Council On Foreign Relations Issued Report On The Global Climate Change Regime
TMR Editor’s Note:
The Council on Foreign Relations (CFR) is perfectly aware of the various non-polluting energy-producing technologies which are available today. They are also cognizant of the unsustainable nature of the world’s predominant energy paradigms. The massive amounts of pollution pouring into the air, water and land from the fossil fuel and hydrocarbon fuel industries is beyond comprehension. Hence, it is very curious that the CFR conveniently neglects to mention those free-energy technologies which the U.S. Federal Government along with Big Oil has known about, and aggressively suppressed, for over a century.
The USA has had every opportunity to gradually transition away from these highly destructive energy sources, including nuclear. Yet, every initiative has been taken over the years to suppress all free energy inventions. Nevertheless, the CFR has consistently developed a foreign policy that revolves around the exploitation of oil and gas reserves, not just in the U.S., but around the globe. The entire Middle East has descended into a regional war because of their highly misguided policies which revolves around the hydrocarbon fuel paradigm.
The following CFR report reveals that they are actually following a scripted agenda that is dictated to them. On the one hand they appear to advocate lessening dependence on oil and gas, but then all of their policy position papers encourage exactly what the U.S. Government does on the ground, across the planet, today and every day, for at least a century. That would be securing oil and gas reserves, conduits, refineries and technologies, as well as continuing their development wherever it is both profitable and cost effective.
On the other hand the CFR appears to recommend that the nation move toward cleaner energies such as solar, wind and nuclear, as if nuclear energy generation in its current profoundly flawed form is clean. In their small universe it is only solar energy which is truly clean and sustainable, yet the CFR seems to fully back the current regime of geoengineering that systematically and significantly diminishes the amount of sunlight which now reaches the Earth’s surface. No sun rays hitting the solar panels, no solar energy to tap.
Clearly, the CFR is either operating with a severely schizophrenic mindset, or they knowingly function as a quasi accreditation agency in order to confer a degree of legitimacy upon those governmental institutions which are regularly informed by their stated policy positions. Truly, something is quite awry with the CFR report posted below. It gives away the fact that the CFR is nothing but a glorified controlled opposition operation that has far too much influence in Washington, D.C.
Given their photo at the top of this article, the CFR is truly acting as a highfalutin sockpuppet that shills for both Big Oil and the Military Industrial Complex … all day long … for as long as they’ve been around. They say one thing to each other; preach another to the politicians, generals and oilmen; and then package their conflicted yet essentially empty position papers for public consumption. All the while they are really pushing for nothing less than a New World Order administered by a One World Government which is based on a de facto Global Carbon Control Matrix.
A close reading of their “Global Climate Change Regime” report below all but discloses that they are all about molding world opinion in the direction of accepting a Global CO2 Management Regime. This regime is merely the foundation for the One World Government that the CFR was created to help establish. More insight into this clandestine scheme has been written about at this link: One World Government Initially Emerging As Global CO2 ‘Management’ Regime
The Global Climate Change Regime
PublisherCouncil on Foreign Relations
Last Updated: June 19, 2013
Scope of the Challenge
Climate change is one of the most significant threats facing the world today. According to the American Meteorological Society, there is a 90 percent probability that global temperatures will rise by 3.5 to 7.4 degrees Celsius (6.3 to 13.3 degrees Fahrenheit) in less than one hundred years, with even greater increases over land and the poles. These seemingly minor shifts in temperature could trigger widespread disasters in the form of rising sea levels, violent and volatile weather patterns, desertification, famine, water shortages, and other secondary effects including conflict. In November 2011, the International Energy Agency warned that the world may be fast approaching a tipping point concerning climate change, and suggested that the next five years will be crucial for greenhouse gas reduction efforts.
Avoiding the worst consequences of climate change will require large cuts in global greenhouse gas emissions. Humans produce greenhouse gases by burning coal, oil, and natural gas to generate energy for power, heat, industry, and transportation. Deforestation and agricultural activity also yield climate-changing emissions.
One way to reduce emissions would be to switch from fossil-fuel-based power to alternative sources of energy, such as nuclear, solar, and wind. A second, parallel option would be to achieve greater energy efficiency by developing new technologies and modifying daily behavior so each person produces a smaller carbon footprint. Additionally, retrofitting buildings and developing energy-efficient technology greatly help curb greenhouse gas emissions. All such measures, however, engender significant costs, and the onset of the global financial crisis has placed serious new constraints on national budgets both in the developed and developing worlds. Some climate change experts have expressed concern that the ongoing global financial crisis could defer action on climate change indefinitely.
Even if such reforms were implemented, substantial efforts will still be required to adapt to unavoidable change. Recent climate-related events, such as the flooding in Pakistan andThailand, have caused focus to fall on adaptation financing for developing countries, which could support infrastructure projects to protect vulnerable areas. Other efforts might include drought-tolerant farming.
Distribution of global emissions reinforces the need for broad multilateral cooperation in mitigating climate change. Fifteen to twenty countries are responsible for roughly 75 percent of global emissions, but no one country accounts for more than about 26 percent. Efforts to cut emissions—mitigation—must therefore be global. Without international cooperation and coordination, some states may free ride on others’ efforts, or even exploit uneven emissions controls to gain competitive advantage. And because the impacts of climate change will be felt around the world, efforts to adapt to climate change—adaptation—will need to be global too.
At the launch of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change seventeenth Conference of Parties (COP-17) in Durban, South Africa, many climate change experts were concerned that the Kyoto Protocol could expire in 2012 with no secondary legally binding accord on limiting global emissions in place. This fear, however, was somewhat assuaged as the nearly two hundred countries present at the COP-17 approved an extension of the protocol through 2017 and potentially 2020. A decision was also reached at the meeting to draft a successor accord to the Kyoto Protocol by 2015, which would ultimately come into force in 2020. Delegates also envisioned that the new accord would include greenhouse gas emissions targets for all countries, regardless of their level of economic development. This framework notably contrasts with that of the Kyoto Protocol, which primarily focuses on reducing emissions emanating from developed countries.
Despite these and other marked successes during the COP-17, the perceived lack of leadership by central players in the climate change debate—especially the United States—has elicited increasing concern about the long term prospects of the global climate change regime. Additionally, Canada’s December 2011 decision to withdraw from the Kyoto Protocol—based on domestic economic concerns as well as its view that the world’s top greenhouse gas emitters have refused to ratify the accord—has generated concerns that the Kyoto Protocol itself may be in danger of collapse. Both of these concerns and many other issues will likely be a part of the agenda for the COP-18, scheduled for November 2012 in Qatar.
To continue reading this CFR report on The Global Climate Change Regime click on the following link: http://www.cfr.org/climate-change/global-climate-change-regime/p21831