Or else what? 4

The Secretary-General of the United Nations, Ban Ki-moon, demands world-wide redistribution of wealth and the curbing of economic activity in order to ‘save the planet’ from poverty, hunger, disease, and insecurity. This must be done within four months he says, or  else…

We have just four months. Four months to secure the future of our planet.

Any agreement must be fair, effective, equitable and comprehensive, and based on science. And it must help vulnerable nations adapt to climate change…

The science is clear… What is needed is the political will. We have the capacity. We have finance. We have the technology. The largest lacking is political will. That is why I will convey some meetings focused on climate change. I have invited all the leaders of the world … Two years ago, only a handful of world leaders could talk about climate change. Today, leaders of all the world, all the countries on every continent are aware of the threats we face now. This is great progress, for we need leadership of the very highest order. Awareness is the first step. The challenge now is to act. Since my first day as Secretary-General, I have spoken out about the grave climate change threat. My words, at times, have been blunt. When the leaders of the G-8 agreed in July to keep the global temperature increase within two degrees centigrade by the year 2050, that was welcomed and I welcome that statement. But I also said again, it was not enough. But leaders have agreed to cut green house gas emissions by 80 per cent by 2050. That is welcomed again. But that must be accompanied by the ambitious mid-term target by 2020 as science tells us to do. There I said, while I applaud their commitment, that is not enough. I called for matching these long-term goals with ambitious mid-term emission reduction targets.

Let me be clear about what we need to do.

There are four points [of] very important key political issues.

First industrialized countries must lead by committing to binding mid-term reduction targets on the order of 25 to 40 per cent below 1990 levels. Unfortunately, the mid-term emission targets announced so far are not close enough to this range…

Second, developing countries need to take nationally appropriate mitigation actions in order to reduce the growth in their emissions substantially below business as usual…

Third, developed countries must provide sufficient, measurable, reportable and verifiable financial and technological support to developing countries… Significant resources will be needed from both public and private sources. Developing countries, especially the most vulnerable, will collectively need billions of dollars in public financing for adaptation. I am talking here about new money – not re-packaged Official Development Assistance…

Fourth, we need an equitable and accountable mechanism for distributing these financial and technological resources, taking into account the views of all countries in decision-making.

Accomplishing all of this requires tough decisions. It will take flexibility and hard work to negotiate the most difficult issues. Trust between developed and developing countries is essential. When governments succeed in sealing a deal in Copenhagen, we will have shown the spirit of international solidarity. We will have shown leadership – political will

Roll on, Copenhagen. Only, while they’re at it, why don’t they agree to make gold out of moonbeams? The science is clear.

If you enjoyed this post, make sure you subscribe to my RSS feed!
  • roger in florida

    Alejandro,
    The science is settled all right; AGW is not happening. Actually the World is cooling. The objective of the secretary general is the same as any other bureaucrat; expand his empire, and the global warming scam is a great way to do that.

  • Alejandro

    I agree with the Secretary General. The science is settled. A recent survey of scientists has shown that over 90 percent of scientists believe that man-made CO2 emissions cause global warming, and if that not stopped now this could lead to catastrophic climate change. We ought to trust the scientists — after all, it's their job. We ought to trust the secretary general — for it's his job top have a global vision. We must all put politics behind us and come together to solve the climate crisis.

    • aeschines

      I don't find your faith in science detestable, Alejandro. In fact, I find your acceptance of science laudable. I have yet to really form a comprehensive view of global warming, as I haven't done the science and the research. I tend to lean towards anti-global-warming because I see it as not “saving” this planet, but rather just another way individual rights can be trampled and money can be stolen while leftists feel smug and self-satisfied about the whole thing. Whether or not man-made global warming really exists, global warming is being exploited by immoral people for their own gains.

      To think that at one time, the mere mention of any company or political group exploiting people in such a manner would have inflamed the left!

      The thinking I detest of yours is the misplaced faith in the UN. You trust Moon only because it's his job to “have a global vision.” Then next, you claim we should put politics behind us. I don't think you understand the political ramifications of many of these statements and ideas championed by the left. How is having a global vision NOT political?

  • roger in florida

    Secretary Moon should plan to take a spaceship to the Sun, taking with him a few fire extuinguishers so he can damp down some sun spots. The Sun is too hot you say, well, he can go at night.