard Black look a bit like Michael Mann?
A Day In The Life of the UN (apologies to the The Times):
1. Achieve World Peace
2. Set up World Government
It can be troublesome to get a decent community council, very hard to get a good town council, and district or regional councils are generally not very impressive, and neither are the sub-UK parliaments. National governments are so awful that the great merit of our democracy is the custom of being able to ditch each within years of its defects becoming apparent to one and all. I have no words for the unspeakable EU, and the UN is even worse. I think all of this points to the desirability from a common sense view at least to have less government, not more, and to allow for frequent cleaning out of the stables. On the other hand, if you truly, really do hate humanity, then world government is the way to go.
Watch for another worrying meme gaining ground too, "The thrird way, the commons" which has been doing the rounds in environmental groups, and the occupy movement lately. One of the "big ideas" is Land Value Taxation[1]
It seems to be intertwining with the environmental movement, which has so successfully been co-opted by the globalists, to further co-opt any political activism to the globalist cause.
David Bollier was co-founder of the Commons Strategy Group[2], he wrote a lot of reports for the Aspen Institute, funded by foundations such as the Carnegie Corporation, The Rockefeller Brothers Fund and the Ford Foundation, by seminar fees, and by individual donations. Its board of trustees includes leaders from politics, government, business and academia who also contribute to its support. Board members include Madeleine Albright, Sylvia Earle, Henry Louis Gates, David Gergen, David H. Koch, Queen Noor of Jordan, and Condoleezza Rice. Walter Isaacson is President and CEO.
Peter Barnes, a founder of Working Assets, the fund making “socially responsible” investments, had a blog post on the "On the Commons" blog, way back in 2008, highlighted by ANDREW REVKIN in the NYT[3] pushing the same agenda.
[1]http://www.labourland.org/lvt/what_is_lvt.php
[2]http://www.commonslearningalliance.org/The-Commons-as-Different-Engine-for-Innovation
[3]http://dotearth.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/01/02/paying-the-high-cost-of-climate-control/?scp=3&sq=cap%20and%20dividend&st=cse
Do "conspiracy theorists" who have been banging on about this for over 20yrs really deserve the derogation? When it walks like a conspiracy, flaps it's wings like a conspiracy, and quacks like a conspiracy, shouldn't we be highlighting it?
Turkeys?
Christmas?
Geoff
"We’d still be allowed to keep our three-pin plugs and continue to drive on the left"
That's about all we have now, isn't it, thanks to the EU?
Dennis A
Yes he does, and so does Gavin Schmidt. Hard to tell whether the chubby face/challenged hairline/goatee beard is a favoured look amongst their subculture, or whether it is merely Mother Nature.
Richard Tol
As you know Frank Biermann, do you have any idea how he thinks a world government might be elected/appointed? I guess the IPCC is the prototype, being self-appointed, driven by activists and without the slightest notion of integrity or transparency.
@David S
I guess layered democracy. The people elect a national parliament. The national parliament elects a government. The national governments elect a continental government. The continental governments elect a global government.
You conclude "I expect our politicians to be fully in favour"...of world government.
You are coreect. They already are. Cameron supported the Copenhagen Treaty; he said so on his blog at the time, causing an avalanche of outraged replies at the time. In government, he still supports the idea. Indeed it is government policy. In a report entitled Governance for Growth, presented to the last G20 conference in November 2011, Mr Cameron said that the G20 should:
"encourage ongoing efforts, such as ahead of next year’s Rio+20 Summit, to
strengthen the coherence of global sustainable development governance, including
through the process of agreeing high-level goals;"
In one of the Coalition government`s earliest policy documents, the Strategic Defence Review (I have not got the title correct but it is something like that) the failure to sign a treaty at Copenhagen was described as "a strategic mistake".
In short this has been Cameron policy all along.
The problem with "layering" is that each "layer" is also a veil which impedes the supervision of the activities of elected representatives by their electors.
An obvious example near home is the UK MP's expenses scandal. Once this was brought to light - public outrage forced resignations, repayments and prosecutions.
One layer up, at the EU "continental government" level, we are all aware of far worse excesses - but have absolutely no direct way of pursuing the offenders ( assuming we even had audited accounts as a starting point).
At the "world government" UN level, scandals like "oil for food" and Maurice Strong's $1m cardboard box just result in hand wringing and shoulder shrugging by powerless citizens.
I once lived in an affluent a small town in the US where the local sheriff bought four new patrol cars that the local citizenry thought were a bit flash. After the local newspaper ran a couple of articles - he had to make a public apology. The point was every body knew who he was and he knew he needed their votes.
"Layered democracy" is effectively diluted democracy - trending to zero democracy at world scale.
there's nothing left wing about an LVT. In fact it's hyper capitalist and can easily lead to a smaller state.
the LVT is supported by Ricardo and Smith and opposed by Malthus and Keynes, which should really tell you all you need to know.
I think the alien civilisation that sent the pods only had a blurred radiotelescope image of humanity to base their design on.
In "Durban, what the media are not telling you" by Christopher Monckton of Brenchley, about a UN document entitled "Ad Hoc Working Group on Long-term Cooperative Action under the Convention", he writes: "The contents of this document, turgidly drafted with all the UN’s skill at what the former head of its documentation center used to call transparent impenetrability, are not just off the wall – they are lunatic."
The document with the catchy title deals with Agenda 21, I guess. Check out what Monckton of Brenchley has to say about it here:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/12/09/durban-what-the-media-are-not-telling-you/
I guess layered democracy. The people elect a national parliament. The national parliament elects a government. The national governments elect a continental government. The continental governments elect a global government.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
... thereby providing a further career path for politicians (and, of course, each layer would expect more money and perks than the one below). From their point of view - what's not to like?
It is depressing how readily many of them would sell out their country for a mess of pottage.
The UN global governance agenda has been there for years. Anyone who dismisses it as a conspiracy theory has their head in the sand. The only remarkable paradox is how so few are even aware of it, and even fewer question or oppose it.
http://www.sovereignty.net/p/gov/gganalysis.htm
"You say the only alternative to nuclear war is world government. There is only one possibility worse than nuclear war for the survival of modern civilization, and that is world government. Civilization might recover from the damage of a nuclear war, but judging by past static empires in Egypt and China, it might never recover from world government, there being no chance of external intervention. As it is, present governments are only prevented from becoming dominated by crazy ideas that will suppress all opposition by the existence of other governments. The only way a people can be sure that their government is substandard is that it does worse than those of other countries"
Professor John McCarthy
He said this long before CAGW becane a scare, indeed before the collapse of the USSR. This makes it more not less relevant today. I submit that CAGW is almopst an architype "crazy idea2 to which such a government would be particularly susceptible.
The late professor's site should be read by anybody who considers science more imoprtant than magic. http://www-formal.stanford.edu/jmc/sayings.html
@ac1
Perhaps, perhaps not. To many, LVT would "...oppose all violations of the right to private property" .
However, if libertarians broadly support the notion that "The owners of property have the full right to control, use, dispose of, or in any manner enjoy, their property without interference, until and unless the exercise of their control infringes the valid rights of others...". Then those that support LVT might suggest "valid rights of others" will be infringed. In this case, I think that would be simply a case of one authority usurping or overthrowing another.
Thus I can't personally see the LVT concept as necessarily capitalist at all, especially given that economic freedoms capitalism affords individual property owners now, would be lost or transferred to a state or organisation of greater authority.
Anyway, all this would be superfluous, because the one-world government will have already imposed the "per-capita carbon-energy unit allocation" on every poor soul on the planet, as the common currency to develop their sustainable totalitarianism. And you can't save these units for a rainy day, put them into a bank, or pass them onto your kids when you croak it, because you will by now have no right to own anything in your life. You will be theirs.
Actually, I am grinning slightly as I write this, but it does make the mind boggle...
Shouldn't a world government be reported to the monopolies commission?
I think we have to look beyond left/right/centre/isms boxes. These political intellectual positions are control mechanisms to divide and conquer, or keep everyone in a box arguing with another box while the agenda marches on regardless.
What are the real differences in policy regardless which party is votes in? I can't see any.
Democracy appears to be little more than some BS security blanket these days.
Foxgoose - I have a lot of things left to say about Richard Black, Felix Dodds and Stakeholder Forum, oh such a lot to tell you all, perhaps even how much RIchard is getting paid by them....
The BBC has long found excuses for excluding dissenting voices from "climate change". But Richard Black demonstrates yet again that "climate change" has very little to do with science. In this case it is promoting authoritarian political opinions, without any need for considering more moderate mainstream voices.
You're almost as intriguing as FOIA 2011 BW.
Spill the beans - please!
Coming to this rather late (been a busy day), I can't believe no-one has referred to:-
http://www.spiegel.de/international/business/0,1518,821396,00.html
Another (excellent!) critique of Enviro-Mentalism from Der Spiegel.
Der Spiegel is usually worth reading, even if it is almost as greenie as the Grauniad. But someone there has really woken up and smelled the coffee!
The greenies won't like that!
"...The idea appears to be that poor countries should be able to vote to transfer money from rich countries to themselves...."
On a smaller scale, I consider myself to be very poor, relative to....well most people but especially Bill Gates, Warren Buffet and Phillip Green.
I hereby vote that each of the above transfer say 20% (I'm not greedy) of their fortunes to me!
I'll check my bank account tomorrow morning.
We already have a world government. The only thing it is lacking is the ability to raise global taxes and so become self-sustaining. It must be careful not to overplay its hand before this funding is in place. It is currently funded by individual governments but that funding is not guaranteed.
The organisation is the UN and the first tranche of funding will be based on a global carbon tax. One of the UN's departments is trying to arrange this. It is called the IPCC.
National government leaders are sympathetic to the IPCC's requests because they see world government as a promotion path. It also has the advantage of not needing elections. So the job could be permanent. (Haven't you ever thought what is in it for Cameron or Gillard, for instance?)
Please read the Monckton article referred to above. If true, it says what was really in a draft of the Durban climate agreement - and it was not just climate!
World government and population control are at the very heart of the environmental movement, with anthropogenic global warming as the enabler.
They used to know better than to mention it though, but in desperate times .........
Worthwhile to remind of Naomi Klein's words from late last year, before the Gleick affair:
"The deniers did not decide that climate change is a left-wing conspiracy by uncovering some covert socialist plot. They arrived at this analysis by taking a hard look at what it would take to lower global emissions as drastically and as rapidly as climate science demands. They have concluded that this can be done only by radically reordering our economic and political systems in ways antithetical to their “free market” belief system. As British blogger and Heartland regular James Delingpole has pointed out, “Modern environmentalism successfully advances many of the causes dear to the left: redistribution of wealth, higher taxes, greater government intervention, regulation.” Heartland’s Bast puts it even more bluntly: For the left, “Climate change is the perfect thing…. It’s the reason why we should do everything [the left] wanted to do anyway.”
Here’s my inconvenient truth: they aren’t wrong."
So, Ms Klein thinks that not only the conspiracy is real but feels able to say this out loud. And says "their free market belief system", ie which is not hers, thus further confirming an ideological basis for all this. Amazing. Truly post-normal science, wish and it will be so.