Richard Black Longs For The UN To Override Nations’ Sovereignty For His Cause

Since Robin Horbury hasn’t gotten around to posting about this, I’ll bring it up. Richard Black recently expressed his dismay that an individual country can block UN resolutions regarding climate change. Specifically, he’s worried about yet another failed Warmist Synod outcome from the upcoming Rio Summit in June.Of course, being a cleverly-trained writer, he presents this as a question and not an outright statement.

In a nutshell: does the way humanity governs itself need a series of tweaks or a complete overhaul, in order to meet the broadest ambitions of improving the lot of the planet’s poorest, safeguarding nature and making the global economy more sustainable?

And people wonder why some of us say that Warmists have totalitarian tendencies. All your national sovereignty are belong to us.

To support this idea, Black brings up a recent study by the Earth System Governance Project. Cute name, no? A One-World Government by any other name….

Now, I’m a fan of science fiction, especially Star Trek, and am not automatically opposed to the idea, in the abstract, of a single united government for a planet. I grew up with my imagination filled by the likes of the United Federation of Planets. Nearly every single plant our heroes visited each week was ruled by a single government, and those which didn’t had conflict which needed to be solved by the benevolent guiding hand. Even planets at war with each other had single governments which simply needed to be brought together. It would be lovely if it were reality. But what these people want isn’t an abstract idea at all. And our world is nothing like these harmonious fantasies.

Rather, the Earth System Government Project, Black informs us, has spent a decade pondering whether or not we need a single government entity for the entire planet. He mentions how long they’ve been at it because that’s supposed to tell us they’re really serious about it, and whatever result they’ve come to can have resulted only from very long and serious study. So he sets it up as an appeal to authority straight away, to head off any doubts before they happen.

Before I get to the study, though, let’s take a moment to see if there’s any coincidence that he just happens to be talking about this issue now. But of course there is. Next week, he’ll be moderating a panel – “Innovative solutions for a planet under pressure” – at the “Planet Under Pressure” conference in London. Remember the word “innovative” for later. I do hope he’s not getting paid to promote this political agenda. Have a look at the speaker/panelist list, and notice a couple of names from the ESGP’s steering committee, as well as one of their lead faculty members. It’s a small world in this field, I know.

To show how serious they are, they’ve come up with a seven-point plan. Five of them are the usual stuff, using typical language we’ve come to expect, albeit slightly gilded for effect: reform the UN’s environmental agencies (I can think of other agencies they should do first), “deploy innovative technologies”,  “support developing countries to ensure fairness” (that’s wealth redistribution when it’s at home), “reflect sustainability concerns” and so on. But Nos. 5 and 6 should give us all pause:

5. introduce qualified majority voting when making international decisions on environment and sustainability

6. strengthen the voices of citizens as opposed to bureaucrats in global decision-making

And there you have it. Let the majority override national sovereignty on desired issues, and give activists more power to control the agenda. Black then lays it out for us.

Some of these are already being addressed in the Rio process, especially the first two; although their CSD proposal contains the innovative element of adjusting the weight given to each country’s representation so that the G20 grouping accounts for 50% of the votes.

Note the positive qualifier, “innovative”. Could this be one of the “innovate solutions” discussed in that panel he’ll be moderating next week? According to the website of one of the organizations behind the whole event, Earth System Science Partnership, the conference “will provide scientific leadership towards the 2012 UN conference on Sustainable Development – Rio +20.” The very conference Black talks about here. So it’s all very much on his mind these days.

This might appear undemocratic; but actually it would ensure the voting reflects the size of countries’ populations more accurately than it does now, though also skewing things towards the rich.

It might appear undemocratic, but it seriously appears to do away with national sovereignty. This seems not to trouble Black at all.

The most radical idea in procedural terms is introducing majority voting in UN fora to prevent a few recalcitrant nations from blocking the will of the vast majority.

There have been many times in the past when just one or two countries held up progress in UN processes such as the climate change convention – and the same issue is now being raised within the EU, where last week Poland on its own managed to block the setting of tougher carbon emission targets.

You don’t want other countries to force you to alter your own domestic policies? Screw you. 

On the other hand, some countries’ protests clearly matter more than others.

Guess who the big bad guy is in this story:

Whereas the 2007 UN climate summit in Bali hinged on whether the US would block the will of every other country on the planet – it eventually chose not to – the objections of Bolivia at the equivalent meeting in 2010 were basically ignored by everyone else, who decided in that case that a consensus could leave one nation out.

The horrible US – when Bush was President, naturally – ruined it for everyone back in 2007, while later on poor Bolivia had their own national sovereignty trampled upon in the name of consensus. Yet Black sees the former as a bad thing, and the latter as a good precedent.

As so often in environmental and sustainability circles, the plan contains no shortage of ideas on what should be done, and why, and by when.

The politics of how to make it all happen are a different matter.

In this case, how to get economic bodies to put Rio+20 notions at the centre of their decision-making, how to persuade governments to give up their right of veto, how to project the concerns of citizens through the blockage of bureaucracy – these aren’t in the prescription.

Black is writing this whole thing from the perspective that this is a desirable goal. His personal bias on the so-called climate change issue leads him to view national sovereignty as an obstacle which needs to be overcome. Citizens (read: activists) must be able to control the agenda.

(By the way, can anyone else think of certain other UN resolution votes which might be affected by this process? )

Here’s a thought: why not let them go out and get elected like everyone else, Richard? Or is that not the kind of democracy you’re looking for? Just like the BBC’s darling Occupiers, he defines “democracy” as shouting loud enough to get his way. This is a totalitarian agenda, being pushed by a highly-paid, high-profile, BBC journalist. At your expense.


Biased BBC contributor Alan writes….

“The Today programme interviewed Phil Bentley from British Gas and Chris Huhne the energy and climate change minister this morning.

Prices are rising and the Today programme wants to know why. The government also wants to know why.

‘David Cameron calls for action to cut energy bills.  The government needs to work “harder and faster” to bring down energy bills, the prime minister has said ahead of a summit on gas and electricity prices.’

Throughout the interview the ‘inconvenient fact’ of ‘why’ is skirted around with euphemisms and wilful blindness.The prices are rising so dramatically because of government green policies….that is to pay for all the massive subsidies to build wind farms and to handsomely reward wealthy farmers and landowners to allow these unwanted intrusions in the landscape onto their land.

Naughtie uses every phrase he can dream up to avoid using ‘carbon tax’ or ‘green tax’….he tells us that price rises are to pay for energy from ‘different sources’ or that they are to ‘secure energy supplies’ or ‘government policy in all its forms’ will increase prices but eventually he raises the subject but only tentatively and only once and fails to chase Huhne as he sidestepped it…’a commitment to a reduction in emissions means prices will go up will it not?’.

Huhne dodges the question and claims prices are rising to secure supplies and er…to protect us from price rises… does that work? ….presumably build a windfarm and charge us the earth up front in subsidies to these energy companies and then keep charging us that rate but don’t increase prices unless ‘unusual circumstances’ dictate a rise.

Isn’t that just like the shop that raises prices just before a ‘sale’ and the sale price is actually the same price on the sticker before the ‘sale’? Why is the BBC so reluctant to mention green taxes?

Does it not want the public to know just how much of their money is being ploughed into this unproven theory and lining the pockets of already wealthy people, especially in times of economic crisis.

Does it think people might object and start looking even more closely at the realities of climate?


The BBC really are first class propagandists for AGW. Did you know that BOTH Poles are melting fast? Yes, it must be true because the BBC says it is true here  I am advised by one of our readers that this falsity has been brought to the attention of Chris Huhne who has said he is “powerless” to do anything about it. Perhaps that is because he is himself a swivel-eyed advocate of the global warming gospel?


Interesting story here.

ABC News apologises for running a story claiming that melting ice is making Mount Everest dangerous. But can you guess where ABC got the idea that this was true? Yes – the BBC! ABC has retracted the story. acknowledging it has no factual basis. The BBC remains mute. Lucky all that bias Mark Thompson now confirms lies in the past.


Monday morning and the sun is shining outside. Time for the BBC to broadcast what struck me as a very odd item on how trust in the IPCC can be “rebuilt”. Let’s leave aside the obvious point that a significant number of people never had any trust in this body in the first instance and focus instead on how the BBC framed this debate. On the one hand we have Professor Martin Parry who sees no problems with the IPCC in the first place and on the same hand we have Professor Mick Hulme who sees the issue as being all about political will to implement the consequences of IPCC conclusions. (The validity of these must not be questioned, evidently) The BBC also choses to focus on the howling Himalyan glaciers error as IF that was the only mistake this body has ever made! What is entirely missing from this debate is the challenging voice of dispute as to the scientific credibility of the IPCC and I dare say the BBC will keep it that way.


Even as the Eurozone threatens to fall apart and member states go essentially bankrupt, the EU has much more important matters to be concentraing on – I refer to adopting EVEN stricter targets for carbon emission! Chris Huhne was on Today this morning insisting that AGW is the single biggest threat to mankind and that the EU must proceed, unilaterally, to an increase in the EU emissions reduction target from 20 to 30 per cent by 2020.” He was given a VERY easy ride by Justin Webb and was allowed to spout the usual eco-wacko nonsense without any challenge. Naturally there was no voice on to oppose this EU madness. I suspect Huhne will be member of the Coalition government that the BBC will go easy on – his swivel-eyed advocacy of the Green agenda virtually ensures that.


Only on the BBC! In a simpering item on Obama’s new National Security Policy (circa 6.15am) I double checked when I heard the BBC commentators approvingly agree that “global warming” was a cause of international terrorism. The “sophisticated” approach of Obama and his repudiation of the Bush doctrine obviously rings the BBC bell.


C.I.N.O. Tim Yeo was given an interruption free outing on Today this morning 7.12am as he was allowed to waffle on about the EU Carbon emission trading scam. Yeo reckons the price of carbon is just too low to make this scheme work effectively and he was given free rein to pontificate on this scam. No tough questions for Yeo! It would have been nice had the BBC chosen to ask Yeo about the corruption that distinguishes this Carbon Trading system but then again I suppose that would require balance, something which is forbidden by the BBC.


My, who would have guessed that striking parallels between the BBC’s coverage of the global warming debate and the activities of its pension fund are revealed today.

The corporation is under investigation after being inundated with complaints that its editorial coverage of climate change is biased in favour of those who say it is a man-made phenomenon. The £8billion pension fund is likely to come under close scrutiny over its commitment to promote a low-carbon economy while struggling to reverse an estimated £2billion deficit. 

Concerns are growing that BBC journalists and their bosses regard disputed scientific theory that climate change is caused by mankind as “mainstream” while huge sums of employees’ money is invested in companies whose success depends on the theory being widely accepted. The fund, which has 58,744 members, accounts for about £8 of the £142.50 licence fee and the proportion looks likely to rise while programme budgets may have to be cut to help reduce the deficit. The BBC is the only media organisation in Britain whose pension fund is a member of the Institutional Investors Group on Climate Change, which has more than 50 members across Europe. Its chairman is Peter Dunscombe, also the BBC’s Head of Pensions Investment.

I think B-BBC has done a cracking job in recent months nailing BBC bias in this regard and I wanted to thank all those fellow writers and contributors who collectively have done such a great job in this regard! 


A B-BBC reader advises…

Did you see Marr on SundBlockquoteay, with Maureen lipman (Labour Supporter) and Tristam Hunt (Ex Labour Headquarters and prospective Labour candidate) reviewing the papers AND how quickly they glossed over Peter Wat’s new book! Tristram also had a go about climate change, funny his dad is a warmist ex-head of the met office.