As a follow-up to Dan’s article below about yet another doomsday global warming prediction that appears to be wrong, I would like to direct your attention back to the WikiLeaks document dump, specifically the memos about climate change.
Science blogger Anthony Watts has read numerous WikiLeaks diplomatic cables related to climate change and has noticed a common theme — an attempt by Second World nations to siphon wealth and political power from First World nations, all in the name of Third World nations assumed to be “victims” of global warming. At the same time, the US and other First World nations tried to offer aid directly to Third World nations; certainly a curious case of “better the devil you know” diplomacy.
For example, in the wake of the collapse of the 2009 Copenhagen climate talks, US diplomats stated that Bolivia’s president Morales would “convoke the first ‘People’s World Conference on Climate Change and the Mother Earth’ … as a vehicle for raising his and Bolivia’s international political stature, especially among sympathetic anti-globalization groups.” According to another memo, a Bolivian deligate to the Copenhagen talks told US diplomats that “[Bolivia’s] position is aimed at creating an alternative development model consistent with Morales’s anti-capitalist philosophy.”
And according to The Guardian, US diplomats worked feverishly before the conference to shore up support for the Copenhagen Accord, both among developed nations and among Third World “victim” nations (e.g. island nations, or nations with large amounts of coastline that presumably would suffer as a result of rising ocean levels), presumably to circumvent “rogue” nations (like Bolivia) from forming their own alliances:
Getting as many countries as possible to associate themselves with the accord strongly served US interests, by boosting the likelihood it would be officially adopted. A diplomatic offensive was launched. Diplomatic cables flew thick and fast between the end of Copenhagen in December 2009 and late February 2010, when the leaked cables end.
Some countries needed little persuading. The accord promised $30bn (£19bn) in aid for the poorest nations hit by global warming they had not caused. Within two weeks of Copenhagen, the Maldives foreign minister, Ahmed Shaheed, wrote to the US secretary of state, Hillary Clinton, expressing eagerness to back it.
By 23 February 2010, the Maldives’ ambassador-designate to the US, Abdul Ghafoor Mohamed, told the US deputy climate change envoy, Jonathan Pershing, his country wanted “tangible assistance”, saying other nations would then realise “the advantages to be gained by compliance” with the accord.
A diplomatic dance ensued. “Ghafoor referred to several projects costing approximately $50m (£30m). Pershing encouraged him to provide concrete examples and costs in order to increase the likelihood of bilateral assistance.”
The Maldives were unusual among developing countries in embracing the accord so wholeheartedly, but other small island nations were secretly seen as vulnerable to financial pressure. Any linking of the billions of dollars of aid to political support is extremely controversial – nations most threatened by climate change see the aid as a right, not a reward, and such a link as heretical. But on 11 February, Pershing met the EU climate action commissioner, Connie Hedegaard, in Brussels, where she told him, according to a cable, “the AOSIS [Alliance of Small Island States] countries ‘could be our best allies’ given their need for financing”.
The pair were concerned at how the $30bn was to be raised and Hedegaard raised another toxic subject – whether the US aid would be all cash. She asked if the US would need to do any “creative accounting”, noting some countries such as Japan and the UK wanted loan guarantees, not grants alone, included, a tactic she opposed. Pershing said “donors have to balance the political need to provide real financing with the practical constraints of tight budgets”, reported the cable.
If you have even a lick of common sense, there should be no doubt in your mind about the true intentions of those now pushing climate change agendas. What may have started as a sincere effort by scientists to show us that certain behaviors could possibly alter the earth’s climate has now evolved into a multi-billion dollar political and financial con game.