Sunday, November 22, 2009

An excuse for an international tax?

The UN is asking Australia for $7 billion a year as our "carbon debt" - and Kevin Rudd has indicated a willingness to pay.

Should we be disturbed by the payment of such a large "carbon tax" to the UN every year? Andrew Bolt has provided some information that makes me think the answer is yes:

What makes this demand so brazen is that the UN has repeatedly asked for this same 0.7 per cent of our wealth - but each time with a different excuse.

In 1970, the UN called on rich countries such as Australia to give 0.7 per cent of their wealth to the Third World - minus those handling fees- to ensure "human dignity".

In 2002, it called on rich countries such as Australia to hand over that 0.7 per cent for "development" and to "protect and restore the health and integrity of the Earth's ecosystem".

In 2004, the UN called on us to pay that 0.7 per cent to ensure "collective security" and a "more secure world".

In 2005, the UN told us to hand over that 0.7 per cent to ensure "millennium development goals" and fight poverty.

No go again. So the UN is going for broke at Copenhagen, demanding once more that 0.7 per cent from us, but this time to prevent "serious adverse effects of climate change".

The long-term plan seems to be to get countries like Australia to bankroll the UN with a permanent 0.7% annual tax. The UN bureaucrats have adopted the same strategy we often see to achieve this aim: if they are knocked back, they just keep coming back with revised claims until they finally get what they want (the EU politicians have done exactly the same thing to get their way).

This is happening just when some of the climate change science has been shown to be falsified. Lawrence Auster reported last month that the Siberian tree ring evidence for climate change has been debunked: the scientists involved picked out the one tree which did seem to indicate global warming whilst ignoring others which did not do so (i.e. they manipulated the sample).

And just today Lawrence Auster has reported on the discovery of emails from leading global warming advocates in which the falsification of data is openly discussed.

So right now the science supporting man-made global warming should be coming under increased scrutiny. We shouldn't be signing over billions of dollars to the UN, when clearly the UN is making another attempt to get a 0.7% annual tax from countries like Australia.

(On a lighter note, I had to laugh when I saw this article at a site called UN Dispatch: Global News and Views. It's titled "Women will be hit hardest by climate change". I don't think it's a parody of feminism - I think it's meant seriously.)


  1. There's nothing lefties can't justify in the name of Diversity and Climate Change. You've got to hand it to them, they have played it flawlessly so far. Perhaps their greatest victory was to spread the deceit that communism had been defeated. The so-called 'right', blinded by avarice, never saw it coming.

  2. "Women will be hit hardest by climate change."

    And let's not forget the beyond-parody cover story title from NEWSWEEK during last September. I remember it well in the newsagent. It asked: "Are Babies Racist?"

  3. This comment has been removed by the author.

  4. If AGW is debunked then all it will mean is the UN will have to come up with a different reason to get its 0.7% tax to disburse to Aftican countries and others, minus of course those handling fees.

    BTW - what is the % rake of the UN for handling fees?

    The UN also does not give the money to the deserving, but gives the remainder to private contractors who are in the know (wink wink). Of course they don't give the money to the poor, but to a very reliable sub-contractor they happen to know, minus the handling fee of course. And so on.

    With a bit of luck, most of the money ends up in Swiss banks anyway.

  5. This "carbon tax" BS is the international variation on the "giving back to the community" BS that's to popular amongst US "liberals."