UN official: I’d say the world is finally ready for a global climate treaty
posted at 11:31 am on January 22, 2013 by Erika Johnsen
Ugh. Yet another eco-globalist heading to a collectivist international conference and attempting to foist a one-size-fits-all environmentalist rulebook upon the masses:
The UN secretary-general Ban Ki-moon says his top hopes for 2013 are to reach a new agreement on climate change and to urgently end the increasingly deadly and divisive war in Syria. …
Ban laid out this ambitious wishlist in an interview before heading to the World Economic Forum in Davos this week, saying he plans to take “the uncommon opportunity” of being with 2,500 government, business and civil society leaders in the Swiss ski resort to exchange frank views on these issues. …
“Climate change is fast happening – much, much faster than one would have expected,” he said. “Climate and ecosystems are under growing strain.” …
“I will do my best to mobilise the political will and resources so that the member states can agree to a new legally binding global agreement on climate change,” Ban said. …
If globalists and environmentalists and whomever are really setting about to find ways to get the world to reduce its carbon emissions and general pollution, they certainly have a funny way of showing it. The United Nations and their moral relativist, prosperity- and individualist-hating ilk have tried umpteen times to forge some kind of global climate agreement, but anyone can see that the idea loses more and more efficacy every time. It’s tough to convince any power player to quixotically sign on to ideas that will demonstrably diminish their economic growth, especially when prosperity is the key to producing the types of innovations, efficiencies, technologies, and getting-more-from-less ideas that really have a chance in perpetuating “cleaner” habits. And why environmentalists insist on shooting themselves in the foot with their dead-set opposition to further natural gas development — a huge factor in the United States’ lately-reduced carbon emissions — is beyond me.
Normally, I would instantly dismiss this kind of thing — dude, it’s not gonna’ happen. President Obama has been reluctant to give much lip service to global climate treaty ideas in the past couple years of his presidency — but, this has me a little nervous. Of course, a global climate treaty would need the consent of Congress, but…
President Obama made addressing climate change the most prominent policy vow of his second Inaugural Address, setting in motion what Democrats say will be a deliberately paced but aggressive campaign built around the use of his executive powers to sidestep Congressional opposition.
“We will respond to the threat of climate change, knowing that failure to do so would betray our children and future generations,” Mr. Obama said on Monday at the start of eight sentences on the subject, more than he devoted to any other specific area. “Some may still deny the overwhelming judgment of science, but none can avoid the devastating impact of raging fires, and crippling drought, and more powerful storms.”
The central place he gave to the subject seemed to answer the question of whether he considered it a realistic second-term priority. He devoted scant attention to it in the campaign and has delivered a mixed message about its importance since the election.
Related Posts:
Breaking on Hot Air
Who’s the mystery man at the IRS who issued the directive to focus on conservative groups?
Video: Say, how about having only one pilot on commercial flights?
Blowback
Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.
Trackbacks/Pings
Trackback URL
Comments
UN out of US, US out of UN.
Rebar on May 14, 2013 at 8:46 PM
Leave Kermit Gosnell out of this.
Happy Nomad on May 14, 2013 at 8:46 PM
It’s like having Gosnell babysitting your kids..
It’s like Al Qaeda running security for our Consultants..
It’s like have Barrack Obama Presiding over The United States..
Electrongod on May 14, 2013 at 8:47 PM
The three biggest jokes in the world are the Nobel committee,green energy and the U.N.
NeoKong on May 14, 2013 at 8:48 PM
I have an idea. Quit the U.N. Charge these flea bags an exhorbitant rent in order to continue to use the building.
justltl on May 14, 2013 at 8:48 PM
Stop.UN.Funding>now.
Evict.UN.From.USA.
ladyingray on May 14, 2013 at 8:49 PM
5 billion!
That is a lot of Whitehouse tours that wouldn’t get cancelled
Ditkaca on May 14, 2013 at 8:50 PM
Which means that every year since the waning days of the Carter administration a bunch of diplomats have gotten together and accomplished absolutely nothing of value to the world. Declarations that gather dust. Treaties never ratified by the nations of the international community that matter. Etc.
So for 34 years of wasting the world’s time. Congrats or something. That Iran is presiding says all that one needs to know about the UN as an international organization.
Happy Nomad on May 14, 2013 at 8:52 PM
The UN should move to Oslo.
Jocundus on May 14, 2013 at 8:55 PM
Aw, come on guys – fair suck o’ the sav! The UN is merely trying to drag the Iranians into the eighth century.
OldEnglish on May 14, 2013 at 8:57 PM
Because when a certain rat-eared coward leaves DC he has higher aspirations. Secretary General of an organization already so corrupt he will be mocked as the Mother Teresa of Turtle Bay.
Happy Nomad on May 14, 2013 at 8:57 PM
The UN should never have existed. It cannot even stand theoretical scrutiny, let alone the twisted, unnatural entity it is in actuality. No one but the dimmest among us would even think that a peerless, competitionless, empowered entity should ever exist. It is an abomination – even in theory, as anyone with even a passing familiarity with evolutionary theory, capitalist theory, or just plain common sense knows.
The UN must be put to sleep. It’s well past time. It came to be in the wake of WWII as a reaction to the great trauma of the war – much like the idiotic name given to WWI in the same traumatic aftermath, as “THE War to End ALL Wars” … again, as if anyone with a brain thought that could possibly be true.
The UN was kept powerless and constrained during the Cold War, as reality kept it from having any real power, but the minute the USSR fell the UN started being truly empowered and took off on its grotesque and destructive growth – as any peerless, competitionless empowered entity is guaranteed to do.
End the UN and shun any idiot who supports it, since such a dolt is too stupid to be taken seriously in public and too dangerous to be allowed any power, at all.
ThePrimordialOrderedPair on May 14, 2013 at 8:58 PM
Who cares? The UN is about as important as a prom committee. So what if they let Iran hire the DJ?
EricW on May 14, 2013 at 8:59 PM
I disagree. If not a rotational thing where the diplomats have to make new arrangements every few years, put the UN HQ in a place much closer to where the need is. Yemen or the Sudan comes to mind. They have become far too comfortable in Vienna, Geneva, and New York.
Happy Nomad on May 14, 2013 at 9:00 PM
Screw IRAN and all the other Muslim countries who refuse to condemn Islamic terrorism.
TX-96 on May 14, 2013 at 9:01 PM
What else would we expect from the UN? And why do we keep funding it, even when GOP is in the WH?
Give us a president and Congress with spine, let them cut off our UN funding for four years, and let’s see what happens.
petefrt on May 14, 2013 at 9:03 PM
I’ve related this story before so, for the regulars, I am not trying to be redundant. When I took a tour of the UN (largely for intrest in the architecture) the propaganda experience was excruciating. Long corridors of displays about mine warfare and hunger- and all the good things the UN does with other organization’s and nations’ money.
We got to a particular point in the tour and were told that we had to stay in the public spaces because the UN is a working organization. My snort was not totally supressed.
Happy Nomad on May 14, 2013 at 9:04 PM
Didn’t they also put Syria in charge of the human rights council several years ago?
/That or another totalitarian regime.
AZfederalist on May 14, 2013 at 9:08 PM
..so that means JugEars will send flowers?
KOOLAID2 on May 14, 2013 at 9:09 PM
…I think Somalia would be a better choice!
KOOLAID2 on May 14, 2013 at 9:11 PM
get that un out of the us…
ridiculous
cmsinaz on May 14, 2013 at 9:17 PM
They remind me of the cantina scene from Star Wars IV.
“You will never find a more wretched hive of scum and villainy”
kurtzz3 on May 14, 2013 at 9:19 PM
The comedy for me was listening to a missionary friend tell about a massive delivery of powdered milk from the UN to poor people in Africa, and how no one bothered to research that well over half (70% or more?) of the natives were lactose intolerant.
He said they used it as whitewash. Entire villages were suddenly white. All the nutrition and money wasted because the basics of the people they were “helping” were absolutely foreign to the people making the decisions.
You know, now that I think about it, it’s essentially the same mindset as most (D) one-size-fits-all arguments. Peas in a pod, I suppose.
rogerb on May 14, 2013 at 9:29 PM
On one level your story is funny. Lactose intolerant villagers making the best use of what they get from the United Nations.
But here’s the kicker to that. Whoever in the United Nations asked these people, or their governments, or the NGOs what they most needed. It is the kind of paternalism at the heart of any “humanitarian” efforts of the UN that makes me think the whole organization should be disbanded despite the sudden spike in unemployment among the idiot relatives of the world’s dictators.
Happy Nomad on May 14, 2013 at 9:39 PM
Move the UN to Zimbabwe.
Manhattan’s brothels and pretentious restaurants hardest hit.
viking01 on May 14, 2013 at 10:11 PM
Whoa…deja vu all over again.
Must be a glich in the matrix.
justltl on May 14, 2013 at 10:28 PM
The UN has delusions of grandeur.
The proper response to the UN acting in an absurd manner is to start working around or indifferent to it. Hold meetings and conferences outside the UN’s structure. Most diplomacy already happens outside the UN. Its not as if the state department files for a meeting at the UN every time they want to talk to certain allies or even rivals.
The UN has a place in that it allows many nations to interact with each other at once at the same time. But the vast majority of diplomacy doesn’t require that sort of action.
How we underscore the irrelevance of the UN is by simply not using it. Its not that hard. Pick up the phone and talk to country B. Arrange a conference of all the countries you’d care to collect. Do not run it through the UN at all.
Do that enough and UN will have no one listening to them but Wilson the Volleyball.
Karmashock on May 15, 2013 at 10:02 AM
Elsewhere in Dar al-Harb, emboldened Wahhabists were arrested last night probing Boston’s water supply.
CDC has a duty to quarantine and test these perps.
This is likely either a dry-run (or an actual) bio-terrorism attack.
Terp Mole on May 15, 2013 at 12:32 PM