BrianGarst.com

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

United Nations Archive

Thursday

7

July 2011

0

COMMENTS

We're All Gonna Die! Pt. 36

Written by , Posted in Economics & the Economy, Energy and the Environment

We’re all gonna die…unless we pay a 3% mini-tithe at the alter of “climate change”:

Governments must invest three per cent of world GDP – about £1.2 trillion in 2010 – annually for 40 years to stop climate change and famine, according to the UN’s department of economic and social affairs.

Just to put this in perspective, the world spent 2.6% of GDP on military expenditures in 2009.

Oh, and since this is a WAGD post, obviously we’re all gonna die:

Rob Vos, the lead author of the report, said that “business as usual is not an option” if the world were to “reverse the ongoing ecological destruction”.

His report said that to feed a rapidly growing number of mouths, farmers around the world will have to essentially double total international food production between now and 2050.

…”It is rapidly expanding energy use, mainly driven by fossil fuels, that explains why humanity is on the verge of breaching planetary sustainability boundaries,” the report said.

“A comprehensive global energy transition is urgently needed in order to avert a major planetary catastrophe.”

This kind of nonsense is not new. What the doommongers always seem to ignore is that innovation and productivity gains make their models irrelevant. The techniques we will be using to produce food in 2050 are likely unimaginable to anyone alive today.

Sunday

12

December 2010

0

COMMENTS

Not Exactly Confidence Inspiring

Written by , Posted in Energy and the Environment

Just in case we needed more reason to doubt the so-called climate authorities, we have it (via John Stossel):

Some people will sign anything that includes phrases like, ”global effort,” “international community,” and “planetary.” Such was the case at COP 16, this year’s United Nations Conference on Climate Change in Cancun, Mexico.

…It was euphemistically entitled “Petition to Ban the Use of Dihydrogen Monoxide (DHMO)” (translation water). It was designed to show that if official U.N. delegates could be duped by college students into banning water, that they could essentially fall for anything, including pseudo-scientific studies which claim to show that global warming is man-caused.

Despite the apparently not-so-obvious reference to H2O, almost every delegate that collegian students approached signed their petition to ban that all too dangerous substance, which contributes to the greenhouse effect, is the major substance in acid rain, and is fatal if inhaled.

Perhaps together, the footage associated with these two projects will illustrate to mainstream America the radical lengths many current U.N. delegates are willing to go to carry out an agenda no more ethical, plausible or practical than the banning water.

Sunday

24

January 2010

0

COMMENTS

Damned If We Do

Written by , Posted in Foreign Affairs & Policy

More (previous here) on why it’s so difficult to be the world’s savior:

Fidel Castro is questioning why the U.S. and other countries sent soldiers to quake-ravaged Haiti, saying military presence hindered international cooperation.

The former Cuban president writes that “without anyone knowing how or why,” Washington dispatched troops “to occupy Haitian territory,” and other nations followed suit.

In an opinion column Sunday in state-controlled media, Castro said neither the U.N nor the U.S. “has offered an explanation to the people of the world.”

Castro noted that several governments complained that the troops kept them from landing aid flights and called on the U.N. to investigate.

Bolivian President Evo Morales, a Castro ally, is seeking a U.N. condemnation of what he called the U.S. occupation of Haiti.

Sunday

17

January 2010

1

COMMENTS

Not So Settled Science

Written by , Posted in Energy and the Environment

Remember this the next time they say that the IPCC reports on “settled” science:

Two years ago the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) issued a benchmark report that was claimed to incorporate the latest and most detailed research into the impact of global warming. A central claim was the world’s glaciers were melting so fast that those in the Himalayas could vanish by 2035.

In the past few days the scientists behind the warning have admitted that it was based on a news story in the New Scientist, a popular science journal, published eight years before the IPCC’s 2007 report.

It has also emerged that the New Scientist report was itself based on a short telephone interview with Syed Hasnain, a little-known Indian scientist then based at Jawaharlal Nehru University in Delhi.

Hasnain has since admitted that the claim was “speculation” and was not supported by any formal research. If confirmed it would be one of the most serious failures yet seen in climate research. The IPCC was set up precisely to ensure that world leaders had the best possible scientific advice on climate change.

In court that’s called hearsay.  Why is the UN claiming that it’s “science?”

Friday

26

June 2009

0

COMMENTS

UN Stumbles Upon Some Truth

Written by , Posted in Energy and the Environment, Free Markets

Coming as a pleasant surprise, the UN reported today that open trade and economic growth helps, rather than hurts, the environment.

Contrary to conventional wisdom, further liberalization of international trade can help combat climate change and support a low carbon economy, said a joint United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) and World Trade Organization (WTO) report launched today in Geneva.

The “Trade and Climate Change” report stressed that an increase and opening of trade could have a positive impact on greenhouse gases emissions by accelerating the spread of clean technology and providing opportunities for developing economies to adapt those technologies.

Many of us have always challenged the “conventional wisdom” on economic growth – that it was destructive to the environment.  The reality is quite the opposite, as new technology is almost always cleaner than the old; so the faster new technology is adopted, the better.  If Barack Obama and the Democrats are serious about their goal of thwarting global warming, they should dump trade protectionism and their economically destructive cap and trade bill.

Wednesday

26

November 2008

1

COMMENTS

Darfur Our Next Intervention?

Written by , Posted in Foreign Affairs & Policy

Dr. Susan Rice is now said to be the leading contender for Ambassador to the U.N. in the Obama administration. The pick would be telling in terms of the foreign policy Obama plans to pursue, and how it doesn’t square with his campaign rhetoric. In 2006 Rice argued for military action, unilateral if necessary, in Darfur:

History demonstrates that there is one language Khartoum understands: the credible threat or use of force. After Sept. 11, 2001, when President Bush issued a warning to states that harbor terrorists, Sudan — recalling the 1998 U.S. airstrike on Khartoum — suddenly began cooperating on counterterrorism. It’s time to get tough with Sudan again.

After swift diplomatic consultations, the United States should press for a U.N. resolution that issues Sudan an ultimatum: accept unconditional deployment of the U.N. force within one week or face military consequences. The resolution would authorize enforcement by U.N. member states, collectively or individually. International military pressure would continue until Sudan relented.

The United States, preferably with NATO involvement and African political support, would strike Sudanese airfields, aircraft and other military assets. It could blockade Port Sudan, through which Sudan’s oil exports flow. Then U.N. troops would deploy — by force, if necessary, with U.S. and NATO backing.

If the United States fails to gain U.N. support, we should act without it. Impossible? No, the United States acted without U.N. blessing in 1999 in Kosovo to confront a lesser humanitarian crisis (perhaps 10,000 killed) and a more formidable adversary. Under NATO auspices, it bombed Serbian targets until Slobodan Milosevic acquiesced. Not a single American died in combat. Many nations protested that the United States violated international law, but the United Nations subsequently deployed a mission to administer Kosovo and effectively blessed NATO military action retroactively.

Many on the left may be surprised at these positions. Likely, they took Democratic leaders at their word when they explained their reasons for attacking Bush on Iraq. Those of us more familiar with political history – such as Clinton’s unilateral sidestepping of the U.N. in Kosovo – and the intellectual currents driving policy debates, saw it for what it was: an argument of convenience.

Left-wing interventionists are actually more common than right-wing ones. Before the neoconservatives had won the day in establishing Republican policy, there was Secretary Madeliene Albright, who asked Colin Powell, “What’s the point of having this superb military you’re always talking about if we can’t use it?” The ironic difference between the left and right interventionists is this: on the left they only want to use force when U.S. interests are non-existent. Boondoggle that Iraq was in many ways, at least there was a debatable, though certainly plausible, claim of serving U.S. national interests in deposing Saddam. One can’t even make a pretense of serving U.S. interests in Darfur.

When the French foreign minister said, “We cannot accept either a politically unipolar world, nor a culturally uniform world, nor the unilateralism of a single hyper-power,” he wasn’t talking about Bush. The statement was made in 2000 and referred to the administration of Bill Clinton. With Clintonites now littered throughout Obama’s emerging administration, yet another reversal looks to be in order, this time on the usefulness of unilateralism and interventionism.

Wednesday

15

November 2006

0

COMMENTS

Iran Complains

Written by , Posted in Foreign Affairs & Policy

Iran has complained to the UN about…Israeli threats?

Iran, whose president has vowed to wipe Israel off the map, complained to the United Nations on Wednesday that the Jewish state was repeatedly threatening to bomb it.

The threats were “matters of extreme gravity” and the U.N. Security Council should condemn them and demand that Israel “cease and desist immediately from the threat of the use of force against members of the United Nations,” Iranian U.N. Ambassador Javad Zarif said.

This shows just what a mockery the United Nations is. For too many, it’s merely another tool of deception; another means to disrupt the functioning of the free world. Iran does not participate in good faith at any level, and yet it seeks to use the tools of international bodies against those who threaten only to defend themselves.

If outrageous threats leveled at members of the United Nations are to be found one need look no further than Iran, where Ahmadinejad recently promised, “we will soon witness [Israel’s] disappearance and destruction”.

Such comments from Ahmadinejad are not new. Shortly after assuming his role as President, he declared, “And God willing, with the force of God behind it, we shall soon experience a world without the United States and Zionism”. He also predicted that the “new wave of confrontations generated in Palestine and the growing turmoil in the Islamic world would in no time wipe Israel away”.

Hat tip: Threats Watch

Thursday

19

October 2006

0

COMMENTS

Lil’ Kim Attacks UNSC “Resolution”

Written by , Posted in Foreign Affairs & Policy

This is too funny.

The successful nuclear test in the DPRK was an exercise of its independent and legitimate right as a sovereign state as it was a positive defensive countermeasure to protect the sovereignty of the country and life and security of the people from the U.S. escalated nuclear war threat and sanctions and pressure.

The “life and security of the people”? You mean the ones that are starving? Yes, we can all see how much you are concerned about their life and security, lil’ Kim. That’s why you spend all their wealth on weapons; makes perfect sense.

The DPRK was compelled to legitimately pull out of the NPT according to its relevant provision and manufactured nuclear weapons after undergoing the most fair and aboveboard and transparent processes as the U.S. seriously encroached upon the supreme security of the DPRK and the fundamental interests of the Korean nation under the pretext of the nuclear issue.

Woah woah woah woah woah. Back this trolley on up. North Korea pulled out of the NPT in 1994? So…that means…it isn’t all Bush’s fault? This isn’t “Bush’s bomb” as Al Gore called it? North Korea became enraged in the 90’s? That can’t be, surely it was because of Iraq!

…The adoption of this “resolution” made it impossible for the UNSC to evade the historic responsibility for having patronized and connived at the U.S. which caused the division of Korea, the root cause of all misfortunes of the Korean nation, in violation of the UN Charter the cornerstone of which is the principle of sovereignty, equality and self-determination and has systematically perpetrated undisguised moves to “bring down the system” in the DPRK.

This is all laughably absurd. The U.S. has given $1.1 billion to North Korea over the last decade in the form of energy and food aid. The only reason they stand up and spittle out this nonsense is because they know damn well we won’t do anything about it. In fact, we’ll keep paying them off!

Enough is enough. Cut them off. Only when their people are dying – and not because we won’t give them aid as some will undoubtedly whine, but rather because their “leader” blows up 40 years of GDP while throwing an international hissy fit – will the North Koreans have to face the hard choice of whether they want to rattle their sword or support their populace. As long as we keep propping them up they don’t have to make that choice.

These appeasement policies under the guise of “humanitarian aid” have got to stop, they do nothing but backfire. Yes, it’s unfortunate that North Koreans don’t have food, but they won’t ever be able to support themselves as long as they have a psycho in power spending all their wealth on international stunts. The more we prolong his domestic failure the longer he remains in power.

Monday

16

October 2006

0

COMMENTS

UN To Hold Cartoonist Indoctrination Seminars

Written by , Posted in Foreign Affairs & Policy

Predictably, the UN has responded in the most wrongheaded manner possible to the hysterical reactions of some Muslims to cartoons they didn’t like. Rather than condemning the intimidation tactics carried out against Denmark, the UN is holding a seminar on “The Responsibility of Political Cartoonist”.

Apparently the problem is not that some people feel violence is an acceptable response to statements or opinions they disapprove of. Oh no, we can’t go around blaming people for their actions. The responsibility, rather, rests with those damn cartoonists who insist on expressing themselves. But never fear, the UN is stepping in to make sure these dastardly draftsmen are brainwashed into compliance. There will be no more unpleasant (nor free) “speech”, we can promise you that!

Wednesday

11

October 2006

0

COMMENTS

UN On Child Abuse

Written by , Posted in General/Misc.

Child abuse ‘widespread’, UN says

Violence against children is widespread and tolerated around the world, a report by the UN has claimed.

A four-year study to be presented in New York says many youngsters faced physical abuse that was either hidden or socially approved.

Almost six million children have been forced into work and many more have become prostitutes, the UN said.

This is certainly a serious matter. Unfortunately, things that we should be rightfully concerned about are overshadowed by the radical agenda of the study’s sponsors.

The report’s authors found that more than one billion children around the world could still be beaten legally by their teachers.

Other statistics outline sexual abuse, domestic violence and the treatment of children being held in detention.

The author of the report, Professor Paulo Sergio Pinheiro, told BBC News it was time for children to have the same rights under law as adults.

“This is the moment to recognise children as being protected by rights, as full citizens, and not as mini-human beings or the property of their families,” he said.

The author starts from the assumption that discipline administered by teachers is always wrong, and therefore prima facie evidence of “abuse.” I suspect many parents would disagree. Nevertheless, while it may be erroneous to assume such a position, it is at least still a legitimate viewpoint.

His other argument, that children should have the same rights as any adult, is simply absurd. Children are incapable of making the decisions adults have to make. That’s why parents make them for them. Parents assume the responsibility to care for their offspring until they can care for themselves.

One cannot simply ‘wish away’ the necessity for this arrangement. There is no magical piece of legislation that will make a 5 year old capable of getting a job, paying bills and making life decisions.

It’s precisely this kind of stupidity that makes the UN a laughing stock in the eyes of so many Americans. It’s unfortunate that they are incapable of keeping their radical nonsense out of their work, even on issues as important as child welfare.

If these people were truly serious about the welfare of children, they’d address the brainwashing of children into the cult of violent jihad.