The "economic and social consequences" will primarily be against Annex I parties, of which the U.S. is the biggest
"A United Nations document on "climate change" that will be distributed to a major environmental conclave next week envisions a huge reordering of the world economy, likely involving trillions of dollars in wealth transfer, millions of job losses and gains, new taxes, industrial relocations, new tariffs and subsidies, and complicated payments for greenhouse gas abatement schemes and carbon taxes — all under the supervision of the world body." FOX
According to this document, which I am reading at http://www.foxnews.com/projects/pdf/032709_informationnote.pdf , its effects are "to limit the scope" under the supervision of the world body as it "7.(a) Considers only those tools, policies and measures that might be taken by Annex I parties for the purpose of effectively addressing climate change;"
Why is this paragraph of vital importance? Because the United States is one of the Annex I Parties. [see list of all parties. http://unfccc.int/parties_and_observers/parties/annex_i/items/2774.php]
On the other hand, who are those "tools, policies and measures" intended to benefit? 7 (c) says they "Focus primarily, but not exclusively, on those consequences that affect non-Annex Parties."
What does this mean? It means what Fox says it mean in the first paragraph above, and that "that industrialized countries will likely have to [ ] implement the Copenhagen Accord, the successor to the Kyoto Treaty, after it is negotiated and signed by December 2009. The Obama administration has said it supports the treaty process if, in the words of a U.S. State Department spokesman, it can come up with an 'effective framework' for dealing with global warming."
In its evasive, double-speak/non-speak method of covering up what it really means, the document says in paragraph 13 that the plan "calls for enhanced national/international action on mitigation of climate change, including the consideration of economic and social consequences of response measures."
"Enhanced action" means what---that there is already action that is not satisfactory to the non-Annex I parties? And since the document already says it is focused primarily on those non-Annex I parties, the "consideration of economic and social consequences" will primarily be against Annex I parties.
This is in accord with President Obama's "cap and trade" efforts at controlling carbon emissions. The administration is ready to go into this European summit willing and able to sign an accord that by some accounts will hurt the U.S. worse than the Kyoto treaty would have.
On the plus side for free-market advocates and advocates of individual sovereignty, there is this headline: "More Than 650 International Scientists Dissent Over Man-Made Global Warming Claims." http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Minority.Blogs&ContentRecord_id=2158072E-802A-23AD-45F0-274616DB87E6
More on this next week, after I have had time to read the document further, and read other reviews. The non-committalistic language could mean anything the U.N. negotiators want it to mean. That is why is so vague. But by the time of the signing in December, it won't be vague at all.
Or, quite possibly it will remain vague so that the "world body" can do as it pleases with the redistribution of the wealth of the world and the means of production. That is its ultimate goal.
The Free Assemblage of Metaphysical Naturalists LLC.
The Academy of Metaphysical Naturalism tm,
The Academy of Metaphysical Naturalism Blogger ©,
Academy of Metaphysical Naturalism Blogger Extra ©, and
mailto:freeassemblage@gmail.com
