More on the Death of Green

The Rio summit is being hailed as a failure by all participants.  This is a joyous occasion for those who prefer decentralization to global government.  It is also a joyous occasion for those who desire to see resources put to their most efficient use.

I have previously written about the downcast mood coming into this summit – that many of the participants have come to realize that there is a) no hope for concerted global action, and b) no money left.  The mood has turned even more sour, it seems.

Nobody is happy in Rio.

Not the legion of bleary-eyed government negotiators from 193 nations who met in a failed attempt to find a breakthrough at the United Nations conference on sustainable development.

Not the thousands of activists who decried the three-day summit as dead on arrival. Not even the top U.N. official who organized the international organization’s largest-ever event.

What has happened to the joy?  What has happened to the confidence of these central planners in central planning?

“We’ve sunk so low in our expectations that reaffirming what we did 20 years ago is now considered a success,” said Martin Khor, executive director of the Geneva-based South Centre and a member of the U.N. Committee on Development Policy.

Even the author of this article cannot avoid being cynical, if not sarcastic about the final document released by this group.

Indeed, the word “reaffirm” is used 59 times in the 49-page document titled “The Future We Want.” They reaffirm the need to achieve sustainable development (but not mandating how); reaffirm commitment to strengthening international cooperation (just not right now); and reaffirm the need to achieve economic stability (with no new funding for the poorest nations).

“The Future We Want.” This could be the standard title describing the wishes of every hanger-on and political parasite – not limited to the environmental movement.  It is rather arrogant for a small group to discuss items that will effect tremendous change for billions of people to “want” to define that “future.”  But if you are arrogant enough to believe you can do something about the weather, everything else is easy, I suppose.

The Group of 77 nations that represents the poorest on the globe maintained their demand that richer nations in Europe and the U.S. recognize their “historic debt” eating up a much greater amount of the globe’s resources since the industrial revolution began 250 years ago.

Is there some contract that delineates exactly what is involved in this “historic debt”?  Who, exactly, is liable?  Isn’t he already dead? 

As I mentioned in my previous post, the financial calamity in which we now live was certain to bring an end to many government-controlled follies.  The first of these will be those that are international in scope: it is easier to stop supporting nonsensical international initiatives than it is to stop supporting local transfer payments, for instance.  I have anticipated that this green movement will be one of the first to die.  That these 77 nations were counting on countries in Europe and the U.S. to recognize some historic debt, when Europe and the U.S. cannot even pay their current debt, is a sign of the death of this movement.

However, a U.S. delegate member said that countries can no longer debate issues with an eye on the past, that once poor nations are becoming rich, and that anybody looking for the Rio+20 summit and its 193 members to somehow reach a magical agreement and solve complicated environmental and development challenges would be sorely disappointed.

A technocrat speaks the truth.  It is possible.

The green movement has nothing to do with the environment and everything to do with control and world government.  That there are religious zealots who might actually believe the world is melting is certainly true, but for the elite to lead always requires true believers to implement and foment. 

The true purpose of this movement was to further the objective of global centralization, with the ultimate objective being to provide a foundation for a new global currency.  This was to be done via the carbon tax, to be paid with carbon credits.

One way to ensure use of a currency is to demand taxes can only be settled via that currency.  The carbon tax scheme was the means by which this new currency was to gain market acceptance.  I believe the system was designed to be implemented coincident with the financial meltdown of 2008 – to replace the dying dollar-centric system. 

It might have made much more progress had not climategate and the naughty emails come around just before Copenhagen.

We can look forward to further such “disappointments” for the green movement, which will translate into victory for those who desire decentralization.