Lord Monckton: Global Warming is a pretext for a One-World Government
Christopher, Lord Monckton is a business consultant, writer and former policy adviser to Margaret Thatcher. He told a Minnesota Free Market Institute audience at Bethel University in St. Paul, Minnesota on 14 October 2009:
‘At Copenhagen, this December, weeks away, a treaty will be signed — your president will sign it. Most of the third-world countries will sign it because they think they’re going to get money out of it. Most of the left-wing regimes around the world, like the European Union, will rubber-stamp it. Virtually nobody won’t sign it.
‘I have read that treaty and what it says is this: That a world government is going to be created. The word “government” actually appears as the first of three purposes of the new entity.
‘The second purpose is the transfer of wealth from the countries of the West to third-world countries in satisfaction of what is called, coyly, a “climate debt”, because we’ve been burning CO2 and they haven’t and we’ve been screwing up the climate. We haven’t been screwing up the climate, but that’s the line.
‘And the third purpose of this new entity, this government, is enforcement’, Lord Monckton added.
(Click here to watch the full speech and here to watch the concluding remarks)
The UN Framework Convention on Climate Change is a treaty that most world governments are expected to sign in Copenhagen in December 2009 – including Britain and the United States. Lord Monckton told Fox News that the 181-page working document of the treaty, which contains the word 'government' in its Annex I, paragraph 38, transfers enormous powers, greater than any other governments' powers, to the unelected bureaucratic entity, which will be in charge of managing the most important aspect of Western societies without elections and polls. It does not mention the words ‘election’, ‘ballot’, ‘elected official’ or ‘vote’ anywhere in it.
According to Lord Monckton, by signing this document, all the industrial countries, including the United Kingdom and the United States, will forever take responsibility for the ills of other countries.
Page 6 of the document states: ‘PP.15 Further acknowledging that developed countries have a historical responsibility for their disproportionate contribution to the causes and consequences of climate change, reflecting their disproportionate historical use of a shared global carbon space since 1850 as well as their proposed continuing disproportional use of the remaining global carbon space ... Warming of the climate system, as a consequence of human activity, is unequivocal.’
Page 38: ‘28. The adverse effects of climate change and response measures, due to the historical cumulative GHG emissions of developed countries, constitute an additional burden on all developing country Parties (particularly low-lying and other small island countries, countries with low-lying coastal, arid and semi-arid areas or areas liable to floods, drought and desertification, and developing countries with fragile mountainous ecosystems) in reducing poverty, developing strategies to address social vulnerabilities and attaining sustainable development and a threat to achieving the United Nations Millennium Development Goals.’
Page 122: ‘17. (a) Compensate for damage to the LDC's economy and also compensate for lost opportunities, resources, lives, land and dignity ...’
Page 27: ‘(b) Particularly vulnerable populations, groups and communities, [or] All vulnerable groups whose adaptive capacity is low, [or] Groups requiring special protection ...’
Page 43: ‘41. (a) Assessed contributions of at least 0.7% of annual GDP of developed country Parties.’ These funds will go directly to governments and ‘community organizations.’
Page 39: ‘33. [The financial burden] must be at least USD 67 billion (in the range of USD 70-140 billion) per year.’
The commitments of the developed countries are ‘economy wide.’ Page 58: ‘7. (a) Mitigation commitments by all developed countries are legally binding economy wide and absolute quantified emission reduction commitments.’
‘(b) Mitigation actions by developing countries are voluntary ...’ (emphasis added.)
(Click here to read the draft treaty)
Lord Monckton, who disputes whether global warming is man-made, has repeatedly challenged Al Gore to debate him on the science of global warming and asked the High Court to acknowledge nine of the innumerable of errors in Al Gore’s Oscar-winning film An Inconvenient Truth. Addressing Mr Gore, Lord Monckton said, ‘And if you don’t dare, I want you to remain silent about that subject forever from now on.’ Mr Gore did not accept the challenge. Other scientists have also asked Mr Gore to debate the science of global warming and he has consistently refused to do so.
James Delingpole of The Daily Telegraph, wrote:
‘You have to be careful when talking about ‘One World Government’. Sooner than you can say “Bilderberg”, you’ll find yourself bracketed with all the crazies, and conspiracy theorists and 9/11 Truthers. But I don’t think you need to be mad to be concerned about the issues raised by Lord Monckton in this speech.
‘I don’t know how accurate he is on the specific details, but Monckton is certainly right in principle. The climate fear industry is, I believe, the single greatest threat to national sovereignty (as we’ve already seen under the EU, with its directives on carbon emissions, landfill etc) and individual liberty of our era.
‘I don’t believe in conspiracy theories. Unfortunately, the Climate Fear Industry isn’t a theory,' he added.
On 19 October 2009, the Prime Minister gave a speech to the Major Economies Forum in London. He said:
'In every era there are one or two moments when nations come together and reach agreements that make history because they change the cause of history, and Copenhagen must be such a time.'
And earlier, the Swedish EU Presidency said at the Washington DC meeting with President Obama that ‘the climate negotiations in Copenhagen must not fail’.
Of course, environmentalists are presently celebrating a second tribunal decision confirming that their strongly-held views on climate change deserve the same level of protection as religious faith. The Christian Legal Centre is persuaded that this is a clear sign of ‘social, moral and legal chaos’.
And they are not wrong.
Lord Monckton has glimpsed the New World Order. The media focus will be on the politics and the economics, while behind the scenes emerges the spiritual force of Gaia, the one-world religion, through which all mankind will be united whether or not they subscribe to ‘the Truth’ of its infallible orthodoxy and its doctrinal absolutes.