zookap wrote:www.dni.gov/nic/PDF_2025/2025_Global_Governance.pdf - proof of plans for world governemt
p. 13 wrote:Global governance does not equate
to world government, which would be
virtually impossible for the foreseeable future,
go to http://www.unesco.org
and look for the policy paper by Ignacy Sachs called "The Next 40 Years: Transition Strategies to the Virtuous Green Path: North/South/East/Global” - proof of incremental plans for world government via the green movement,written 20 years ago.
The relevant paper
. I didn't particularly care for how it was written, but I also didn't see any "proof of incremental plans for world government". Could you please point out the paragraphs which support your case?
zookap wrote:http://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/75469 - proof the green agenda is being used to strip me of my rights, which as I said is how I define noose for this argument
First off, CNS News lol. Sorry, had to get that out of my system. Which rights are you being stripped of when manufacturers are told to meet certain energy efficiency standards? The right to buy inefficient machines isn't anywhere in the US Constitution or the UDHR that I could find.
Edit: ooh, I forgot one. I'm...not sure you watched that video. I'm actually not sure you've viewed any of the sources you provided, but this one in particular stands out because Bill Gates is saying we can reduce population growth
by 10-15% by improved health care and vaccines. That's not mass death or depopulation; in fact, he's not advocating a decrease in the population at all
. He's saying we need to reduce the rate of growth, which is simply having less kids. In the video he mentions that one of the four factors - people, services, energy and CO2 per unit energy - needs to go to near zero. Clearly that cannot be people. I don't have the full speech at hand, but I'd bet the non-edited version of that video would show him advocating getting CO2 per unit energy right down to zero, which is kind of not at all what you're accusing him of.
Well I guess it is technically true that "global governance" does not directly translate to "global government," that's basically just splitting hairs isn't it? As for the second source I am not sure you even read it if nothing you saw rang a bell about what I am saying. Here are just a few of the things this paper has to say in advocacy of "a virtuous green world."
"Theoretically the transition could be made shorter by measure of redistribution of assets and income. But historical evidence points to the complexity of such solutions not speaking to their political viability. The pragmatic prospect is one of transition extending itself over several decades"
Sachs says "ecological sustainability" could be enhanced by, among other things "defining rules for adequate environmental protection, designing the institutional machinery and choosing the mix of economic, legal and administrative instruments necessary for the implementation of environmental policy"
"The operational question is how do we proceed to put mankind on the virtuous green path of genuine stability, social responsibility and in harmony with nature. It is submitted that UNCED 92 should give consideral attention to the formulation oftransitional strategies
that could become the central piece of the Agenda 21. These strategies should be designed to take into account four premises that are spelled out below"
I am sure you have heard of agenda 21, right? Included in the "four premises" was:
"The retooling of industries, even in periods of rapid growth, requires ten to twenty years. The reconstruction and expansion of infrastructures requires several decades and this is a crucially important sector from the point of view of environment."
Hang on a second. Reconstruction of infrastructures? Retooling of industries? The premises continue:
"In order to stabilize the populations of the south by means other than wars or epidemics, mere campaigning for birth control and distributing of contraceptives has proved fairly inefficient. Population policies (wait WHAT KIND of policies?!) are not a substitute for development policies but part of a development package. To be really efficient, while keeping with the democratic methods of enforcement, population policy requires a set of [word is not readable] measures who's affects are slow to come"
"That is why an accelerated programme of social and economic development of rural areas should be the outmost priority in the first phase of a realistic population stabilization scheme. Even on the most optimistic assumptions, the effects of such a crash programme cannot be felt before many years"
"Considerations of the efficiency of transition strategies on a worldwide scale imposes on Northern countries the obligation of coping with the major share of the globally required funds. This means that they should, first of all, adopt a concrete set of measures setting the industrialized countries on the transition path. At the same time they must be prepared for a massive net transfer of resources to the south and to the east"
"The solutions can vary in terms of their boldness and take the form of global, multilateral, or bilateral arrangements. Their detailed explanation goes beyond the scope of this paper. They should pursue the following goals:"
Among the goals are "ensuring at least partially the automacity of financial transfers by some form of fiscal mechanisms, be it a small income tax or an array of indirect taxes on goods and services whose production and consumption has significant environmental impacts."
"Whatever the verdict of the scientists about the relative contributions of carbon dioxide and of the methane to the greenhouse effect, the transitional strategy must start by curbing the oil consuption of 500 million cars almost entirely concentrated in the North"
"Teaching curriculs should be changed to include a propredeutic notion of ecodevelopement in all faculties and departments....."
".... The universities should take very seriously to the task of redefining school programs at all the levels"
I have picked through less than half the paper and selected less that half of what I thought was relevant so again, If you saw absolutely nothing I was talking about in this paper, I think you didn't actually read it.
As for the third source, you can lol at whatever you want but are you saying that was a lie? Also you seem to forget that the constitution says "government can ONLY DO THIS" not "citizens can ONLY DO THIS." Just because a right as specific as "the right to buy inefficient machines" isn't in the constitution obviously doesn't mean we don't have that right. However just because a certain power of government is not granted by the constitution DOES mean the government is not granted that power. According to your logic on this, since the right buy fatty chocolate is not in the constitution, It must not be one of my rights.
While, true, Gate's does not directly talking about killing, what do YOU think he is saying when he proposes vaccines as a method of preventing a billion births?
If this thread is supposed to be based on the assumption that AGW is real, an assumption I don't hold anywhere else, I think it is fair that for a few minutes you should assume that both of our worst fears are true. Since I really believe that mine are, this would be a good way for you to try and see it from my point of view. If all that stuff being pinned on the green movement is true, would you still follow it? Not following it does not mean doing nothing about AGW it simply means doing something else (and no, I don't know what.)