US in secret cyberwarfare talks with Russia and the UN

The potential for online warfare has become a hot topic after a string of major incidents in recent years.

Russia and US in secret talks to fight net crime

guardian.co.uk | Dec 13, 2009

by Daniel Nasaw in Washington and Bobbie Johnson in San Francisco

American officials have been holding secret talks with Russia and the United Nations in an attempt to strengthen internet security and rein in the growing threat of cyberwarfare.

The effort, first reported in the New York Times, is a virtual version of the nuclear arms talks being held between the two nations in Geneva – but rather than focusing on bombs and missiles, the discussions are aimed at curbing the increasing level of attacks taking place online.

With a rising tide of strikes by hackers on major institutions – including banks, businesses, government agencies and the military – diplomats are attempting to forge an international consensus on how to deal with cybersecurity problems.

“Both sides are making positive noises,” James Lewis, a senior fellow at the centre for strategic and international studies and a cyber security expert, told the Guardian. “We’ve never seen that before.”

Related

Government wants new powers to block wikileaks and squeeze web tv

The potential for online warfare has become a hot topic in recent years, after a string of major incidents. Large-scale cyberattacks took place during last year’s conflict between Russia and Georgia while the Estonian government came grinding to a halt after an internet assault in 2007.

Critics have said the scale and impact of such incidents may be overstated, but experts accept there are serious dangers from criminal gangs operating online – as well as the rapid growth of state-sponsored espionage conducted over the internet.

Earlier this year, some of the plans for a new £2bn fighter aircraft being developed by the US, UK, Netherlands and Israel were stolen when hackers broke into American computers. Two years ago, it was revealed that hackers thought to be linked to the Chinese People’s Liberation Army had breached computer security systems at the Pentagon and Whitehall.

The latest discussions are thought to be an attempt to broker some sort of cross-border agreement over a number of issues related to internet security. Russia is said to be seeking a disarmament treaty for cyberspace, while the US hopes to use the talks to foster greater international cooperation on cybercrime.

Lewis confirmed that a Russian delegation met with officials from the US military, state department and security agencies in Washington about five weeks ago. Two weeks later, the White House agreed to meet representatives from the UN committee on disarmament and international security, the New York Times reported.

There are numerous sticking points however, not least the fact both the US and Russia – as well as most advanced militaries around the world – have sophisticated cyber warfare capabilities they are reluctant to document. Although the dangers of virtual conflicts are recognised, neither country is keen to hinder any future deployment by revealing the technologies they have developed, Lewis said.

Despite that, the talks mark a distinct turnaround from the approach of the Bush administration, which had resisted engaging with Russia and the UN over the prospect of a treaty on cyber weapons. Instead, it focused on dealing with cyber threats by economic and commercial means, rather than through the military.

Earlier this year, however, President Barack Obama identified cyber attacks as a “national security priority” and pledged to appoint a top-level White House adviser to co-ordinate responses..

“Cyberspace is real, and so is the risk that comes with it,” he said in May. “From now on, our digital infrastructure will be treated as a strategic asset.”

However, the post remains unfilled six months after the announcement., with disagreement inside the administration over how to coordinate the appropriate level of response. While some presidential advisers want the White House to take oversight of the issue, other top Obama aides prefer to let the commercial market handle cybersecurity. The US military and intelligence officials, meanwhile, prefer to pursue their own security programmes without direction from the White House.

Many American experts are more concerned with the financial threat of cybercrime and internet-based fraud, particularly since international enforcement efforts have been weakened by an inability to track and arrest the hackers responsible, many of whom are based in Russia and China.

Online crime is now a multibillion pound business worldwide, with criminal gangs across the globe conducting sophisticated cyber attacks to steal money from banks and disrupt commercial websites.

Last year, hackers broke into the Royal Bank of Scotland, using information gathered from to create cloned bank cards that were then used to withdraw more than £5m from cash machines in dozens of cities.

This August, an American man, Albert Gonzalez, pled guilty to his role in an attack that netted millions when an international hacking ring – largely based in Russia and the Ukraine – stole 130 million credit and debit card numbers from some of America’s biggest retailers.

Despite knowing the identities of several individuals linked to Gonzalez, however, the lack of international cooperation means that the other culprits remain beyond the reach of US prosecutors.

Copenhagen: China pushing Population Control as the Final Solution

LifeSiteNews.com | Dec 11, 2009

By Hilary White

COPENHAGEN, December 11, 2009 (LifeSiteNews.com) – Population control has emerged as a key issue for “climate change” talks in Copenhagen, after the issue was brought forward by Chinese delegates. Zhao Baige, vice-minister of National Population and Family Planning Commission of China (NPFPC) said, “Population and climate change are intertwined, but the population issue has remained a blind spot when countries discuss ways to mitigate climate change and slow down global warming.”

“Dealing with climate change is not simply an issue of CO2 emission reduction but a comprehensive challenge involving political, economic, social, cultural and ecological issues, and the population concern fits right into the picture.”

The Chinese newspaper China Daily quotes Zhao saying that China’s population program has made a great historic contribution to the well-being of society. China has reduced the number of births by 400 million since instituting its one-child “family planning” policies, and this has resulted in 18 million fewer tons of CO2 emissions per year, Zhao continued.

Although she declined to mention China’s laws forcing women into abortion and sterilization, Zhao did acknowledge that her country faces what some have called a looming demographic crisis because of the policy, with an aging population, a reduced work force and a severe nationwide gender imbalance from sex-selective abortion.

“I’m not saying that what we have done is 100 percent right, but I’m sure we are going in the right direction and now 1.3 billion people have benefited,” she said.

Todd Stern, the US Special Envoy to the conference told journalists yesterday that China is the world’s largest emitter of CO2, calling the data “frightening.”

“By 2020, China will be a 60% bigger emitter than the US; by 2030, it will be 80% bigger. The inescapable conclusion: major developing economies must be brought into an international framework that obligates them to curb emissions,” Stern said.

The conference is proceeding despite the recent revelations that some leading climate scientists may have falsified or withheld scientific information to inflate the data on “global warming.” Information was released on the internet by unidentified hackers in November that appeared to show that researchers at the Climatic Research Unit of the University of East Anglia, one of the world’s key sources of the climate change theories, had sought to prevent dissenting scientific papers from being published and deleted e-mails and raw data that would have refuted the global warming theory.

After the internet world was immediately filled with stories and theories on what quickly became dubbed “Climategate,” the University of East Anglia announced it would conduct an independent review of the matter.

The 15th Session of United Nations Climate Change Conference of Parties runs from December 7 to 18.

Australia may foot huge climate change bill for China

Courier Mail | Dec 13, 2009

by Glenn Milne

AUSTRALIA faces having to make a hefty payout to help developing countries such as China and India cope with climate change in order to clinch a deal in Copenhagen.

Despite Australia facing a domestic Budget deficit of about $50 billion for the coming year, Climate Change Minister Penny Wong told The Sunday Mail from Copenhagen that Australia would have to contribute to so-called climate “abatement” funds if India and China were to come into the climate-change tent.

“There are a range of figures flying around,” Senator Wong said. “(British Prime Minister) Gordon Brown has proposed a $100 billion mix of public and private money. We have not indicated a figure but we have indicated we’re prepared to do our fair share.”

But new Opposition finance spokesman Barnaby Joyce immediately attacked the proposal.

“Essentially this Copenhagen plan means we borrow money from places like China to pay them to help them develop. I don’t think they need our help. They’re doing a very good job on their own.”

Prime Minister Kevin Rudd has previously backed a separate $US10 billion climate fund in talks with US President Barack Obama and Mr Brown.

Reports from Copenhagen say industrialised countries favour a target of 50 per cent reduction of global carbon emissions by 2020 (compared with 1990 levels), but major emerging economies led by China have baulked at any such target unless it is made clear that rich countries will assume most of the burden.

“Catastrophic Global Warming”, Ecological Brainwashing and World Government

Global Research | Dec 10, 2009

by Olga Chetverikova

After an annual meeting of the Bilderberg Club in May 2009, the establishment of the global management system of institutions seemed to have been given a boost, repeating the plots of American apocalypitc blockbusters.

As soon as the financial top had opted for a lingering crisis, global managers were instructed to work in two major ways: first, to invent a myth about the danger of swine flu pandemic (in order to take control of the national healthcare systems and reorganize the World Health Organization (WHO) into a global healthcare ministry) and impose a threat of global warming to gain control of world natural resources and introduce a unified ‘green’ tax (alongside with creation of a new sub-national managing body- an international ministry of ecology).

Both tasks aim to intimidate the population and thus substantiate any policies undertaken by international organziations. Chairman of the Board of Governors ‘British Petroluem’, Peter Suterlan, once frankly admitted that he would like to impose fear of global warming in order to increase taxes and make people revise their lifestyle.

The implementation of the first scenario suggested by the Bilderberg Club is currently underway.

After the WHO announced the A/H1N1 pandemic on July 11, 2009, a real hysteria was launched in mass media worldwide, and people were told to get prepared for the pandemic in November and undergo vaccination (in 2005 the WHO added an amendment to its Charter which says that duirng a pandemic the organization does not recommend but gives instructions and orders, and the number of vaccines should be no less than 4.6 billion). The operation reached its peak when in late September Barack Obama signed a decree to impose ‘a flu pandemic sanitary emergency’, which means that the citizens could be vaccinated against their will and kept in special quarantine zones. Amid panic, Americans and West Europeans were involved in mass immunization, which unveiled that the pandemic had been paid in order to let pharmaceutical companies thrive on it, and also as a weapon against ‘unwanted’ population (and now we all know what a swine flu vaccine is). It was also used as a so-called ‘innovative’ mechanism of handling political processes- which was so actively used in Ukraine. In view of this, the WHO gained extra powers and strengthened its status.

Now we are witnessing another show titled “The UN Copenhagen climate change conference”, currently held in the Danish capital (it will run through December 18) and aiming to work out a document to limit global emissions and replace the Kyoto Protocol which expires in 2012. Thirty thousand participants, including 60 heads of states and prime mnisters, have arrived there on December,7.

The EU, being one of the major organizers of the summit, had elected its first President, who was immediately described in the media as a creature of the Bilderberg club: on November, 15, a few days before his appointment, Herman Van Rompuy met with the club`s top managers at Val Duchesse castle outside Brussels, where he spoke about the need to revise the mechanism of the EU`s financing and suggested a unified ‘green’ tax which would go directly to Brussels. The fact that the issue was covered in the media proves that members of the Bilderberg Club are no longer going to conceal that they are the real bosses in Europe.

Such confidence annoyed some of the European Parliament members. One of them, an Italian Mario Borghezio, said: “All three candidates (for the role of the EU president) often attended meeting at the Bilderberg club, and I think that they should explain whether they are honest candidates representing their native country or just members of secret groups which had been organized to discuss pressing social and other kinds of issues”. Another MP, an Englishman Nigel Farage criticized Rompuy`s appointment and called him a ‘puppet-leader’ in the hands of Barroso. He even dared to say that the EU is an authoritarian dictatorship ruled by bureaucracy which is not elected by anybody. Commenting on the Lisbon Treaty, Farage told the delegates: “It took you 8,5 years of intimidation, lying and disrespect towards democratic referendums to lobby this deal!”

Immediately after his appointment as the EU President, Van Rompuy (known in Europe as ‘master of compromising’) assured his patrons that he perfectly understood all the tasks he was facing. Speaking at a press-conference, Herman Van Rompuy said that 2009 has become the ‘first year of global management’ (he meant the G20), while the Climate Summit in Copenhagen is a next step in this direction’.

The Danish government carried out a reshuffle and appointed Lykke Friis, pro-dean at the Copenhagen University, as Climate Minister to replace Connie Hedegaard, a member of the Bilderberg Club. The latter swapped her title to First Commissioner on the EU Climate, which was introduced in October 2009 especially in order to control the reduction of CO2 emissions by 20% by the year 2020. Hedegaard is a member of numerous committees and organizations, including the Danish Atlantic Treaty Association led by Robert Gunther.

What goals are being pursued in Copenhagen this time?

Lord Christopher Monckton, former adviser to Margaret Thatcher, explained: “When I read this treaty I see that the authors are talking about the establishment of ‘one world Marxist government’. 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, ‘climate debt’ – because we’ve been burning CO2 and they haven’t. We’ve been screwing up the climate and they haven’t. And the third purpose of this new entity, this government, is enforcement,” Monckton warned. He then noted that the new treaty would be supported by most of the third world countries ‘as they think they will receive money for it’. And the US President will sign it without expecting two thirds of the Senate and the Congress to ratify it.

And the ‘world government’, which would be empowered to interfere in other countries` economic and ecological policies, and the ‘enforcement’- these all are just mechanisms to ‘transfer resources’ which actually means reforming economies of the non-western countries with the use of progressive technologies in order to gain control these resources within that level of consumption permitted in the West that would guarantee a drop in the planet`s population.

It is no secret that the 1992 UN Framework Convention on Climate Change was adopted after the idea of global warming resulting from anthropogenic factors had been promoted among scientists. In 1997 the Kyoto Protocol was prtensented as an international agreement linked to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change. The Protocol sets binding targets for 37 industrialized countries and the European community for reducing greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions .These amount to an average of five per cent against 1990 levels over the five-year period 2008-2012. The US, being the world`s biggest emitter of greenhouse gases, has not ratified the Protocol. The EU (now comprising the Baltic States and the countries of Eastern Europe) took the burden of the responsibility to reduce greenhouse gas emissions by 8%, Japan and Canada- by 6%. The Protocol limits emission in Russia and Ukraine to a percentage increase or decrease from their 1990 levels. The developing countries, including China and India were not included in numerical limitation of the Kyoto Protocol.

However, the implementation of the Kyoto deal failed to help in resolving environmental problems but added a new commodity to the international market: quota on GHG. It turned into a pure speculation and let the financial capital grasp onto a vital energy sector in the developing countries. Due to their imperfect industrial policies, the developed states could not succeed in modernization and GHG reducing. That is why they found another means to fulfill their obligations: a developed state helps a developing one to reduce emissions and then counts the limited tons of GHG as if those were reduce on its territory. Very soon hundreds of companies and foundations joined this ‘green’ quota games hoping to thrive on it. In the long run, the international environmental market received the strongest expansion ever, and it originally there were only three purchasers: the World Bank, the governments of the Netherlands and Japan, now their number has increased sharply, and professional speculators now make up to 40% of the participants in hydrocarbon exchanges.

Having accepted the conditions, Russia later faced an ambiguous situation: the country has large stocks of free greenhouse gases but this is because in 1990s its industry was in severe crisis, and all emissions then even fell below 30%.

The international community plans to introduce new emission quotas to restrict industrial development and impose western environmental standards that require implementation of very costly projects (and these expenses will never be compensated by the sums earned on ‘green’ quotas trading). And taking into consideration that climate in Russia requires constant expenditures on energy, the country will hardly be able to restore its industrial power.

A group of developed nations have prepared a brand new document especially for the Copenhagen summit. The document says that the divison into developed and developing nations has long become outdated, while today all the states should be obliged to cut GHG emissions and provide assisstance to the poorest countries. The treaty is expected to be legally binding as well so that the states approved new rules at the governmental level. But the differences between the participants were so great that they only managed to agree on a road map plan without discussing the figures.

However, high promises of financial and investment assisstance proved to be more effective than legal mechanisms, and ahead of the summit the leading developing nations followed in the West`s footsteps and pledged GHG emissions cuts by 2020. The EU announced a 20% reduction from the 1990 level, while the US said it will reduce its emissions by 17% from the 2005 level (in accordance with a draft law approved by the House of Representatives). India claimed it wil reduce 20-25%, whiel South Korea and China announced the figures of 30% and 40-45% respectively.

Russian WWF, Greenpeace and Ecoprotection activists said ‘Russia should play the leading role at the talks. We can and should remain at the 1990 level of 30%. And then we shoud proceed with further reduction”. At the Russa-EU summit in November, Dmitry Medvedev said the country would try to reduce its GHG emissions up to 25% by 2020, and added that by 2050 Russia will be ready to cut emission by no less than 50% in comparison to the 1990 level.

This kind of unanimity hides the real differences between the participants of the summit and the gravity of environmental problems and adds fuel to the fire caused by the idea of ‘catastrophic global warming’. Recently, the Prince of Wales Charles has delivered a report in which he said that ‘nations have less than 100 months to act to save the planet from irreversible damage due to climate change.

Global management does everything to hide the real state of affairs. It ignores information and scientific research from alternative sources, especially if the threat of global warming and its anthropogenic factors are being argued (mind the recent leakage of e-mails from the University of East Anglia`s Climatic Research, the so-called ‘climate gate’).

In the past 20 years a powerful system of ecological ‘brainwashing’ has been created which serves the participants in ‘green’ business who can thus control the Earth`s natural resources. But in their attempts to keep the world`s population deluded, global speculators and their servants among politicians have long surpassed reasonable limits.

I remember an old Russian proverb: the devil is scary when you cannot see him but when you do he makes you laugh.

Climate treaty endangers U.S.

Cape Cod Times | Dec 8, 2009

By PATRICIA STEBBINS

Hanging over our free­dom and sovereignty is a document called the“United Nations Climate ChangeTreaty.”

So what, you may say?

Here’s what.The plan is to have signatories from all countries –Third World, radical leftist nations, and us. Unless we forbid President Obama to sign up America, we’ll be caught in this awful net.

Here’s what it says: 1. Create a world government with power over every nation signing; 2.Transfer wealth from the West to theThird World; 3. Enforce these measures.

Now let’s explore what these measures mean to us.

The first one creates a social­ist world government, some­thing our president appears to advocate.The wording provides the U.N. with power over our country, over our Constitution.

Yes, this world government will have power over our govern­ment, imposing its will on our energy use, resources and jobs.

Can you live with that?

The second will force Ameri­can taxpayers to support and subsidizeThird World nations – unstable countries, with no economies nor the capacity to rule themselves without dicta­tors.

In effect, this is redistribution of wealth, reducing the U.S. to Third World status and impov­erishing our citizens. If you think the economy and unem­ployment are bad now, just wait until this treaty goes into effect – IF we allow our president to sign it!

The third goal of the treaty is the most ominous. Stated in the document is the proviso that once a nation has signed, it may not cancel its membership without the approval of all the other member nations. Let that sink in. No future president, no elected Congress or Senate can vote to take us out of the agreement. And why would they agree to let us out – we will be the biggest cash cow they’ve ever had!

Recently, theTimes printed an ominous article, quoting agencies of the U.N. and other governmental entities, includ­ing alarming statistics about the impending doom of the alleged global warming. Coincidentally, all these groups are dedicated to a one-world government control­ling all energy and economies.

Full Story

Climategate: Barack Obama’s rule by EPA decree is a coup d’etat against Congress, made in Britain

Telegraph | Dec 8, 2009

By Gerald Warner

Who needs tanks on the lawn when you have the Environmental Protection Agency? Barack Obama’s use of the EPA to pressurise the Senate to pass his climate change Nuremberg Decrees shows his dictatorial mentality. He wants to override Congress, which is hostile to his climate gobbledegook because it is representative of the American electorate, and sideline the nation’s elected Senators by ruling by decree, courtesy of the EPA. This is a coup d’état.

And what is the justification for this undemocratic action? The allegedly imminent threat from “Anthropogenic Global Warming”. There is always a supposed threat, when tyrants take the stage. The President of the United States has just reduced his moral authority to the level of any Third World dictator heading a “Government of National Emergency”. Fortunately, the world’s leading democracy, which he is trying to subvert, has guarantees of liberty so deeply embedded in its Constitution that US citizens are well placed to fight back.

In the first place, regulation can be challenged in a way that laws cannot. So the EPA’s proposed ruling on so-called “Greenhouse Gases” can be opposed extensively with litigation, to the point that the ruling might not yet be in force when Obama demits office. In the second place, the EPA is funded by Congress. So, if the Agency is being used to bypass or neuter Congress, why should legislators not play hardball and retaliate by cutting off its funding? The EPA may look formidable, but its situation is rather as if Rommel were buying the fuel for his tanks from the Allies.

But what is of compelling interest on this side of the pond is the way in which the bullets to shoot down American democracy were made in Britain. The trail is not hard to follow. When the EPA published its “Endangerment Finding” on greenhouse gases and proposed rule, back in April, almost every paragraph of the text (Federal Register, April 24, 2009, pp 18886-18910) cited as authority the IPCC’s 2007 Report, which the Agency acknowledges it “relies on most heavily”. And whence came the main input on climate change to that report?

Yes, that’s right! You’ve got it: from Phil Jones, Michael Mann and the rest of the lads at the CRU, East Anglia. From the innovative, creative “scientists” who wanted to “beat the crap” out of a climate change sceptic; who “just completed Mike’s Nature trick”; who “can’t account for the lack of warming at the moment and it is a travesty that we can’t”; who deleted e-mails in the interests of science; who tried to prevent publication of dissenters’ views; who coined the historic phrase “hide the decline”.

Those jokers are the main authority for the extravagant claims in the IPCC report and, by extension, for the EPA’s “Endangerment Finding”. That is the authority that is being invoked to overturn the principles of 1776 in the United States. The Protocols of the Elders of Norwich are the justification for EPA tyranny. It is with that weighty evidence at his back that Barack Obama is going to Copenhagen to sell out American taxpayers to Third World subsidy junkies, profiteering “green” corporations and the ever entrepreneurial Al Gore. This is the steal of the millennium: forget the Great Train Robbery and the Brinks Mat caper – these hoodlums are targeting $45 trillion.

Obama hates America and, increasingly, that sentiment is being reciprocated. This is a socialist, World Government putsch. Have the American people the resolution to resist it? We shall soon know.

Clinton hopes for French troops in Afghanistan

AFP | Dec 4, 2009

WASHINGTON — US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton on Friday voiced cautious hope that France would come up with more troops in Afghanistan as part of the new US-led strategy.

Clinton, who was in Brussels for a meeting of NATO foreign ministers, said the transatlantic military alliance’s chief, Anders Fogh Rasmussen, had hinted that France may be weighing additional support for Afghanistan.

“I don’t know that, other than to look at the strong verbal support that the French have given us,” Clinton said in an interview from Brussels with US public television network PBS.

“They do have significant numbers there now, but we hope that they will come forward.”

France has 3,300 troops in Afghanistan and has welcomed the new US strategy on Afghanistan. But Foreign Minister Bernard Kouchner has said there was no need to adjust France’s troop levels.

President Barack Obama laid out a plan Tuesday to send 30,000 more US troops to Afghanistan but also to start pulling out forces in 2011.

Washington called on European allies and partners fighting alongside US troops in Afghanistan to find 5,000 to 7,000 soldiers to swell their ranks.

Copenhagen Climate Conference to Create ‘Huge’ Carbon Footprint

Commuters at Copenhagen’s Central Railway Station walk under a banner urging Danes to be more climate-conscious.

AP | Dec 3, 2009

By Joshua Rhett Miller

Talk about your global warming . . . When an estimated 16,500 delegates, activists and reporters descend upon Copenhagen Monday for the United Nations Climate Change Conference, a lot of hot air will follow.

The U.N. estimates the 12-day conference will create 40,584 tons of carbon dioxide equivalents, roughly the same amount as the carbon emissions of Morocco in 2006.

Those greenhouse gas emissions are comprised of two parts: international travel and local emissions from hotels and transportation venues. Organizers will also reportedly lay 900 kilometers of computer cable and 50,000 square miles of carpet, along with more than 200,000 meals to be served and 200,000 cups of coffee.

The conference will leave an enormous carbon footprint, says Patrick Michaels, senior fellow for environmental studies at the Cato Institute, a libertarian think tank in Washington.

“It will be huge,” Michaels said of the environmental toll. “Where is video conferencing when we need it? An equally important question is what will be accomplished here?”

Approximately 140 aircraft carrying world leaders, heads of state and VIPs will land in Copenhagen, the U.N. estimates — although 95 percent of departures from Copenhagen Airport will be “green departures,” which allow airplanes to climb continuously to their optimal operating level, enabling them to reach planned routes sooner than usual. The result, according to the U.N., is saved time, fuel and carbon emissions.

But Michaels wonders why attendees, particularly those in Europe, can’t ride the rails into Copenhagen.

“That’s the way I get to New York,” Michaels said. “There’s nothing new here. There’s always been a lot of hypocrisy amongst the climate change political community.

“Prince Charles goes around the world in a private jet, telling everyone else they need to ration their carbon dioxide. Please.”

Herb London, president of the Hudson Institute, a Washington-based think tank, acknowledged the “level of hypocrisy” regarding the conference and its emissions, but he said living in modernity mandates some sort of measurable carbon footprint. The question, he said, is if the carbon footprint left behind is desirable and efficient.

“It is ironic that you’ll have all these pronouncements made and very little action,” London told FoxNews.com. “What are [China and India] going to do? So what are we talking about here?”

To minimize the conference’s carbon footprint, the U.N. says the main venue, The Bella Center, aims to reach a 20 percent reduction in carbon dioxide emissions. To reach that goal, delegates have been urged to use public transportation to the site, to drink water from the tap instead of plastic bottles, and to minimize paper waste. Hotel owners have been asked to offer rooms that have been certified as environment-friendly.

Despite those efforts, Michaels said he expects little if any firm proposals to come out of the conference, which aims to produce a new treaty to replace the Kyoto Protocol, which expires in 2012.

“It will not produce a concrete agreement on climate change, meaning a universally-accepted international agreement with targets and timetables,” Michaels said. “It will, however, produce a statement that there’s been a breakthrough even though there will not have been.”

President Obama will travel to the Danish capital on Dec. 9 to offer his goal of cutting emissions 17 percent by 2020, in line with a bill passed by the House in June and slightly less than a 20-percent decrease proposed in the Senate.

“The president going to Copenhagen will give positive momentum to the negotiations,” Michael Froman, Obama’s deputy national security adviser for international economies, told reporters last month. “We think it will enhance prospects for success.”

Joined by up to seven cabinet members, Obama will also propose reducing emissions by 83 percent by 2050 and a 30 percent reduction in 2005 levels by 2025. China and India have said industrialized countries like the United States — the biggest greenhouse gas producer among developed nations — must be willing to slash carbon output 40 percent by 2020 from 1990 levels if it expects poorer economies to agree to long-term goals.

‘Copenhagen Summit : On The Road To the Dark Age’

mindanaoexaminer.com | Dec 4, 2009

By Erick San Juan

Makati City, Philipines – THIS COMING WEEK, December 7-18, 2009 in Copenhagen , Denmark, the United Nations Climate Change Conference (COP 15) the successor to the Kyoto Protocol and will be attended by 20,000 delegates from 193 nations, approximately 65 heads of government (including the Philippine President).

Amidst the climategate scandal of e-mails that hackers have revealed in the e-mail communications of “scientists” of the Climate Research Unit (CRU) of East Anglia University in Great Britain , the summit will go ahead as scheduled.

In October this year, President Gloria M. Arroyo signed into law Philippine Climate Change Act of 2009 that would enable the country to better respond to disasters spawned by climate change. This law which is also known as R.A. 9729, seeks to influence climate change policy into the formulation of government agenda by setting up a National Framework Strategy and Program on Climate Change along with the creation of the Climate Change Commission that will coordinate, monitor and evaluate the government’s programs and actions to mitigate and adapt to the effects of climate change.

Like other countries riding the bandwagon of climate change, it seems that the globalists are succeeding in their effort for world governance in which depopulation is the centerpiece. Why do we say this? The following quotes from the movers of the global warming scare, will give light as to why we are caught riding the bandwagon on the road to the dark age.

The global warming alarm was initiated at the United Nations in the 1980s.The “original” goal was to use it to achieve global governance and fund it through a global carbon tax.

In 1991, Maurice Strong, a key developer of global warming scare and one of the original members of the Club of Rome came out with the report – “The First Global Revolution”, which stated : “It would seem that humans need a common motivation…either a real one or else one invented for the purpose….In searching for a new enemy to unite us, we came up with the idea that pollution, the threat of global warming, water shortages, famine and the like would fit the bill. All these dangers are caused by human intervention, and it is only through changed attitudes and behavior that they can be overcome. The real enemy then, is humanity itself.”

In that same report – “The First Global Revolution”, the concept of global governance was promoted which asserted that current problems “are essentially global and cannot be solved through individual country initiatives [which] gives a greatly enhanced importance to the United Nations and other international systems.”

Also, way back in 1974, Maurice Strong gave a speech at a college in Canada at which he said: “The ethic of abundant resources must give way to the ethics of scarcity and conservation” … “Economic growth is not the cure, it is the disease” He also said: “Frankly, we may get to the point where the only way of saving the world will be for industrial civilization to collapse.”

“The world has cancer and the cancer is man.” – quote from A. Gregg as the opening to Chapter 1 of the “Second Report to the Club of Rome – Mankind at the Turning Point”, 1974.

Finally, “I hope [the Club of Rome] will continue for many years to come to spell out the unpalatable facts and to unsettle the conscience of the smug and apathetic.” – Prince Philip in his message to the Delegates, 20th Anniversary Conference of the Club of Rome (in “The First Global Revolution”). Prince Phillip has also made the statement: “In the event that I am reincarnated, I would like to return as a deadly virus, in order to contribute something to solve overpopulation.” in the foreword to Fleur Cowles’ “If I Were an Animal” 1987.

It is now clear that the forerunners of the global warming myth mentioned above singled out humanity as the culprit and that economic growth through industrialization should take the backseat as climate change will transform into a weapon of mass taxation, as one writer put it.

To elaborate further our point here, the Chairman of the Optimum Population Trust (OPT) of the London School of Economics said, “It’s always been obvious that total emissions depend on the number of emitters as well as their individual emissions – the carbon tonnage can’t shoot down as we want, while the population keeps shooting up.” In other words, the cheapest way to combat climate change is through family planning method of contraception. This was also featured as the main problem – the population, in
Al Gore’s video, An Inconvenient Truth, which is now being lambasted as a film of very convenient lies based on questionable data.

Six months before the Copenhagen summit, World Business Summit on Climate Change (WBSCC) was held and already came out with key decisions for the December meeting. It was attended by prominent world business leaders including Al Gore and UN Secretary General Ban Ki Moon. The report by the WBSCC has been given to all the Copenhagen summit participants which is actually, has nothing to do about protecting the environment. Then what is the real agenda of this global sham?

“The Copenhagen Summit not only serves powerful corporate interests, which have a stake in the global multibillion dollar carbon trading scheme. It also serves to divert public attention from the devastation resulting from the “real crisis” underlying the process of economic globalization and a profit driven war without borders, which the Pentagon calls “the long war”. (Michel Chossudovsky)

The multibillion dollar carbon trading scheme of the world’s financial oligarchs is the real agenda of this climate change fiasco. The large financial conglomerates, involved in derivative trade, including JP Morgan Chase, Bank of America, Merrill Lynch, Barclay’s, Citibank, Nomura, Société Générale, Morgan Stanley and Goldman Sachs are actively involved in carbon trading.(FACTBOX: Investment banks in carbon trading | Reuters, 14 September 2009)

A report from The Guardian also support this article, “the carbon market could become double the size of the vast oil market, according to the new breed of City players who trade greenhouse gas emissions through the EU’s emissions trading scheme… The speed of that growth will depend on whether the Copenhagen summit gives a go-ahead for a low-carbon economy. But Ager says whatever happens, schemes such as the ETS will expand around the globe.”

It is very real that this Copenhagen summit will lead us back to the dark age, where the tools of economic growth will be wiped out in the name of falsehood and greediness of the chosen few, who will feed on the unwilling victims’ fear of the ‘unknown’ – the “climate change”. As panic grips humanity, no one will notice the global governance of the few as they lead us to that new world (dis)order. God forbid!

Erick San Juan: culdesac0002@yahoo.com.ph

Building Blocks Towards an Asia-Pacific Union

NAU Resistance | Nov 30, 2009

By Dana Gabriel

Although some may have viewed President Barack Obama’s recent Asian trip as uneventful and perhaps unsuccessful, he appears to have recommitted to the principles of globalization as the answer to the world’s economic woes. Obama declared his intentions for the U.S. to be fully engaged in Asia economically, politically, and in areas of security. He announced that America would join negotiations for a Trans-Pacific deal. This could be used as an opportunity for the U.S. to reassert its leadership in regards to trade initiatives and might also serve as a stepping stone for a larger free trade agreement.

The recent Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation (APEC) Summit was held in Singapore and marked its 20th anniversary. It brought together world leaders, foreign, finance and trade ministers, along with other delegates from its 21 member nations. APEC was founded to promote greater trade and integration in the region, but its scope has expanded to include environmental, climate change, energy, as well as other issues. In a Statement by APEC Leaders, they agreed to a new growth paradigm for the Asia-Pacific region, endorsed the goals of the G20 Framework and rejected protectionism. The Leaders, “launched a pathfinder initiative led by Australia, Canada, Japan, Korea, New Zealand, Singapore, and the United States to practice self-certification of origin so that businesses can better take advantage of free trade agreements in the region.” This is in an effort to cut costs for exporters and further boost trade. APEC Leaders also agreed to, “continue to explore building blocks towards a possible Free Trade Area of the Asia-Pacific in the future.”

While on his eight-day Asian tour, which included stops in Japan, Singapore, China, as well as South Korea, President Obama recommitted to the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP). It was President George W. Bush who first pledged U.S. participation in the TPP. The trade deal was put on hold pending a review of U.S. trade policy. A government fact sheet describes the TPP as a, “potential platform for economic integration across the Asia Pacific region. The United States will engage with an initial group of seven like-minded countries, Singapore, Chile, New Zealand, Brunei, Australia, Peru, and Vietnam, to craft a platform for a high-standard, comprehensive agreement – one that reflects U.S. priorities and values – with these and additional Asia-Pacific partners.” Australia will host TPP negotiation sessions in March of next year and a trade treaty could be in place by 2011. Many nations in the region are already bound by various regional and bilateral trade agreements. Expanding the TPP would further distinguish it as the only regional free trade agreement that spans both sides of the Pacific, linking Asia with the Americas. It could also gradually evolve into an Asia-Pacific free trade zone and include APEC members, as well as other nations. Such an undertaking is seen as years away, but U.S. participation in the TPP could speed up such plans.

The United States Trade Representative website reported that after the APEC Summit, “USTR staff and their TPP country counterparts met to discuss work that would need to be done to develop proposals to fill gaps in previous trade agreements and to shape a 21st century trade agreement. These discussions will inform consultations with Congress and with stakeholders about how best to move forward on TPP.” In his article above referenced, Jim Capo noted that, “For the US to undertake negotiations for a trade agreement Congress has first to grant approval to start specific negotiations, and has also to grant Trade Promotion Authority to enable the Executive to conclude the negotiations and put an agreement to Congress with a yes or no vote, without amendments.” He goes on to say that, “There has been no formal Congress approval of TPPA negotiation, President Bush’s Trade Promotion Authority has also expired in March 2007. This means the current US administration has no approval to start negotiation and no authority to conclude them.”

Ahead of the APEC Summit, Australian Prime Minister Kevin Rudd proposed an Asia-Pacific Community by 2020. The regional group would be based on the European Union-style model. It would go beyond APEC and encompass not only economic, but political and security issues. In October of this year, Republican Senator Richard Lugar announced his intentions to introduce legislation aimed at negotiating a free trade agreement with the Association of South East Asian Nations (ASEAN). The first ASEAN-U.S. Leaders meeting was held in Singapore on November 15. In a Joint Statement the U.S., “welcomed ASEAN’s plans to achieve an ASEAN Community by 2015 based on the ASEAN Charter, and reaffirmed its commitment to support those plans.” ASEAN and the U.S. also agreed to hold a second Leaders meeting in 2010.

On his Asian trip, Obama emphasized the need to strengthen old alliances as well as build new partnerships in the region. He said, “the growth of multilateral organizations can advance the security and prosperity of the region.” He also added, “As an Asia-Pacific nation the United States expects to be involved in the discussions that shape the future of this region and to participate fully in appropriate organizations as they are established and evolve.” In his article above referenced, Jim Capo noted that, “The Trans-Pacific Partnership Agreement is the sister agreement to the Trans-Atlantic Agenda. Together with NAFTA and the North American Leaders Summit (new name for the discredited SPP), these deals are building blocks for an integrated system of global governance managed by Western financial interests and their collaborators around the world.”

Dana Gabriel is an activist and independent researcher. He writes about trade, globalization, sovereignty, as well as other issues.

Contact:beyourownleader@hotmail.com
Visit his blog site at: beyourownleader.blogspot.com