Social justice on the agenda at Climate Change Treaty meeting

A draft of the Copenhagen Climate Change Treaty dated September 15th is currently available for inspection here. (H/T Watts Up With That). Some of the draft language is best described as a communist manifesto dressed up in UN leotards.  Some notable quotes:

"17. [[Developed [and developing] countries] [Developed and developing country Parties] [All Parties] [shall] [should]:]

(a) Compensate for damage to the LDCs' economy and also compensate for lost opportunities, resources, lives, land and dignity, as many will become environmental refugees;

(b) Africa, in the context of environmental justice, should be equitably compensated for environmental, social and economic losses arising from the implementation of response measures."

When you see in vogue leftists phrases such as "environmental justice" embedded in a UN document, you can be sure that income redistribution is high on the authors mind.  We see the mindset later in the document;

"7. The objective of the provision of financial resources is to promote equity and justice through further enhancement of the full, effective and sustained implementation of the Convention and the Bali Action Plan, so that the ultimate objective of the Convention can be achieved."

Exactly whose equity and justice is being promoted here and how can such equity be achieved and does the owner of the "financial resources" have a say in it's distribution? Such broad terms, and vague financial responabilities always raise red flags in the business world when negotiating contracts.  No one should sign such a document.  The draft will put the US on the hook for monies it does not have to fill a promise it can not keep no matter how rich it is or isn't.

Another example;

"Alternative 6: Recognition of the urgency to address the adverse impacts of climate change on the vulnerable countries such as LDCs and small island developing states; In providing adaptation support, priority [shall][should] be given to developing country Parties that are the most vulnerable to climate change impacts and that are the least able to adapt:

(i) Supporting adaptation at local and national levels;

(ii) Particularly vulnerable developing country Parties, especially:

- Poor developing country Parties;

- LDCs and SIDS, and countries in Africa affected by drought, desertification and flood;"

Considering that Africa has a history of drought, desertification and flood going back to biblical time, exactly how are the signers to ascertain which floods, droughts and desertification  may be caused by Global Warming and which would have happened naturally?  

The economic incentives have the potential to be so high that the truth matters little. We have seen this in the United States when Dow Corning was sued into bankruptcy over silicone breast implants.  The entire document sets up a framework that would reward charlatans and pseudo science and create a huge economic incentive to suppress dissenting opinions on Anthropogenic Global Warming Theory (AGW).  It creates a give away to African despots eager to blame their own failure son anyone else but themselves.  Why is the US wasting it's time, money, and resources even entertaining this rubbish?
A draft of the Copenhagen Climate Change Treaty dated September 15th is currently available for inspection here. (H/T Watts Up With That). Some of the draft language is best described as a communist manifesto dressed up in UN leotards.  Some notable quotes:

"17. [[Developed [and developing] countries] [Developed and developing country Parties] [All Parties] [shall] [should]:]

(a) Compensate for damage to the LDCs' economy and also compensate for lost opportunities, resources, lives, land and dignity, as many will become environmental refugees;

(b) Africa, in the context of environmental justice, should be equitably compensated for environmental, social and economic losses arising from the implementation of response measures."

When you see in vogue leftists phrases such as "environmental justice" embedded in a UN document, you can be sure that income redistribution is high on the authors mind.  We see the mindset later in the document;

"7. The objective of the provision of financial resources is to promote equity and justice through further enhancement of the full, effective and sustained implementation of the Convention and the Bali Action Plan, so that the ultimate objective of the Convention can be achieved."

Exactly whose equity and justice is being promoted here and how can such equity be achieved and does the owner of the "financial resources" have a say in it's distribution? Such broad terms, and vague financial responabilities always raise red flags in the business world when negotiating contracts.  No one should sign such a document.  The draft will put the US on the hook for monies it does not have to fill a promise it can not keep no matter how rich it is or isn't.

Another example;

"Alternative 6: Recognition of the urgency to address the adverse impacts of climate change on the vulnerable countries such as LDCs and small island developing states; In providing adaptation support, priority [shall][should] be given to developing country Parties that are the most vulnerable to climate change impacts and that are the least able to adapt:

(i) Supporting adaptation at local and national levels;

(ii) Particularly vulnerable developing country Parties, especially:

- Poor developing country Parties;

- LDCs and SIDS, and countries in Africa affected by drought, desertification and flood;"

Considering that Africa has a history of drought, desertification and flood going back to biblical time, exactly how are the signers to ascertain which floods, droughts and desertification  may be caused by Global Warming and which would have happened naturally?  

The economic incentives have the potential to be so high that the truth matters little. We have seen this in the United States when Dow Corning was sued into bankruptcy over silicone breast implants.  The entire document sets up a framework that would reward charlatans and pseudo science and create a huge economic incentive to suppress dissenting opinions on Anthropogenic Global Warming Theory (AGW).  It creates a give away to African despots eager to blame their own failure son anyone else but themselves.  Why is the US wasting it's time, money, and resources even entertaining this rubbish?