Activist groups attending a Venezuela government-hosted, UN-backed environmental conference have made it clear that going Green certainly isn’t about green market prosperity. 

For that matter they don’t believe that it is about preserving green forests either, or about capping plant-nourishing carbon emissions for a greener planet in order to halt climate change. 

Nope, the “Margarita Declaration” handed down by the 130 environmental ministers who attended the four-day July meeting called carbon markets a “false solution” to the problem of climate change and branded the UN’s forest conservation scheme “dangerous and unethical.” 

socialistsInstead, the real solution is to cap and trade capitalism for socialism.

As agreed in a run-up to the UN’s main round of climate talks in Lima later this year, the blame was clear, “The structural causes of climate change are linked to the current hegemonic [capitalist] system … To combat climate change it is necessary to change the system.” 

While it remains unclear which organizations actually signed on, those represented in the discussions reportedly include the World Wildlife Fund, CAN International, Third World Network, and Christian Aid.

UN-sponsored and supported attributions of climate crisis and other environmental ills to capitalism are hardly something new. Dating back two decades ago to the 1992 Rio de Janeiro Earth Climate Summit, which codified the UN’s central theme for the famous (or infamous) Kyoto Protocol, its chairman Maurice Strong suggested, “We may get to the point where the only way of saving the world will be for industrialized civilization to collapse. Isn’t it our job to bring that about?”

wirthlessAddressing the same Rio audience, former U.S. Senator Timothy Wirth (D-CO). then representing the Clinton-Gore administration as U.S. undersecretary of state for global issues, agreed, “We have got to ride the global warming issue. Even if the theory of global warming is wrong, we will be doing the right thing in terms of economic policy and environmental policy.” 

Wirth now heads the UN Foundation, which lobbies for hundreds of billions of U.S. taxpayer dollars to help underdeveloped countries fight climate change.

As UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) official Ottmar Edenhofer admitted in November 2010: “One has to free oneself from the illusion that international climate policy is environmental policy. Instead, climate change policy is about how we redistribute de facto the world’s wealth.” 

Former Canadian Minister of the Environment Christine Stewart harbored no such illusion. In 1988, she told editors and reporters of the Calgary Herald, “No matter if the science of global warming is all phony … climate change [provides] the greatest opportunity to bring about justice and equality in the world.” 

That justice and equality pitch serves as a central plank in the UN’s global governance platform to accomplish its wealth redistribution agenda.

In 1996, former Soviet Union President Mikhail Gorbachev emphasized the importance of using climate alarmism to advance Marxist objectives, “The threat of environmental crisis will be the international disaster key to unlock the New World Order.” 

Former President Jacques Chirac of France shared that priority. 

Explaining at the 2000 UN Conference on Climate Change in the Hague why the IPCC’s climate initiative supported a key Western European Kyoto Protocol objective, he said, “For the first time, humanity is instituting a genuine instrument of global governance, one that should find a place within the World Environmental Organization which France and the European Union would like to see established.”

Are similar views shared by the current U.S. White House resident? 

Perhaps it’s legitimate to wonder why, out of all possible candidates, President Obama chose John Holdren as his top holdrenscience and technology advisor. Holdren’s 1977 book Ecoscience, co-authored by Paul and Anne Ehrlich, advocated the formation of a UN-led “Planetary Regime” — with a global police force. 

Pages 942-943 describe that Planetary Regime as “sort of an international superagency … [which] could control the development, administration, conservation, and distribution of all natural resources, renewable or nonrenewable, at least insofar as international implications exist.” 

It is also proposed that, “The Planetary Regime might be given responsibility for determining the optimum population for the world and for each region and for arbitrating various countries’ shares within their regional limits.” 

Holdren’s book states that national sovereignty will need to be surrendered in the process. It explains that, “If this could be accomplished, security might be provided by an armed international organization, a global analogue of a police force…The first step necessarily involves partial surrender of sovereignty to an international organization.”

Okay, let’s all understand there’s no prospect that America is going to trade its red, white, and blue flag for a red and green one any time soon. Still, let’s also take heed as media-supported eco-evangelists and their political opportunist cronies use junk science alarmism to justify unwarranted, ever-expanding regulatory intrusions into our lives. 


This article first appeared at:



  • Larry Bell

    CFACT Advisor Larry Bell heads the graduate program in space architecture at the University of Houston. He founded and directs the Sasakawa International Center for Space Architecture. He is also the author of "Climate of Corruption: Politics and Power Behind the Global Warming Hoax."