Wednesday, December 16, 2009

The Totalitarian Agenda at Copenhagen

From Trade and Taxes

Border adjustments are key issue remaining at Copenhagen

One of the key issues that remains to be determined this week at the UN Climate Control Conference in Copenhagen is whether countries will be permitted to enact border adjustments to prevent the agreement from impacting their industries.

Many aspects of the final agreement have already been determined. Developed countries (including the U.S.) would be required to reduce their CO2 emissions while developing countries (including China) would be permitted to increase their CO2 emissions, though at a reduced pace.

The predictable result would be that energy costs in the developed countries would skyrocket relative to energy costs in the developing countries. The only way that developed countries could be able to keep their current industries competitive would be by imposing border adjustments (tariffs and export subsidies) that would equalize energy costs.

China is insisting that the Copenhagen agreement prohibit border adjustments. World leaders will negotiate this issue on Thursday and Friday this week (December 17 and 18), according to a November 16 report from Bloomberg.com:

The draft accord from a meeting in Copenhagen to forge a climate treaty bars rich nations from adopting trade actions tied to global warming. China said such language will avert “trade wars.” The U.S. Chamber of Commerce sides with China....

In Copenhagen, the latest version of a proposed treaty includes language banning developed countries from ‘‘resorting’’ to climate-related trade measures is printed in brackets, meaning it lacks consensus agreement and must be dealt with by higher-level negotiators from 193 countries.

This issue is key to the future of the United States economy. Without border adjustments (both tariffs and export subsidies) American industry would become less and less competitive. The U.S. trade balance would continue to deteriorate, and an eventual dollar crash would impoverish the American people and force an American retreat from the world stage.

On the other hand, this issue is also key to the future of China. If border adjustments are prohibited, the Communist government of China would come to dominate the world stage allowing them to support tyranny worldwide, just as they already support it in North Korea, Sudan, and Burma. They would no longer be challenged by the western democracies who would have proved, by their deteriorating economies, that they were unable to elect competent leadership.

The world's future is at stake. If the developed countries go along with this Chinese demand, totalitarianism could dominate the world's future. If they do not, then China could veto the Copenhagen agreement and momentum for reducing CO2 emissions, already weakened by a decade without global warming, could be lost.

3 Opinion(s):

Anonymous said...

This world needs another war badly, only, this time, YT must wipe out all the useless eaters.

FishEagle said...

Thanks for posting this Viking.

Anonymous said...

This is so political. "Climate change" is another way of saying "I will take your freedom away and tax you at the same time". This is just another way to money launder and the greenies are falling for it. They are being whipped into a frothing frenzy to protect the new god - the earth. Communism at its best. I wish people would just wake up. This is so dangerous. Why must people pay for "carbon"? If they want to push this farce then surely good will within countries will be better received by the people than imposing taxes on people. If I knew that if I didn't for eg. recycle and I knew it would lead to a tax then I can guarantee you that I will recycle willingly. Same for industry. If they know they'll be fined (and not bailed out!!) then they will be more careful about their activities. But no, that's not good enough. Let's just make everyone pay for everything regardless of your guilt. Does no one see what's going on here????? And please remember that a government is for the people; elected by the people and NOT meant to be an entity unto themselves. When were we consulted with what is being decided in Copenhagen? When did this balance change from "for the people" to "for the government"?