UN Global ‘Climate Court’ to Enforce Emissions Rules: Minor detail-The UN is incapable of walking and chewing gum at the same time


Comment by Jim Campbell

The UN is incapable of enforcing nothing. China, Japan, Canada have told them to pound salt.  In what possible areas can this corrupt body claim it has been effective?  Hell they can’t even deliver food

When the Marxist fools are driven out-of-town in November the US will do the same.  With luck they will kick the UN to the curb at the same time.  A historical climate debt is nonsense. It’s code for transferring US taxpayer wealth that they have earned under the Marxist hair brained idea to the third word who are for the most part destroying the planet by their very existence.

That’s my story and I’m sticking to it, I’m J.C. and I approve this message.

Fox News.com

Protesters hold at vigil as talks at the climate change summit stall in Durban, South Africa.. Do you suppose SEIU has buses in South Africa?  Call Soros!

United Nations climate envoys have proposed the creation of a global “climate court” that would be responsible for enforcing a sprawling set of rules requiring developed countries to cut emissions while compensating poorer countries in order to pay off a “historical climate debt.” 

The proposals are contained in a draft document pieced together for the climate conference in Durban, South Africa. Representatives at the conference are struggling to come up with a compromise that negotiators from 194 nations can agree on.

But the draft document, one of many floating around the conference, gives a glimpse into the long-term vision some nations hold for the creation of an international legal framework on climate change.

In the bowels of the document is a provision calling for “an international climate court of justice.”

The proposal is meant to “guarantee the compliance of Annex I Parties with all the provisions of this decision.”

Annex I countries are mostly developed countries, covering the United States, Britain, Australia, Canada and much of Europe — including countries that are struggling financially such as Greece and Portugal.

The rules of the road the court would presumably enforce are based on the view that these developed countries owe developing countries a “debt” over climate change, and must provide financial aid in addition to taking major steps toward cutting emissions.

In one section, the document calls for developed countries to help poorer countries with “finance, technology and capacity building” so they can “adapt to and mitigate climate change” while helping eliminate poverty. Another section provides that developing countries should receive an amount of money equal to the amount “developed countries spend on defense, security and warfare.”

Yet the document also calls for a guaranteed end to warfare altogether — for the sake of curbing climate change.

One section, noting that “conflict-related activities emit significant greenhouse gas emissions,” calls on all parties to “cease destructive activities” like warfare — and then channel the money that would have been spent on war and other defense projects toward “a common enemy: climate change.”

The document also asserts the “rights of mother earth,” a concept that environmental activists have been pushing for.

The draft report, which strings together proposals from various working groups, quickly raised alarm among climate change skeptics.

Marc Morano, a former aide to U.N. agitator and Republican Sen. Jim Inhofe, told FoxNews.com the document shows the climate talks are intended to create more “taxing and regulatory authority.”

“This is the true U.N. agenda unmasked in this draft report,” he said. Morano now runs the ClimateDepot blog, which also reported on the draft document.

However, the idea of a climate court anytime soon — particularly one that the United States and other big carbon emitters would agree to — may be far-fetched. One environmental law expert, professor Jonathan Verschuuren at The Netherlands‘ Tilburg University, wrote in an online column that the court “will certainly not materialize.”

Instead, representatives at the Durban conference reportedly are still trying to figure out how and whether to extend the Kyoto protocol, whose emission requirements expire next year. Some industrial nations want a new agreement that would ask more of developing countries.

According to The Associated Press, the U.S. and India have backed down a bit on their objections, while China continues to put up resistance.

Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2011/12/10/un-floats-global-climate-court-to-enforce-emissions-rules/#ixzz1gAlYANCC

About these ads

3 responses to “UN Global ‘Climate Court’ to Enforce Emissions Rules: Minor detail-The UN is incapable of walking and chewing gum at the same time

  1. There should never a be a Climate Control Court. They would arrest every one that did not believe in the theory of man destroying the climate. Which I do not believe in that, and would be promptly arrested.

  2. Let’s see all the other countries can’t afford to charge to clear emissions, so it is plain to see the UN plans to steal the tax payers money to pay for every country. This is out right stealing and we need to leave the UN and right away. The UN does not tell the US what to do ever – so now is the time to let them know in no way will the US tax payer foot the billl for this ludicrious and stupid climate control that does not exist.

  3. This is a request that is a bit off-topic. I have been trying to determine when our courts decided to base decisions on “case law” rather than on Constitutional Law; this process of setting “precedent” and thereby establishing a standard that applies to particular regions/states, etc., and is not necessarily based on Constitutional Law must have started at some point in time. I have not been able to discover when or why. However, in attempting to find the answer, I have been horrified at how far back the courts have been using International Law to decide cases. Between the use of both, I am distressed at the departure of the Supreme Court in relying on International Law (!?!?!?) and Case Law vs. the Constitution of the United States. Both seem to me to be far less desirable than what is (at least to me) the unquestionable Law of the Land, the Constitution of the U.S. When did we cease relying on Constitutional Law? Can anyone advise on this? This is a sincere request – any attorneys/Judges out there that can assist with this question, I would greatly appreciate it. Yes, I know we have not been living in accord with the Constitution for many, many years – I would just like to know when the Courts ACTUALLY began the above two procedures. Also what, if anything, would it take to remove these practices? Thank you for any responses, Janet

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s