Sao Paulo, Brazil
Climate policy spearheaded by the United Nations’ multiple bureaucracies is all about getting nations to impose restrictions on carbon emissions through taxing and regulatory dictates over the private economy and its citizens. This is illustrated, among many examples, by two interviews I conducted at the COP30 climate summit, described below.
The COP30 meeting shows that a global establishment has been attempting to impose heavy-handed societal limitations and economic restrictions to fulfill its carbon obsession. The vehicle for this is corporations and businesses, while technically private sector entities, becoming subservient to and agents of the governments to reduce CO₂ output.
In other words, the model at COP30 is clear: Private sector independence and individual freedom all take a back seat to lowering carbon emissions, notwithstanding the very real scientific debate of whether such is necessary, much less effective, as CFACT has documented (e.g., here and here).
I am convinced that this is why a dictatorial nation such as China — which has made no effort to lower emissions but keeps promising such — is admired here, while the United States is not, even though it is among the most environmentally friendly nations on Earth.
Two of many examples illustrate this thinking. The Open Society Foundations, founded by Hungarian billionaire George Soros, have spent billions of dollars to oppose and undermine governments and elect extremist politicians to advance their agenda, including radical climate policies. One of their attendees at the conference confirmed this design.
Pedro Vieira Abramovay of the Foundations is an articulate spokesman with whom I interviewed and who chose his words carefully: “[W]e need to make sure that the revenues that come from fossil fuel production goes to fund the possibility of living without fossil fuel production … to give rid of fossil fuels.”
Only in an all-powerful government “of the people” can one force a private company or industry to finance its own elimination. Incidentally, this phrase mirrors the language of dictators who claim to represent “the people,” e.g., the People’s Republic of China.
Mr. Abramovay went on to describe this strong state model of government control, while carefully avoiding the communist or socialist labels: “We need to have all sectors [public and private] working together to order to transition; but what is important is that the priorities, the investment priorities, need to be defined by democracy and the by state, private capital needs to have a part … but defining the priorities need to come from the people, from the state. The priorities are not coming from the private sector.”
When I asked him if this was a communist or socialist model, he hesitated and stumbled to find the right words. The societal model, he said, “is a strong state, a strong democratic state.”
Then there is Lucas Santos, an idealist young man from the Regional Climate Foundations, which is a vehicle established to instill collaboration among governments, businesses, and non-government organizations to determine climate priorities and projects across the world. Mr. Santos embraced socialism and the takeover by government of the means of economic production to care for “the garden” — i.e., the planet. He further stated, “My personal view [is] socialist values of equity and opportunity for everyone; everyone can be in the same garden together.”
The label “fascist” is often used by leftists in America to describe politicians they hate, but I’m certain most of those hurling this invective miss its full meaning. According to Merriam-Webster’s dictionary, fascist is “associated with a centralized autocratic government headed by a dictatorial leader, and that is characterized by severe economic and social regimentation and by forcible suppression of opposition” (emphasis mine).
Again, this definition describes the means by which climate policies must be imposed — a thinking that is pervasive at COP30, regardless of whether the fascist label appears.
The United States does not fit this model, despite the best efforts of many in the political class. Rather, it has a constitutional system of government comprised of three independent branches that can stifle the other, and whose power is often dependent on the others. The U.S. is not a one-party dictatorship, nor a parliamentarian system. Rather, minority rights are enshrined in our Constitution. There are “no kings” in the U.S., regardless of the infantile protest behavior a few weeks ago of American adults who should know better.
One of numerous examples of the U.S. system keeping itself in check is when the Eighth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals last week struck down the electric vehicle mandates from the Biden administration — something unthinkable in a Communist, Fascist, or Socialistic government. The court ruled that the Biden administration’s rule exceeded its power under the law and contradicted its plain language by imposing regulations that were not intended or authorized by Congress.
Unfortunately, not a few American politicians even now are perfectly willing to adopt the United Nations’ fascist approach to climate by jettisoning our constitutional structure through the declaration of a dictatorial “climate emergency.” Such would enable them to impose all manner of laws and mandates on the economy and citizens.
The fight goes on to keep that from ever happening.