Special Report: The Kyoto Protocol Agenda

Special Report: The Kyoto Protocol Agenda
Vol: 65 Issue: 28 Wednesday, February 28, 2007

The Kyoto Protocol is an agreement that arose from the United Nations Framework on Climate Change. The agreement was negotiated in December, 1998, but did not come into force until it had been ratified 55% of the UN member-states. That benchmark was met when the Russians signed on in late 2004.

As of December 2006, the agreement had been ratified by, (according to Wikipedia) “a total of 169 countries and other governmental entities.”

The United States is among a handful of nations who have refused to sign on to the agreement. US participation Kyoto Protocol is the primary objective of Al Gore’s global warming campaign.

One of the main objections to ratifying Kyoto, from the US perspective, is the fact that Kyoto would require the United States to cut its emissions by 5.2% from 1990 levels.

But that 5.2% figure is misleading. When calculated against the emissions levels increases that were forecast in 1990 for 2010, the emissions reductions are more like 29% — a virtual impossibility.

And while the US would be held to the 29% reduction in emissions, the world’s two most populous countries — China and India — are EXEMPTED by Kyoto from any emissions restrictions whatever.

By ratifying the agreement, not only would the United States have to cut its own emissions, it would also be required to PAY China and India for not cutting theirs.

Kyoto would also subject the United States to the practice of ’emissions trading’. Here’s how THAT would work:

Suppose a major American company was unable to meet its Kyoto-mandated emissions caps. That company would have to BUY “Emission Credits” from a third party who has surplus emissions credits.

On a national level, individual nations will also purchase excess ‘Emissions Credits” from Kyoto signatory nations who have surpluses. In other words, the US would be forced to ‘buy’ emissions credits from non-industrialized nations with a surplus of credits — like, for example, Saudi Arabia.

Or Russia, which is also expected to have surplus credits, which explains why Russia, China and India embraced the plan so whole-heartedly. For them, it is a cash cow.

And the whole scheme would be supervised and administered by the United Nations who would set up a ‘trust fund’ (like the Oil-For-Food Trust) that would ensure fairness.

The UN would set up an “Enforcement Branch” with the authority to determine whether or not a country is in compliance. If that country, say, for example, the United States, was unable to meet its emissions reduction caps, that country would be required to buy the difference plus pay an additional 30% penalty.

And, the UN will also be empowered to suspend a country from participating in the emissions credit trading program altogether, if the UN determines it is not making a satisfactory effort.

In essence, it means the UN could simply shut down national industries until that country’s emissions fell into line with Kyoto restrictions.

Canada’s Liberal government ratified Kyoto in 2002, and made a big deal out of the fact that the Republicans were blocking the US from following suit. (In point of fact, the Senate refused to ratify Kyoto 95-0)

In 2006, the newly-elected Conservative government in Canada announced there was “no chance” Canada could meet the targets set by Kyoto.

Great Britain has also announced it can’t meet the emissions standards in time. So has Germany, who announced it would have to exempt its coal industry if it were to meet its emissions targets.

Amazingly, it has been calculated that all of the cuts demanded by Kyoto for the industrialized world will not balance out against the projected increases in greenhouse gas emissions by India and China, the world’s two largest emerging economies — both of which are exempt from any restrictions whatever.

In other words, even with the restrictions imposed by Kyoto on (primarily) Western countries, Kyoto will not reduce greenhouse gas emissions. It will just make them more expensive.

However, what it WILL do is give the United Nations the authority to impose global emissions taxes, dictate economic policy to member states, and grant the United Nations enforcement powers that will supersede the sovereignty of the nations involved.

Here is how it would work in America, for example. Under Kyoto, the US Congress, US Senate and the White House will be subordinate to the United Nations on matters involving the environment.

In 1997, even before Kyoto was finalized, the United States Senate passed Senate Resolution 98, the “Byrd-Hagel Bill” that prohibited the Clinton White House from signing on to Kyoto by a margin of 95-0.

But in 1998, over the objections of a unanimous US Senate, then-Vice President Al Gore signed the protocol on behalf of the Clinton administration, claiming his signature was merely ‘symbolic’.

However symbolic, Gore’s signature as Vice President makes the United States a legal signatory to the agreement, whether ratified or not.


Anybody with the logic skills necessary to read a road map and plan the shortest route can read the Kyoto Treaty and logically deduce that Kyoto leads straight to the ultimate loss of US sovereignty over its own economy.

The ability to impose taxes is also an implicit form of “tribute” — extended as a recognition of the taxing authority’s sovereign power over those being taxed.

It is a symbol of submission to that sovereign power, which is why “tribute” has been exacted by every conqueror over every conquered people in the history of mankind. Islam demands a ‘dhimmi’ tax as a recognition of Islamic sovereignty, for example.

It is also a mechanism of control. Historically, conquerors would often impose taxes as part of a program to quiet domestic unrest, “taxing them into submission,” so to speak. Once the authority to impose taxes is accepted, the power is irrevocable.

Americans accepted the imposition of a “temporary income tax” to finance the First World War. It wasn’t Constitutional then, and there is considerable doubt about whether it is Constitutional now.

But since 1913, the only question Americans have been allowed to ask the taxman is “how much?”

The power to tax is absolute power. If the government wants to advance an unpopular policy agenda, it can threaten to raise taxes or cut entitlements to pay for it, and the opposition just fades away. Suggesting a threat to Social Security is an instant blank check.

Take a look at Al Gore’s global warming campaign, and in particular, its supporters. The first thing one notices is that they all share the same liberal/socialist world view.

Liberals are so defined because at the core of their philosophy is that more government can fix any problem. That is why the Democrats oppose the tax cuts.

Socialists believe it is the responsibility of government to share the wealth equally between the rich and the poor. That is why they join the liberals in opposing tax cuts.

Both share the belief that the most enlightened among us should make the hard decisions for the rest of us. This elitist view is what was responsible for the creation of the United Nations in the first place.

It was born out of the liberal/socialist belief that an unelected body answerable only to itself would be able to make supra-national (and therefore, in theory, impartial) decisions to settle national differences without those nations having to resort to war.

Al Gore is an admitted liberal, a confirmed socialist, and an unabashed elitist. His signature on the Kyoto Treaty was an elitist act, in defiance of the unanimous Senate, predicated by his sincere belief that he knew what was best for the country. The essence of elitism.

His “global warming” campaign is as transparently hypocritical as it is elitist. Al Gore’s global warming campaign claims to be aimed at reducing energy emissions by demanding new energy conservation legislation.

But Al Gore’s house burns TWENTY TIMES the annual energy consumed an average American family. According to his energy bills, Al Gore used as much energy last August in his private residence as the average American family would use in TWO YEARS!

Hypocritical? Surely. Elitist? Absolutely. While elitists believe only they know what is best for the rest of us, they give themselves an exemption. The most famous example would be Barbra Striesand, whose air-conditioned barn stands in stark contrast to her suggestion that the rest of America hang their clothes out to dry on clotheslines to save energy.

The antichrist is an elitist. (I am not saying Al Gore is the antichrist – but I am sure I will be accused of it).

The antichrist is depicted by Scripture as riding to power on an elitist platform. Daniel 9:27 suggests he rises to power on the crest of a wave of relief following his seeming solution to the Arab-Israeli conflict.

2nd Thessalonians 2:7 tells us his platform is based on a strong delusion and the public’s willingness to embrace a lie.

The antichrist achieves the ultimate goal of every elitist; universal acclaim for his ‘sacrificial willingness’ to make the ‘hard decisions’ for the rest of us. “. . . and they worshipped the beast, saying, Who is like unto the beast? who is able to make war with him?” (Revelation 13:4)

Now, as I said, I’m not saying Al Gore is the antichrist. He isn’t — but he’d probably like to be.

What makes this relevant is the adulation being accorded him by the liberal/socialist elites of America for what amounts to efforts to sell out US sovereignty to the UN. Based on what the majority of climatologists call a ‘theory’ and many others call a ‘fabrication’.

Already, there are cadres of useful idiots lining up to defend Al Gore’s personal energy consumption excesses as a ‘smear job’ — as if the fact the champion of global warming uses 20 times as much as an average American family was completely irrelevant.

The Apostle Paul warned: “This know also, that in the last days perilous times shall come.” (2nd Timothy 3:1)

Then Paul spent the next four verses describing Al Gore and his supporters.

This entry was posted in Briefings by Pete Garcia. Bookmark the permalink.

About Pete Garcia

Christian, father, husband, veteran, pilot, and sinner saved by grace. I am a firm believer in, and follower of Jesus Christ. I am Pre-Trib, Dispensational, and Non-Denominational (but I lean Southern Baptist).

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s