A Brief Analysis of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC)

Seeing as how the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) is referenced multiple times throughout the various Connecticut climate change documents, I felt the need to take the time out and read the original treaty, from 1992, myself.  Having read several United Nations documents in the past, I pretty much knew what I was in for; there is a global problem that cannot be fixed by any one nation therefore all nations need to come together, come up with a comprehensive global plan, go back home, and implement it.  Instead of offering a comprehensive analysis as I have done with other United Nations documents, I will just present a few quotes from the document with my brief opinion.

The first part of the UNFCCC that should be noted is their definition of climate change.

“Climate change” means a change of climate which is attributed directly or indirectly to human activity that alters the composition of the global atmosphere and which is in addition to natural climate variability observed over comparable time periods." [emphasis added]

By defining "climate change" as something that may or may not be caused by human activity they are able to avoid the debate over whether climate change is caused by humans when putting forth ideas in fighting climate change.  It may seem ridiculous to take action on a problem that you are unsure is even a problem but that is exactly what the UNFCCC proposes:

"The Parties should take precautionary measures to anticipate, prevent or minimize the causes of climate change and mitigate its adverse effects. Where there are threats of serious or irreversible damage, lack of full scientific certainty should not be used as a reason for postponing such measures, taking into account that policies and measures to deal with climate change should be cost-effective so as to ensure global benefits at the lowest possible cost." [emphasis added]

Therefore, even when the science is not clear on an issue, it is recommended that governments take action anyway.  A similar view would eventually go on to be used in the Connecticut climate change documents.  In part 1 of a series titled "The Problems with Connecticut Climate Change Policy" the inconclusiveness of man made climate change is discussed and can be found being presented in state documents.  Quite similarly, in Part 2 of the same series, the inaccuracy of the data being used by the state to propagate climate change policy is also revealed and discussed.

There are other sections of the UNFCCC that have come to pass in the state such as the idea to create "inventories of anthropogenic emissions".  Developing an inventory of greenhouse gas emissions would eventually become the first step taken by Connecticut as recommended in the 2001 Regional Climate Change Action Plan.

Another principle of the UNFCCC that would go on to be adopted by the state of Connecticut is the plan to reduce greenhouse gas emission (GHG) to a level that equals the GHG emission of the previous decades.  From the UNFCCC document:

"These policies and measures will demonstrate that developed countries are taking the lead in modifying longer-term trends in anthropogenic emissions consistent with the objective of the Convention, recognizing that the return by the end of the present decade to earlier levels of anthropogenic emissions of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases not controlled by the Montreal Protocol would contribute to such modification" 

Quite similarly, the state, in 2014, announced that "Connecticut has met its initial GHG emission reduction goal of returning to 1990 levels by 2010".

Important to mention is that the UNFCCC recommends referring to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) for "objective scientific and technical advice".  The IPCC operates under the auspices of the United Nations, and has come under heavy scrutiny in the past, as there have been many documented errors with information put out by the organization.  The IPCC is cited several times throughout the Connecticut climate change papers .

Also important to mention is that the UNFCCC was presented at the 1992 Earth Summit in Rio, the same Earth Summit that brought us United Nations Agenda 21, a much larger and detailed global plan designed to fight climate change.  Agenda 21 is relevant because, being 300 plus pages, it gives a more detailed explanation of how the articles of the UNFCCC, a much smaller document, will be carried out.  The entire Agenda 21 plan revolves around the concept of sustainable development and Article 3, Principle 4 of the UNFCCC says "The Parties have a right to, and should, promote sustainable development."  (To get a better understanding of sustainable development and Agenda 21, it is highly recommended to any interested reader to read "A Critical Analysis of Agenda 21 - United Nations Program of Action")  Both Agenda 21 and the UNFCCC were agreed to by the President of the United States at the time, George Bush.

Finally, the UNFCCC reveals the United Nations goal of creating a "supportive and open international economic system".  This new global economic system that is being set up by the United Nations and related organizations deserves its own in depth analysis but the work of Patrick Wood, specifically his book "Technocracy Rising" has done the best work that I have come across explaining and documenting this system.

The UNFCCC is just one small piece of an enormous puzzle that we are trying to put together here at TheGoodmanChronicle.com.  Read the related work and stay tuned for more.

Related Analyses:

• A Critical Summary of the Nairobi Forward-looking Strategies for the Advancement of Women - August 22, 2014 (link)
• Children's Edition of United Nations Agenda 21: Blatant Anti-Human Propaganda - February 02, 2014 (link)
• Parents Beware: The United Nations Looking To Give Children of Connecticut Special "Rights" - December 28, 2013 (link)
• A Critical Analysis of Agenda 21 - United Nations Program of Action - November 01, 2013 (link)

The Citizens of Nazi Germany "Thought They Were Free": A Brief Review and Analysis of Milton Mayer's Classic Book

Nazi Germany, under Hitler, has become accepted, in modern times, justified or not, as the epitome of an evil, tyrannical government.  Growing up we would all hear, in America at least, about the terrible things the Nazis did to the Jews, and others.  Thank God, we all thought, or learned to think, that America came in and saved the "good people" during World War 2, or else Hitler would have taken over the world, and we would all be speaking German right now, those of us who would have survived anyway!  Older, and aware of propaganda, I now realize that wars are often atrocious on ALL sides, and usually arise off of the basis of "old men lying", and lead to "young men dying", as the old expression notes.  With that said, there does seem to have been an extreme brutality carried out by the Nazi regime, on their enemies.  The images of starving human beings in a Nazi concentration camp, or the videos of whole families being shot in a pit, ready for immediate burial, can be haunting.  One question that would always come to my mind, when hearing, or seeing, stories like this, is, what could make these people so evil, and how could a whole country full of people support a government like this?

They Thought They Were Free by Milton Mayer attempts to answer the question of how and why 'decent men' became Nazis (National Socialists).  Published in 1955, Mayer interviews ten former Nazis, in Germany, after the fall of Hitler's regime, in an attempt to understand what their mind state was before, during, and after National Socialism, and try to comprehend how they could let the evil that took place, happen. 

The ultimate conclusion seems to be that everything happened in such small steps, and with the right amount of propaganda, that nobody really seemed to notice the big change that was occurring in their society.

In the beginning, after a spark of antisemitism began to kindle in Germany, Jews began getting rounded up for their own "protection", and nobody seemed to really care, or notice.  A newspaper titled Kronenberger Zeitung, published an article dated November 11, 1938, at the bottom of page four, under a very small headline reading "Protective Custody", which stated:

"In the interest of their own security, a number of male Jews were taken into custody yesterday.  This morning they were sent away from the city."

Mayer had shown this newspaper article to each one of the ten former Nazis that he was interviewing, and not one of them recall hearing about this event, or anything like it.

This level of ignorance by the citizens, in important affairs that are taking place, in their society, is unnerving, but should not come as a surprise to anyone, at least anyone living in America.  The vast majority of Americans could not tell of specific violations of human rights that are being carried out by their own government, of which there are many.  Most Americans, I would think, do not even know that the current President of the United States, Barack Obama, has assassinated American citizens.  When you are not looking for the truth in government affairs, or of anything, for that matter, you will not find it.

It is important to note that many people became Nazis, not because they generally agreed with the principles of National Socialism, but it was a way of getting ahead in German society, to be a part of "the party".  If you were German, you didn't necessarily have to become a Nazi, but by not doing so, you accepted that you would never get promoted in your job, and lose out on other privileges.

When Mayer pressed his interviewees on why they didn't do more to stop the atrocities, they would ask, "What would you do?".  Touche.  Mayer understands the complexity of the situation, and chronicles, excellently, in the book, how it would be difficult for one person to know what was really going on, never the less do something about it.

At the time of this book's publishing (1955), the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) was a fairly new organization in America, and Mayer makes a frightening comparison:

"The Federal Bureau of Investigation, with its fantastically rapid development of a central record of an ever increasing number of Americans, law-abiding and lawless, is something new in America.  But it is very old in Germany, and it had nothing to do with National Socialism except to make it easier for the Nazi government to locate and trace the whole life-history of any and every German."

Other interesting topics discussed in They Thought They Were Free:

• Even the fire fighters became militarized, and became branches of the SA, or police departments.  They became "fire-fighting police"!
• People eventually didn't feel comfortable discussing politics in Germany.
• Overtime, Nazi Sunday-morning services began to replace the church.

There is obviously much more discussed in the actual book, and of course, at a greater depth.  The only critique I have of the book is that Mayer, at times, gives his opinion of certain things, that I do not entirely agree with.  Also, in small instances throughout the book Mayer seems to indicate that he is some sort of secret government agent, operating in Germany.  One such passage caught my attention, when referring to the ten former Nazis that he was interviewing, Mayer states:

"I did lie to all ten of them on two points: on the advice of my German colleagues and friends, I did not tell them that I was a Jew; nor did I tell them that I had access to other sources of information about them than my private conversations with them." [emphasis added]

Mayer never does elaborate on what his "other sources of information" were, which leaves this topic open for speculation.

I do not pretend to be an expert on Nazi Germany, therefore I can't get into a debate on how accurate a picture this book paints of the times, and the people.  As my knowledge of history increases, I will likely benefit from another reading of this work, understanding more of the wars, and people, mentioned throughout, though I do not think a major understanding of world history is needed to grasp the main point of this book, and highly recommend it to everyone.

A Critical Analysis of Agenda 21 - United Nations Program of Action

To some people, Agenda 21 is an evil plan for the further creation, and control, of a world government, by the non-elected bureaucrats at the United Nations. To other people, Agenda 21 is a just well-meaning, harmless, non-binding set of recommendations, created by a group of men, and women, at the United Nations, that care about the preservation of the world's environment.

Before debating the true intentions, or effects, of Agenda 21, we must first understand the details of this document.

In can be difficult, and confusing, for the average person who hears about Agenda 21, to really understand it, through a simple search.  The program is hundreds of pages, and not too many people will take the time to read all of it.  An internet search of UN Agenda 21 will lead to a lot of information, but much of it is without reference to the actual document, thus seemingly just an opinion.  I have took the time to read the document myself, and will chronicle my findings, and thoughts, here.

(It should be noted that I am not going into this examination completely ignorant of Agenda 21.  I have, in the past, written critically about events taking place in my local community, that are connected to United Nations Agenda 21.)

The full document is 351 pages, however Agenda 21 is much more complex than just what is written in this action plan, due to the fact that there are numerous other resolutions referenced, and recommended, for further implementation, such as the Healthy Cities Programme of WHO, the Convention on the Rights of the Child, and many more.  I have yet to read all of these other resolutions, conventions, and programs, but as I do, I will document, and update, my research, at TheGoodmanChronicle.com.  For now, I will just examine the text of this specific document, which can be viewed, in full, online here.

Let us start with the front cover of the hard copy version of Agenda 21 (picture below), which reads:

"EARTH SUMMIT - AGENDA 21 - THE UNITED NATIONS PROGRAMME OF ACTION FROM RIO".  

Agenda 21, Front Cover

By using the words "programme of action", the creators of this document are informing the reader that this is a plan, or program, that they intend to have performed, or put into action, and not just some ideas that they hope for people to consider.

Agenda 21 is broken up into forty chapters, divided into three sections, and nearly every part of this document revolves around the idea of creating, what they refer to as, "a new global partnership for sustainable development." (Chapter 1, Section 1).  Though the adjective "sustainable" is used numerous times, and in conjunction with various other pleasant sounding nouns, to create ideas like "sustainable livelihood" (Ch. 3, Sec. 4-a), and "sustainable city networks" (Ch. 7, Sec. 20-d), throughout Agenda 21, what is meant by "sustainable" is never really made clear, or specifically defined.

The opening preamble of Agenda 21 alludes to the idea that the term "sustainable development" means an "integration of environment and development concerns", which, according to the United Nations, will lead to "the fulfilment of basic needs, improved living standards for all, better protected and managed ecosystems and a safer, more prosperous future." (Ch. 1, Sec. 1)  This sounds nice, but again, is not specific, and could mean anything.

As the reader progresses through the document, a more sinister, controlling, agenda seems to emerge, that is ingrained in this plan, but it is masked with nice sounding phrases, and friendly language.  The United Nations claims to want to create a sort-of utopia, where the environment is clean, nobody is hungry, everyone has a home, etc., but to do this, they need to have the power to create laws, or recommendations, that effect changes in your local community.