If you thought the United Nations “Paris Agreement” on climate change was bad, hang on to your hat.
Global “environmental organizations” are chomping at the bit in excitement for an upcoming summit in Communist China.
“Governments and businesses now have an opportunity to take a critical, collective step… to agree to protect at least 30 percent of the world on land and sea,” boasts The Nature Conservancy. “That opportunity is coming soon: 196 governments are scheduled to meet in Kunming, China at the latter end of 2021 to adopt new global biodiversity targets. The current set of global goals to end biodiversity loss and restore ecosystems, known as the Aichi Targets, expires next year.”
“If adopted in 2021, this new framework will act as the world’s roadmap for wildlife and habitat conservation, as well as updating countries’ goals for conservation and sustainable use of living resources,” it continued. “The new framework should also better align with the global Sustainable Development Goals, driving home the critical role of nature in human health and well-being…”
“…Representatives from the world’s governments will convene for the UN Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) in Kunming, China in early 2021,” it continues on another page. “It’s a pivotal moment for the countries that are party to the CBD to refresh and redouble their shared commitments to nature. But to be truly transformational, these commitments must involve key officials from finance, planning, transportation, energy and agriculture— people who have the political and economic clout to drive transformational changes that interweave nature preservation throughout political and economic systems…”
The Nature Conservancy will be carrying the weight of the United States federal government which, under Joe Biden and appointees, has already begun to implement the process by executive action in order to press the United States towards these environmental biodiversity targets.
National Geographic reported:
“In an executive order issued on January 27 to address the climate crisis, President Joe Biden ordered a pause on new oil and gas leases on public lands and created a White House office of environmental justice. He also quietly committed his administration to an ambitious conservation goal—to protect 30 percent of U.S. land and coastal seas by 2030…”
“…That target, referred to as “30 by 30” by the conservation community, is backed by scientists who argue that reaching it is critical both to fighting climate change and to protecting the estimated one million species at risk of going extinct…”
“…To reach the 30 by 30 target will require conserving an additional area twice the size of Texas, more than 440 million acres, within the next 10 years. The White House has yet to specify who will oversee the initiative at the federal level and which lands and waterways might be prioritized…”
So where did Joe Biden get this 30×30 idea? This really goes back to the half earthers but recently the prim and proper Nature Conservancy published in their Perspectives a paper entitled ‘30×30: Eight Steps to Protect the Best on Earth’. The 30×30 stands for 30% of nature and water preserved for biodiversity by the year 2030.
The Nature Conservancy has also been busy pressing the Congress to adopt the Green New Deal lobbying for Ocasio Cortez’s resolution for the need for the federal government to adopt a Green New Deal. Remember the Nature Conservancy is one of the most significant think tanks behind environmental policy and the decarbonization agenda.
“We share the urgency expressed by those supporting the Green New Deal about the need to address climate change,” said Lynn Scarlett, Vice President of Policy and Government Affairs for The Nature Conservancy. “We also agree that the transition to a low-carbon economy must engage all communities, including those most impacted by the transition…”
Further the TNC CEO Jennifer Morris praised Biden’s executive actions on his first day which destroyed thousands of jobs, lost royalties and revenues for local and state governments, and has unforeseen consequences ahead.
Biden’s executive order states “the keystone XL pipeline disserves the U.S. interest. The United States and the world face a climate crisis. That crisis must be met with action on a scale and at a speed commensurate with the need to avoid setting the world on a dangerous, potentially catastrophic, climate trajectory.”
Meanwhile, WND reported:
“…After canceling the Keystone XL pipeline, eliminating thousands of American jobs, President Biden’s administration began negotiating a deal between the Taliban and one of the world’s worst dictatorships for a trans-national pipeline…”
“…An agreement with the government of Turkmenistan would bring gas across Afghanistan and Pakistan to India, writes Michael Rubin, a scholar at the American Enterprise Institute and a former Pentagon official, in a column for the Washington Examiner…
“…Rubin noted that Freedom House’s latest Freedom in the World report ranks Turkmenistan as among the world’s worst violators of civil liberties, below even North Korea…”
“…The deal includes paying the Taliban protection money or transit fees for the pipeline transiting Afghan territory. It amounts to a reward of tens of millions a month to the Taliban for its deadly insurgency, further undermining the elected Afghanistan government. . .”
This is Hypocrisy at its highest level? Shutting down a pipeline project in the mid-west because “we gotta fight climate change” and then turn and appropriate tens of millions of funds for your state department to finance Taliban to assist in the completion of a project dreamed up before the 9/11 terror attacks on the United States. Is this really about climate change? Is this what the Nature Conservancy CEO is praising as bold first steps and “brings progress for climate and for nature?”
More from Morris, CEO The Nature Conservancy, on January 20, 2021:
“…This is an urgently needed strong start for the administration to address climate change and protect nature…”
“…Leaving the Paris Agreement was always a mistake for the United States, as was weakening fuel efficiency, emissions and energy efficiency standards. The climate emergency requires quick action to correct such mistakes. Science indicates that we have to reach net zero emissions by 2050, which will take a significant commitment and ambitious actions from all countries around the world in both the public and private sectors…”
“…We’re pleased to see that the Biden administration is committed to prompt, substantive and equitable climate action and conservation. We’re looking forward to working with this administration and with the new Congress to advance additional policies that achieve substantive, durable emissions reductions, and help nature, our economy, and all communities thrive….”
Further the Nature Conservancy has been in support of and offering recommendations for the ‘Zero Draft of the Post – 2020 Global Biodiversity Framework’ which is a part of the OPEN-ENDED WORKING GROUP ON THE POST-2020 GLOBAL BIODIVERSITY FRAMEWORK known as the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) with its Second meeting in Kunming, China, 24-29 February 2020.
Below are some excerpts and from this post 2020 Global Biodiversity Framework: (emphasis in bold mine)
B. The purpose
2. The framework aims to galvanize urgent and transformative action by Governments and all of society, including indigenous peoples and local communities, civil society, and businesses, to achieve the outcomes it sets out in its vision, mission, goals and targets, and thereby to contribute to the objectives of the Convention on Biological Diversity and other biodiversity related multilateral agreements, processes and instruments.
3. The framework will be implemented primarily through activities at the national level, with supporting action at the subnational, regional and global levels. It aims to promote synergies and coordination with relevant processes. It provides a global, outcome-oriented framework for the development of national, and as appropriate, regional, goals and targets and, as necessary, the updating of national biodiversity strategies and action plans to achieve these, and to facilitate regular monitoring and review of progress at the global level.
4. The framework will contribute to the implementation of the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development. At the same time, progress towards the Sustainable Development Goals will help to provide the conditions necessary to implement the framework.
C. Theory of change
5. The framework is built around a theory of change (see figure 1) which recognizes that urgent policy action globally, regionally and nationally is required to transform economic, social and financial models so that the trends that have exacerbated biodiversity loss will stabilize in the next 10 years (by 2030) and allow for the recovery of natural ecosystems in the following 20 years, with net improvements by 2050 to achieve the Convention’s vision of “living in harmony with nature by 2050.” It also assumes that a whole-of-government and society approach is necessary to make the changes needed over the next 10 years as a stepping stone towards the achievement of the 2050 Vision. As such, Governments and societies need to determine priorities and allocate financial and other resources, internalize the value of nature and recognize the cost of inaction.
6. The framework’s theory of change assumes that transformative actions are taken to (a) put in place tools and solutions for implementation and mainstreaming, (b) reduce the threats to biodiversity and (c) ensure that biodiversity is used sustainably in order to meet people’s needs and that these actions are supported by (i) enabling conditions, and (ii) adequate means of implementation, including financial resources, capacity and technology. It also assumes that progress is monitored in a transparent and accountable manner with adequate stocktaking exercises to ensure that, by 2030, the world is on a path to reach the 2050 Vision for Biodiversity.
7. The theory of change for the framework acknowledges the need for appropriate recognition of gender equality, women’s empowerment, youth, gender-responsive approaches and the full and effective participation of indigenous peoples and local communities in the implementation of this framework. Further, it is built upon the recognition that its implementation will be done in partnership with many organizations at the global, national and local levels to leverage ways to build a momentum for success. It will be implemented taking a rights-based approach and recognizing the principle of intergenerational equity.
D. 2030 action targets
(c) Tools and solutions for implementation and mainstreaming
19. Promote the full and effective participation of indigenous peoples and local communities, and of women and girls as well as youth, in decision-making related to the conservation and sustainable use of biodiversity, ensuring by 2030 equitable participation and rights over relevant resources.
20. Foster diverse visions of good quality of life and unleash values of responsibility, to effect by 2030 new social norms for sustainability.
Is It Even About the Climate?
NASA’s Dr. Kate Marvel: “Climate justice and racial justice are the same thing, and we’ll never head off climate catastrophe without dismantling white supremacy.” Marvel is an Associate Research Scientist at NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS) in New York City.
In addition, AOC’s Chief-Of-Staff Saikat Chakrabarti also revealed that the Green New Deal was not about climate change. The Washington Post reported in 2019: Chakrabarti had an unexpected disclosure. “The interesting thing about the Green New Deal,” he said, “is it wasn’t originally a climate thing at all.” “Do you guys think of it as a climate thing?” Chakrabarti continued. “Because we really think of it as a how-do-you-change-the-entire-economy thing.”
UN official Ottmar Edenhofer, co-chair of the IPCC Working Group III, admitted what’s behind the climate issue: “One must say clearly that we redistribute de facto the world’s wealth by climate policy … One has to free oneself from the illusion that international climate policy is environmental policy. This has almost nothing to do with environmental policy anymore.”
In 2009, former Vice President Al Gore touted U.S. cap-and-trade legislation as a method to help bring about “global governance.”
UN climate chief Christiana Figueres declared in 2012 that she is seeking a “centralized transformation” that is “going to make the life of everyone on the planet very different.”
Greta Thunberg explained in 2019: “The climate crisis is not just about the environment. It is a crisis of human rights, of justice, and of political will. Colonial, racist, and patriarchal systems of oppression have created and fueled it. We need to dismantle them all. Our political leaders can no longer shirk their responsibilities.”
1993: Former U.S. Senator Timothy Wirth: ‘We’ve got to ride the global warming issue. Even if the theory of global warming is wrong, we will be doing the right thing, in terms of economic policy and environmental policy.’
Europe’s climate commissioner Connie Hedegaard has said: “Regardless of whether or not scientists are wrong on global warming, the European Union is pursuing the correct energy policies even if they lead to higher prices.”
Thunberg’s advisor, environmentalist George Monbiot explained in 2019 that in order to prevent “climate breakdown,” a complete change to our way of life has to occur: “We’ve got to go straight to the heart of capitalism and overthrow it,” Monbiot explained.
Its Time to Wake Up
Its time the American people wake up to the duplicity of these environmental foundations. Right about the time the Covid-19 virus was emerging in the west the Convention on Biological Diversity was meeting in Kunming China Drafting a Global Biodiversity Framework that will only work if all are coerced or forced to comply. State and local governments who have oaths of office to uphold and protect the Constitution of the Untied States of America and the Republic from which it stands must sever the partnerships with these subversive international environmental NGOs. Otherwise, the effort to control so much soil will extend the patronage and authority of the general government into the hearts and corners of the states and counties subjecting their policy, more so than it already is, to the danger of a foreign and powerful influence.
There has been for decades the development of what initially began as an appendage to the executive branch in the form of administrative regulatory agencies, to an administrative bureaucracy which is more and more delegating administrative responsibilities over to “not-for-profit” tax exempt national and international foundations to perform.
As with all delegation, when A delegates B to assume a function A is responsible for, the more B assumes the duties of A the less incentive will A have to discharge them. Instead of requiring A to discharge his responsibilities the politician who happens to be A searches in the dark for ways to make B socially responsible. But B being either an administrative agency or a tax-exempt foundation not being elected is not accountable to the electorate, except through expensive litigation which for most of us is not practical, in turn B ends up having a monopoly over government policy.
In this new system the separate branches of government remain, but being all equally coerced their separate state is only an illusion for a people who delude themselves that they are still in control of their government. Meanwhile the wealth of the people is destroyed through taxation and inflation, and as Hoover warned without freedom in business, there is no freedom of speech.
Friedrich Hayek in his classic Road to Serfdom around the same timeframe of Hoover concurred that without economic freedom, personal freedom and political freedom are not possible:
“We have progressively abandoned that freedom in economic affairs without which personal and political freedom has never existed in the past. Although we had been warned by some of the greatest political thinkers of the 19th century, by Tocqueville and Lord Acton, that socialism means slavery, we have steadily moved in the direction of socialism.”
China is not in the forefront in implementing Sustainable Development Goals because they have some inherent concern for climate change. They have an agenda for a planned economy, and climate change is simply a means to an end. Climate change is the mechanism to get the remnant of free economies of the west to sell their birth right for a pot of stew. And though they may seek repentance with tears, they will find none. Once a people lose their freedom, it is seldom if ever regained.
Hoover proposed reorganizing the United Nations to exclude Communist countries, as he told the American Newspaper Publishers Association, April 27, 1950:
“What the world needs today is a definite, spiritual mobilization of the nations who believe in God against this tide of Red agnosticism. It needs a moral mobilization against the hideous ideas of the police state and human slavery,” he said. “I suggest that the United Nations should be reorganized without the Communist nations in it. If that is impractical, then a definite New United Front should be organized of those peoples who disavow communism, who stand for morals and religion, and who love freedom. …”
A Lebanese delegate to the UN years ago, said:
“I know the communist leaders they are utterly devoted to their cause and that’s not true of most Americans I know. Why do you not press the battle to victory with the weapon God gave you to win, the heritage of the Christian faith.”
And finally the great Chief Justice Joseph Story appointed by James Madison, in the last sentence of his commentaries of the Constitution stated:
“Republics are created by the virtue, public spirit, and intelligence of the citizens. They fall, when the wise are banished from the public councils, because they dare to be honest, and the profligate are rewarded, because they flatter the people, in order to betray them.”.
Commentaries on the Constitution of the United States, Chief Justice Joseph Story pg 389
“And Elijah came unto all the people, and said, how long halt ye between two opinions? if the LORD be God, follow him: but if Baal, then follow him. And the people answered him not a word.”
I Kings 18:21