Debunking the U.N. Climate-Change Conspiracy

National Journal
Coral Davenport
See more stories about...
Coral Davenport
Oct. 21, 2013, 12:55 p.m.

The United Na­tions Cli­mate-Change Con­spir­acy The­ory — the idea that hu­man-caused glob­al warm­ing is a false con­struct in­ven­ted by the U.N. to jus­ti­fy gov­ern­ment con­trol of eco­nom­ies and people’s daily lives — is alive and well in the United States.

The flames of the the­ory were freshly fanned last month after the U.N.’s In­ter­gov­ern­ment­al Pan­el on Cli­mate Change re­leased a land­mark re­port con­clud­ing with 95 per­cent sci­entif­ic cer­tainty that burn­ing fossil fuels are warm­ing the plan­et, with dan­ger­ous con­sequences.

The re­port “proves that the U.N. is more in­ter­ested in ad­van­cing a polit­ic­al agenda than sci­entif­ic in­teg­rity,” said Sen. James In­hofe, R-Okla., au­thor of the book The Greatest Hoax: How the Glob­al Warm­ing Con­spir­acy Threatens Your Fu­ture. In­hofe is far from alone. Around the coun­try, Re­pub­lic­an law­makers, blog­gers, and even some loc­al TV weath­er­casters panned the re­port as fur­ther evid­ence of the U.N.’s plans to use al­legedly false cli­mate data to jus­ti­fy a glob­al takeover.

So what do the U.N.’s top of­fi­cials make of this?

In an in­ter­view last week, I asked Chris­ti­ana Figueres, the ex­ec­ut­ive sec­ret­ary of the U.N. Frame­work Con­ven­tion on Cli­mate Change, about the con­spir­acy the­ory. By phone from her of­fice in Bonn, Ger­many, she ini­tially laughed at the ques­tion.

“I’m ser­i­ous, this is a real thing,” I said. “Are you aware of this?”

“Yes,” she re­spon­ded, still laugh­ing.

“Is this hap­pen­ing any­where else in the world?” I asked her.

“No!” she said. Figueres ad­ded, “Here’s the simple truth. The U.N. does not do any­thing that its mem­ber coun­tries don’t want to do. Peri­od. There is no such thing as the U.N. be­ing a su­per-na­tion­al au­thor­ity im­pos­ing any­thing on gov­ern­ments. It just doesn’t ex­ist. Syr­ia is the clearest ex­ample of that. It’s about what the coun­tries de­cide to do. All the U.N. does is provide a plat­form for con­ver­sa­tions and an ex­change of views.”¦ But there’s no such thing as the U.N. im­pos­ing any reg­u­la­tion.”

Figueres ac­know­ledged that the cli­mate-change con­spir­acy the­ory has been key to slow­ing and block­ing ac­tion on cli­mate change in the world’s biggest eco­nomy and his­tor­ic­ally largest pol­luter. “It’s very un­for­tu­nate that cli­mate change has been politi­cized in the U.S.” But she said that lately she’s had reas­on to be heartened. Figueres has heard about tea-party groups who are so skep­tic­al of the gov­ern­ment they’ve gone off the elec­tric grid and in­stalled sol­ar pan­els. “That’s ac­tu­ally a wel­come de­vel­op­ment!” she said.

“We’re mov­ing in­to a fas­cin­at­ing fu­ture where every one of our homes and build­ings will pro­duce the en­ergy those build­ings need. We won’t de­pend on a cor­por­a­tions or gov­ern­ment to pro­duce en­ergy. That’s an ex­cit­ing fu­ture, and I be­gin to see the seeds of that in the U.S and it’s very en­cour­aging — the ‘Green Tea Party.’ “

Still, the con­spir­acy the­or­ists will have more fod­der over the com­ing year, as U.N. of­fi­cials work to­ward for­ging a his­tor­ic, leg­ally bind­ing glob­al-warm­ing treaty in Par­is in 2015. Next fall in New York, on the side­lines of the U.N. Gen­er­al As­sembly, world lead­ers will of­fer up their terms for the treaty: taxes and reg­u­la­tions on the fossil-fuel in­dus­tries, paired with fresh spend­ing on green tech­no­lo­gies and ad­apt­a­tion to the new cli­mate real­ity. Those pro­pos­als will then go in­to a draft treaty, to be writ­ten in Lima, Peru, at a U.N. sum­mit in late 2014.

One con­tro­ver­sial new concept that’s ex­pec­ted to be part of the treaty ne­go­ti­ations is the set­ting of a “car­bon budget” — the max­im­um num­ber of tons of car­bon pol­lu­tion that could be emit­ted glob­ally be­fore the plan­et tips in­to a cata­stroph­ic level of warm­ing — which U.N. sci­ent­ists say will hap­pen at 2 de­grees Celsi­us, or 3.6 de­grees Fahren­heit. The U.N. IP­CC pan­el es­tim­ates that budget at 1 tril­lion met­ric tons of car­bon — a cap sci­ent­ists es­tim­ate we’ll hit some­time in the next 30 years. Figueres said the car­bon-budget concept adds fresh ur­gency to the call for gov­ern­ments to put for­ward ag­gress­ive car­bon-cut­ting pro­pos­als. “The car­bon budget clearly is one part of the time equa­tion. We are def­in­itely run­ning out of time. The win­dow to the 2 de­grees is not closed but it’s clos­ing. We’re called upon to truly in­crease speed and scale,” she said.

The biggest chal­lenge in for­ging a suc­cess­ful U.N. cli­mate treaty, she said, will be to cre­ate bind­ing leg­al com­mit­ments re­quir­ing coun­tries to cut fossil-fuel pol­lu­tion without halt­ing eco­nom­ic growth, par­tic­u­larly in the world’s most rap­idly de­vel­op­ing eco­nom­ies. In the com­ing years, China and In­dia in par­tic­u­lar hope to lift bil­lions of people out of poverty and in­to the middle class, which means put­ting bil­lions of new cars on the road and heat­ing and light­ing bil­lions of new homes with elec­tri­city. As those eco­nom­ies grow, she said, they’ll need to “leapfrog” past the tra­di­tion­al fossil-fueled de­vel­op­ment path taken by the U.S. be­fore them and some­how achieve eco­nom­ic growth without the at­tend­ant growth in glob­al-warm­ing pol­lu­tion.

To that end, she said she’s en­cour­aged by re­cent ma­jor shifts in the do­mest­ic cli­mate policies of the world’s two biggest pol­luters — the U.S. and China. His­tor­ic­ally, the stan­doff between the two eco­nom­ic su­per­powers, neither of whom wished to act in­de­pend­ently to curb their fossil fuel con­sump­tion, has been the chief hurdles to achiev­ing a glob­al treaty. But in re­cent months, lead­ers of both na­tions have rolled out his­tor­ic new cli­mate-change policies. Pres­id­ent Obama an­nounced plans to use the au­thor­ity of the En­vir­on­ment­al Pro­tec­tion Agency to cut emis­sions from coal-fired power plants — a move which could freeze con­struc­tion of coal plants and even­tu­ally lead to the clos­ure of ex­ist­ing ones — while China has launched a pi­lot cap-and-trade pro­gram in sev­en provinces.

Both sides are mo­tiv­ated by forces oth­er than achiev­ing a U.N. treaty. In China, where thick coal pol­lu­tion has con­trib­uted to thou­sands of deaths, health prob­lems, and anti-gov­ern­ment ri­ots, of­fi­cials are chiefly mo­tiv­ated by clear­ing the air loc­ally. In the U.S., Obama is mo­tiv­ated by what his ad­visers say is a sin­cere de­sire to take ac­tion to save the plan­et — but also, in part, by choos­ing policy ac­tions that could build his leg­acy over the long term.

“I see a China that is mov­ing for­ward very, very ser­i­ously,” she said. “They’re talk­ing about a na­tion­al emis­sion-trad­ing scheme. Three of the most pop­u­lous cit­ies have banned coal burn­ing around the city — not for glob­al warm­ing but be­cause of the health im­pact.”

Of Pres­id­ent Obama, she said, “He is re­vamp­ing his com­mit­ment to this is­sue. Obama un­der­stands that when the pages of his­tory are writ­ten, the ques­tion will be, what did the U.S. pres­id­ent do on cli­mate change? This is the long-term chal­lenge of his pres­id­ency. He is aware of that and com­mit­ted to have the U.S. con­trib­ute to the solu­tion.”

But she con­cluded with a fa­mil­i­ar re­frain: It’s still not enough. Of Obama’s plan to reg­u­late coal plants, she said, “It cer­tainly be­gins to item­ize where the U.S. can be­gin to con­trib­ute to the solu­tion “¦ but I don’t think the U.S. or any coun­try is at the max­im­um level of con­tri­bu­tions they can make. The sum total of all the parts on the table is not enough.”

What We're Following See More »
BACKING OUT ON BERNIE
Trump Won’t Debate Sanders After All
15 hours ago
THE LATEST

Trump, in a statement: “Based on the fact that the Democratic nominating process is totally rigged and Crooked Hillary Clinton and Deborah Wasserman Schultz will not allow Bernie Sanders to win, and now that I am the presumptive Republican nominee, it seems inappropriate that I would debate the second place finisher. ... I will wait to debate the first place finisher in the Democratic Party, probably Crooked Hillary Clinton, or whoever it may be.”

AKNOWLEDGING THE INEVITABLE
UAW: Time to Unite Behind Hillary
1 days ago
THE DETAILS

"It's about time for unity," said UAW President Dennis Williams. "We're endorsing Hillary Clinton. She's gotten 3 million more votes than Bernie, a million more votes than Donald Trump. She's our nominee." He called Sanders "a great friend of the UAW" while saying Trump "does not support the economic security of UAW families." Some 28 percent of UAW members indicated their support for Trump in an internal survey.

Source:
AP KEEPING COUNT
Trump Clinches Enough Delegates for the Nomination
1 days ago
THE LATEST

"Donald Trump on Thursday reached the number of delegates needed to clinch the Republican nomination for president, completing an unlikely rise that has upended the political landscape and sets the stage for a bitter fall campaign. Trump was put over the top in the Associated Press delegate count by a small number of the party's unbound delegates who told the AP they would support him at the convention."

Source:
TRUMP FLOATED IDEA ON JIMMY KIMMEL’S SHOW
Trump/Sanders Debate Before California Primary?
1 days ago
THE LATEST
CAMPAIGNS INJECTED NEW AD MONEY
California: It’s Not Over Yet
1 days ago
THE LATEST

"Clinton and Bernie Sanders "are now devoting additional money to television advertising. A day after Sanders announced a new ad buy of less than $2 million in the state, Clinton announced her own television campaign. Ads featuring actor Morgan Freeman as well as labor leader and civil rights activist Dolores Huerta will air beginning on Fridayin Fresno, Sacramento, and Los Angeles media markets. Some ads will also target Latino voters and Asian American voters. The total value of the buy is about six figures according to the Clinton campaign." Meanwhile, a new poll shows Sanders within the margin of error, trailing Clinton 44%-46%.

Source:
×