The private jets are on the tarmac fueling up in time for the Wednesday kickoff of the Rio+20 Earth Summit. Pampered United Nations busybodies are gathering at this event whose slogan is “The future we want.” A more accurate motto for the confab would be, “The money we want.”
As many as 50,000 attendees are expected in the Brazilian resort city of Rio de Janeiro, including 130 heads of state. U.N. globalists hope to recapture the spirit of the first earth conference 20 years ago by returning to its original site. The movement that began as a philosophical argument for a “greener” planet has whiffed three times in recent years - in Copenhagen, Cancun and Durban - in trying to convince countries to back their hot air with cool cash.
Global-warming fear mongering failed to open purse strings in the past, so organizers have revised the theme into a larger hodgepodge of: “A green economy in the context of sustainable development poverty eradication.” A mixed-up wish list of specific priorities includes “decent jobs, energy, sustainable cities, food security and sustainable agriculture, water, oceans and disaster readiness.”
Rio+20 is the moment of truth that will determine whether participating nations will approve the creation of a global green tax. Backers propose the kitty start at $30 billion a year, but they want to ratchet up the figure to $100 billion by 2020. A collection of radical nongovernmental organizations dissatisfied with that amount want developed nations to sacrifice 0.7 percent of their gross national product. A commitment of that size would surpass $100 billion annually from the United States alone. Not surprisingly, poorer countries eager to get a slice of this action have been the first to sign up. Formerly wealthy European nations and America, on the other hand, have balked.
Shrill warnings are being sounded about the consequences of failure to set up a funding mechanism this time. “If we really do not take firm actions, we may be heading toward the end - the end of our future,” U.N. Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon told the Guardian newspaper last week, leaving unclear whether he was referring to all Earth’s inhabitants or only the U.N.’s money-grubbing bureaucrats.
Not expected in Rio is President Obama, who is clearly reluctant to be seen with fellow spendthrifts at a time when his re-election is jeopardized by his own three-plus-year-long spending binge. However, Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton is expected to wave the green flag for Washington in Rio, along with Environmental Protection Agency Administrator Lisa Jackson. Earlier this year, Mrs. Clinton threatened to retaliate against the European Union for imposing a carbon-dioxide-emissions tax on airlines entering EU airspace. She should likewise defend U.S. sovereignty by opposing this U.N. scheme to levy a green tax on Americans.
“Sustainability” is a generic, inoffensive term being used to mask the redistribution of wealth. If U.N. big spenders move forward, it should be without any U.S. taxpayer funds. Just say no to Rio.
The Washington Times
© Copyright 2013 The Washington Times, LLC. Click here for reprint permission.
By Elaine Donnelly
Extending sexual misconduct to combat units