Global-warming bureaucrats shouldn’t get their hands on American cash
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.
Sigh … and Rio such a cool (hot) city.
That’s a lot of money for the vaguest promise of achieving nothing but a global system for disenctive.
50,000 attendees? There must be a huge trough of other people’s money at the end of that huge environmental footprint.
Many of the other countries will be happy to have the tax as long as citizens of the United States pay for it. This is something we have done for far too long. We can expect Hillary to support such a tax.