Genie Out of the Bottle: 'U.N. Climate Change Meeting Aims at Rich Countries'

Change font size:  A |  A

Climate change alarmism met the infamous Oil for Food scam at the United Nations Tuesday.

As a result, if you had any questions regarding why the U.N. has been the point-man on driving global warming hysteria throughout America and around the world, they were all answered.

In fact, the genie was let out of the proverbial bottle by this Reuters headline: "U.N. Climate Change Meeting Aims at Rich Countries."

As Jeffrey Jones was fond of saying in the movie "Amadeus" while playing the part of Emperor Joseph II, "Well, there it is."

More evidence that the U.N.'s interest is just to take money from wealthy nations - mostly America, of course - and redistribute it internationally was found all over the body of the article (grateful h/t NBer dscott, emphasis added throughout):

The first U.N. special session on climate change focused on the world's rich countries on Tuesday, as policy-makers urged long-standing polluters to shoulder much of the burden for cutting greenhouse gases.

Well, there it is:

[British economist Nicholas ]Stern, author of a path-breaking report last year on the economic consequences of climate change, said the global target for reducing greenhouse gases -- notably the carbon dioxide released by coal-fired electric plants and petroleum-powered vehicles -- should be a cut 50 percent by 2050.

"Because of reasons of past responsibility and better access to resources, the rich countries should take much bigger objectives than that 50 percent," he said. "They should be looking for around 75 percent cuts."

But here's the literal and figurative payoff:

That responsibility could extend to financing cuts in emissions in other countries, said Stern, formerly head of the British government's economic service and now at the London School of Economics.

How marvelous. So, America needs to cut its emissions by 75 percent, and, if one reads between the lines, can accomplish this goal in whole or part by sending money to other countries.

Can anyone say "Oil for Food?"

How likely will it be that the U.N. acts as intermediary for these funds as they pass from the rich countries to the poor, always taking their cut - or, paraphrasing Gastone Moschin in "The Godfather: Part II" as Don Fanucci, wet their beaks?

Let the shakedown begin!