• The Heritage Network
    • Resize:
    • A
    • A
    • A
  • Donate
  • U.N. Climate Talks: Wealth Redistribution and a New Tax, Too

    United Nations Secretary General Ban Ki Moon speaks at the opening plenary session of the High Level Segment of the during the COP 17 conference in Durban on December 6, 2011. UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon urged deadlocked climate talks in Durban to work urgently for solutions, saying the future of the planet was at stake. AFP PHOTO/RAJESH JANTILAL

    Another year, another hopeless climate talk.

    This time, the annual U.N. climate change summit is taking place in Durban, South Africa. It looks painfully like another misguided attempt to convince developed countries to shoulder global emissions targets while redistributing wealth to developing countries. This approach, again, is likely to fail—despite China’s recent announcement that it would consider accepting a legally binding agreement.

    For the past 17 years, one U.N. climate talk after another has failed over the same basic issue. While top-down international policymaking may sound appealing to those whose hopes rest on finding the one comprehensive treaty that will avert climate change, in reality it doesn’t work that way. Heritage’s Brett Schaefer explained last year why the U.S. should not negotiate a global warming agreement through the U.N.:

    Nations with little direct stake in the outcome of negotiations as well as U.N. officials manipulated the process to focus on an ineffective, costly agreement that unduly burdened the U.S. and other developed countries without any real assurance that such sacrifices would address the issue of global warming.

    Developing countries are not only asking to be exempt from any emissions restrictions, but they also want handouts from countries like the United States. China’s announcement is questionable, as this is not the first time the country has floated the idea of accepting a legally binding agreement, and it’s also conditional on extensive handouts to developing countries that are unlikely to materialize:

    Xie said that China’s conditions include the E.U. and other countries agreeing to a second commitment period of the Kyoto Protocol; a follow-through on commitments countries made to deliver $30 billion in immediate aid to vulnerable nations by 2012 and a process to ramp up toward another promised goal of $100 billion annually by 2020.

    Meanwhile, the alleged scientific consensus on man-made global warming is crumbling, as further evidence surfaces that influential climate science is flawed with political opportunism. Climategate 2.0 paints a picture similar to the original scandal from 2009, described by Heritage analyst Nick Loris:

    Leaked e-mails from the University of East Anglia’s Climate Research Unit in the U.K. revealed conspiracy, exaggerated warming data, possibly illegal destruction and manipulation of data, and attempts to freeze out dissenting scientists from publishing their work in reputable journals.

    The U.S. Congress is right to cautiously observe the negotiations without signing Americans up for costly carbon emissions reductions that would do little to address global warming concerns. President Obama’s team, however, reportedly is considering circumventing Congress by implementing a distorting foreign currency transactions tax that would harm U.S. imports and exports, slowing our economic recovery.

    It is high time for these failed U.N. climate talks to come to an end once and for all. At the very least, the U.S. should remove itself from this recurring process, which paints America as a pariah as long as it won’t buckle to the outlandish demands of other nations. U.S. taxpayers should not be on the hook for handouts, risking America’s return to a strong and vibrant economy for the sake of costly and ineffective emissions reductions or distorting tax policy.

    Posted in Energy [slideshow_deploy]

    5 Responses to U.N. Climate Talks: Wealth Redistribution and a New Tax, Too

    1. Bobbie says:

      if it isn't proven, it's a waste! it hasn't been proven! stop the waste of non productivity! it's a cover up of fraud with alot to thieve! this intentional corruption is intolerable.

    2. Dave C says:

      Wow, nice reporting. You on loan from Fox News? Why not let it be known that the investigations subsequent to "Climategate" exonerated the scientists and confirmed their data? The truth is that the vast consensus isn't crumbling. Quite the opposite. More one-time skeptics like Richard Muller are waking up to the alarming data because it's real. Furthermore, those sounding the alarm are generally academics with no obvious agenda to be anything but honest, unlike Fred Singer and others who are paid for by Big Oil Money. Where is your reporting on Exxon Mobil's leaked emails trying to funnel millions into a PR campaign to raise doubt about global warming? Where is the indignation that they are trying to influence the future of the planet for commercial gain rather than putting that money into objective research? Or that our taxpayer dollars are subsidizing this type of greedy smear while they declare ever-greater quarterly profits while we get soaked at the pump and they hide their money? Do we really want to gamble with the future of the planet? But hey, don't listen to me, I'm one of those crazy people who actually believes in science, and evolution and all that nutty stuff.

    3. Bobbie says:

      it's really special that you believe in science and evolution but then you'd consider that nature's course in all it's reality can not be controlled by man as man is not the creator of nature but whom is of nature's creation. pollution can be and is controlled, everything else without neglect is what it becomes. man cannot "make" the globe warm but if global warming is true (which reality directly defies,) man can innovate survival gear and get rid of those manufactured turbines damaging the earth and killing off natures creation.

    4. Robert says:

      I would just like to know how come we are just now hearing about this so-called "climate change". If this is so important wouldn't it have been in the news way before now. Has anybody else even heard of this issue??

    Comments are subject to approval and moderation. We remind everyone that The Heritage Foundation promotes a civil society where ideas and debate flourish. Please be respectful of each other and the subjects of any criticism. While we may not always agree on policy, we should all agree that being appropriately informed is everyone's intention visiting this site. Profanity, lewdness, personal attacks, and other forms of incivility will not be tolerated. Please keep your thoughts brief and avoid ALL CAPS. While we respect your first amendment rights, we are obligated to our readers to maintain these standards. Thanks for joining the conversation.

    Big Government Is NOT the Answer

    Your tax dollars are being spent on programs that we really don't need.

    I Agree I Disagree ×

    Get Heritage In Your Inbox — FREE!

    Heritage Foundation e-mails keep you updated on the ongoing policy battles in Washington and around the country.