In the 1992 UN’s Rio de Janeiro conference on climate, a political policy and movement unfounded by measurements was adopted requiring the largest transfer of wealth from ‘haves’ to ‘have nots’ in a scheme to control people at a global scale.  Maurice Strong was a primary advocate, subsequently making the statement:

“Isn’t the only hope for the planet that the industrialized civilizations collapse? Isn’t it our responsibility to bring about?”

From this movement came the failed European concept of cap and trade.  There are many reasons for the failure, but essentially it doesn’t work and increases energy costs.  The public is beginning to understand why.

In a November 4, 2009 speech at a Washington Times briefing, Václav Klaus – President, Czech Republic, decried this philosophy with:

… We should not deceive ourselves. Cap-and-trade scheme is a government intervention par excellence, not a “market solution.” How much “to cap” is the decision of the government (and the European failure several years ago – when too many carbon permits were issued – is I hope well known here). The size of the cap defines the price of carbon and this price is nothing else than a tax imposed upon citizens of the country.  I agree with Lord Monckton that the cap-and-trade bill “is the largest tax increase ever to be inflicted on a population in the history of the world.”¹ How is it possible that such arguments are not used? Why does nobody argue that to tax energy means that the costs of anti-global warming policy will disproportionally fall onto the poor people? …

Luckily the upcoming December 2009 Copenhagen meeting on climate change is expected to fail² with a delay in treaty agreements for at least a year.

¹ Interview with Lord Monckton, EIR, June 12, 2009, p. 47.

² http://blogs.ft.com/energy-source/2009/11/06/copenhagen-delays-failure-to-sign-a-treaty-might-not-be-so-disastrous/