With an ever-increasing amount of the world’s population expected to be concentrated in urban areas in the decades to come, the United Nations and allied national governments as well as green non-governmental organizations (NGOs) hope to use the sheer power of demographics to transform the energy, housing, and transportation sectors in the name of combating climate change.
Jean Francois Gagné of the Paris-based International Energy Agency (IEA) told participants at Habitat III in Quito, Ecuador that, for the first time, global emissions of greenhouse gases, particularly CO2, had flattened out, even as the world’s economy showed some sign of recovery. He welcomed this as evidence that measures adopted by national governments to lower manmade levels of carbon dioxide were beginning to have an effect.
Asked by this correspondent whether the emergence of hy
draulic fracturing (fracking), a technology that rose in the private sector independently of national or global mandates, had anything to do with curtailing CO2 emissions, Gagne answered in the affirmative. Gagne acknowledged the role of private-sector innovation … but added that it was government’s job to set the parameters within which such innovation could take place. This is in line with the notion of public-private partnerships that globalists have been pushing to get industry on their side. It’s a clever strategy, because many large corporations are eager to look green, and to take advantage of whatever energy-related regulations and subsidies governments adopt.
The Price of Demonizing CO2
Speaker after speaker at Habitat III called for “decarbonizing” the world. Carbon, without which life on earth would not be possible, is to be eliminated. And levels of carbon dioxide are to be ruthlessly suppressed. It appears never to have occurred to these people that CO2 is plant food. Driving down levels of CO2 will be disastrous for agriculture. The world’s population is projected to reach 8 billion by mid-century, and these people will have to be fed. For an organization that prides itself on its concern for the world’s poor, the UN’s war on carbon dioxide shows precious little understanding of the real problems facing people in poverty.
On the contrary, participants at Habitat III were urged to acquire three new UN anti-fossil-fuel publications. Two of them are books, “Guiding Principles for City Climate Action Planning,” and “Addressing Climate Change in National Urban Policy.” For those will less time on their hands, there is a handy “fact sheet” titled “City and Climate Change Initiative.” All are available online to ensure the widest possible distribution.
In addition to dissemination global-warming propaganda, Habitat III is serving as a platform for other really bad ideas. Germany’s exhibition, for example, warns against the perils of “gated communities.” Never mind that many of Germany’s government buildings are gated and guarded by burly men carrying automatic weapons. So it’s okay for bureaucrats to enjoy a measure of protection while ordinary citizens will have to make do with being herded into the compact cities the UN wants to put up everywhere.
There is, according to the organizers of Habitat III, one standard for the high and mighty … and one for the rest of us.
The UN has been totally worthless from the beginning. All they want is to leech off the U.S. taxpayer and try and run the world the way they see fit. It is past time that we get out of the un — stop funding their BS agendas — throw them out of not only NYC but the U.S. altogether. They are nothing but an anchor of ignorance.
Time to level UN headquarters, plow the ground, and sow it with salt. UN delenda est!
Nah, lets turn it into condos and use the money to fight these green commies.
Wonder if Trump would want to redevelop it?
I’d love some of that lovely green marble. How ironic that green is my favorite color!
To accomplish the movement of people from the country to the cities would entail reduction and elimination of some very basic rights. One is the right to own property. The right to drill and own your own well and water rights. The current payments to people who have had oil , gas and other minerals on their property. In the UN and world order scenario, all lands would be owned by the government. Thus, all farm work, logging, fishing, hunting, mining and the recreational industries such as water and snow skiing would be controlled by the Government . That is communism where all citizens are serfs and given their daily ration of food, water and medical services. Far left liberals would love it. They have continually pushed for more and more government services. Vote for Trump and lets start getting back to a more free enterprise system where the individual has some control over his destiny.
It’s socialist communism ,and it has never worked ! Every attempt was a FAILIER !
Our Bill of Rights is our exceptionlism ,and these gorge Soros communist know it better then we do ! That’s why they want it STOPED with this bullshit attempt at forced communism ! To stop the Free world so their roach arrends asses can move around with out the watch full eye of the united States of America ! Why you say ? Because We The People of the United States SCARE THE LIVING HELL OUT OF THESE DAMN COMMUNIST !
socialist communism ,FAILIER ! our exceptionlism gorge Soros communist forced communism ! THESE DAMN COMMUNIST !
UN stories: flypaper for Internet Performance Art.
Best,
D
Boy, you really douched-out this time Dumbo, put the crack pipe down
Smart take.
Best,
D
Stupidity. Doing the same thing over & over expecting different results. Don’t they ever wonder why people from Cuba, North Korea, Venezuela, et al. are willing to risk their lives & die trying to escape? No, I guess not, that would involve critical thinking. Sheeples aren’t capable of that.
@AllenBarclayAllen: I am with you.
We all know how efficient the government is & what a fine job they do with our VETS, healthcare, taxes, infrastructure, education, etc. Yes, indeedy, let’s let them run the whole show! Over my dead body. I wouldn’t want to live in such a world.
@KLH6: I agree.
It just dawned on me yesterday that all these organizations need money to run their agendas. If enough of us start waking up, we can just say “no”! No more of our tax money. Get the UN out of US & let our membership expire. I’m sick of the common man having 1000’s of rules & regulations that don’t apply to the elite. I’ve been questioning the CO2 regulations since the beginning, remembering basic biology/botany that plants & trees need it to stay alive. We exhale CO2. Are we supposed to stop breathing? Are they getting it mixed up with carbon monoxide, which is deadly?
@KLH6: You are correct. CO2 is beneficial and not a pollutant as the EPA and Obama claim. However, don’t tell Dano2 the troll who may be a paid sucker who always defends the “Warmers” regardless of the facts. I agree the US needs to put the UN in its place by decreasing the US contribution to this organization. That might help to wake them up.
I can’t think of too many of their interventions that have had successful missions. There are so many that have horrible human rights issues & yet they spend an inordinate amount of time punishing Israel. What a bunch of hypocrites! The idea was good. They replaced the League of Nations. Now it’s time for them to fade into the sunset along with the EPA. But RPA should be held accountable for the chaos & mess they’ve made in the western states in particular.
@KLH6: There are many agencies in the federal government that need to eliminated and some need to be downsized. The EPA did some good work when it was first established. The hazardous waste control was a needed project. The clean air act and the clean water act made some new requirements for corporations and cities that resulted in better air and water. The oil spill clean up from leaking under ground tanks also was a beneficial project. The problems with all of these agencies is that power gets in their heads and begins to result in excessive regulations. The EPA and its decision to make CO2 a pollutant even though they didn’t have conclusive evidence is a major grab for power and shows that this agency has become political rather than scientific. I feel I am qualified to judge this agency because I was the environmental engineer responsible for evaluating the necessary changes to meet the new laws. If Trump becomes president, I hope he will demand that these agencies get their acts together and justify all the new regulations that will have an adverse impact on job creation and retention
I do not believe getting out of the United Nations is the proper thing to do. The US is only one of five nations that has the power to veto and proposed UN actions. However, the next President (Trump) will demand some clearer thinking in the in the UN and if not cut more support without dropping out.
I agree the EPA did some good work in the beginning. They are not a cabinet position & their mandates are national but each state is very different with different needs, geography, etc. I still am for dismantling the UN. Let them set it up in another country & foot the bill. I’d still get out & tell them we’re not following any of their rules if it harmed our country. We have way too much corruption & bureaucracy & it’s destroying our economy & country. This is just my opinion & I respect your right to a different opinion. I’m afraid we’ll essentially have another 4 years of Obama if Hillary wins. I literally won’t survive it due to battling depression & other health problems.