It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Copenhagen did not fail. The structure is now in place

page: 1
8
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 20 2009 @ 05:55 AM
link   
Due to this being called an "Accord", it means the US Senate will not vote on this treaty. In fact, no body has been told what it declared - with immediate effect - what is about to be created.

Copenhagen Accord



9. To this end, a High Level Panel will be established under the guidance of and
accountable to the Conference of the Parties to study the contribution of the potential sources of revenue, including alternative sources of finance, towards meeting this goal.


The executive branch of the global governence, mentioned in the original treaty, is now in place.



10. We decide that the Copenhagen Green Climate Fund shall be established as an operating entity of the financial mechanism of the Convention to support projects, programme, policies and other activities in developing countries related to mitigation including REDD-plus, adaptation, capacity building, technology development and transfer.


The financial branch of the governance. Now in place. Rumoured the IMF will provide assistance to the Copenhagen Green Climate Fund. Will dictate to developing countries.



11. In order to enhance action on development and transfer of technology we decide to establish a Technology Mechanism to accelerate technology development and transfer in support of action on adaptation and mitigation that will be guided by a country-driven approach and be based on national circumstances and priorities.


This is the real bureaucracy. Will be a operational link between the executive and financial branch of the global government.

All, of which, will be under the control of the United Nations Climate Change Committee.

Copenhagen did not fail.




posted on Dec, 20 2009 @ 06:41 AM
link   
your not wrong my friend, lets just hope people wake up and fast to this before its too late.

Peace



posted on Dec, 20 2009 @ 06:48 AM
link   
reply to post by tempest501
 


The fact, this is an "Accord" - like the G8 policies - means no legislative branch needs to ratify it. Three new international institutions, very significant, and oversight of £100 billion's - but no one will ratify it.

The UN wants a full treaty mid-2010, but the United States recommends a series of Accords. Again, this means no US President has to fear the Senate.



posted on Dec, 20 2009 @ 07:07 AM
link   
It really is a joke that more people dont see whats going on, over her in the UK Gordon Brown as good as said were flat earthers for questioning there data (which we now know is rigged). Then to top it all there just using it to move towards and unquestionable world government.

I hate to say it but I think there gonna get what they want too, I cant see anyway out of it =C

Guess we just have to keep trying to blow the whistle in the hope that the sheeple will actually start to care about the world they live in.

Peace



posted on Dec, 20 2009 @ 07:40 AM
link   
reply to post by tempest501
 


Alas, we have passed the point of no return.
It is evidently clear the "Accord" route blocks all attempts for democratic ratification. A President or Prime Minister can merely sign the document.



posted on Dec, 20 2009 @ 07:56 AM
link   
The main issue I am not understanding with peoples replies to this post is, The President can try to do what ever he wants, I spose, but the power of congress is money. The president can not (or isnt suppose too) give out cash on his own accord, only congress is able to do that.



posted on Dec, 20 2009 @ 08:17 AM
link   
reply to post by Thumb
 


It will be characterised under foreign aid. Under International Law, the US has an obligation - so Congress cannot block it



posted on Dec, 20 2009 @ 09:12 AM
link   
It will be? Or it is? If it is, please provide link to the written text. I understand there is a lot of hype of international law vs. the Constitution, but currently its only hype, and congress does have the power of the purse and can add and or strip funding as they please. Until an action takes place it is just rumors.



posted on Dec, 20 2009 @ 09:18 AM
link   
Here is to hoping you are absolutely incorrect. What a grand deception to think they got us coming and going huh.



posted on Dec, 20 2009 @ 10:15 AM
link   
You do realize that if the NWO is real there isn't a freaking thing you can do about it right?
'waking up' and talking about it on ATS doesn't solve anything.
'they' run everything. you run nothing.
NOTHING you can do.

Might as well not worry about it.

just my 2cents

-j



posted on Dec, 21 2009 @ 03:36 AM
link   
reply to post by '___'omino
 


A very very dark day indeed. Its going to get much worse everyone will see. '___' why are you so passive? Have you ever had to fight for anything in your life besides another hit of '___'? Why would you give up so easily... you my friend are the worst kind of sheeple... the kind that will go where they are told without questioning your handlers at all. SAD SAD indeed.



posted on Dec, 21 2009 @ 03:47 AM
link   

Originally posted by '___'omino
You do realize that if the NWO is real there isn't a freaking thing you can do about it right?
'waking up' and talking about it on ATS doesn't solve anything.
'they' run everything. you run nothing.
NOTHING you can do.

Might as well not worry about it.

just my 2cents

-j



What exactly do THEY run?

What power do they have, that is not GIVEN to them by the people?

Who enforces their Will?


What power does a sword have, over the hand that wields it?

*THEY* have no power at all.

-Edrick



posted on Dec, 21 2009 @ 04:33 AM
link   

Originally posted by infinite
Due to this being called an "Accord", it means the US Senate will not vote on this treaty. In fact, no body has been told what it declared - with immediate effect - what is about to be created.

I question this and would like to see a source.
"with immediate effect" -Stipulation 12 states, "We call for an assessment of the implementation of this Accord to be completed by 2015" that's not immediate.
Also, "High Level Panel" coincides with "High level segment" at the top left of page 1. I'm assuming this is a particular group comprised mostly of Annex 1 nations. I don't know though.


The executive branch of the global governence, mentioned in the original treaty, is now in place.
How is it executive when it is accountable to COP and how is it the executive branch of "global governance" when it is simply a panel of the COP which is simply an annual meeting for the UNFCCC?





10. We decide that the Copenhagen Green Climate Fund shall be established as an operating entity of the financial mechanism of the Convention to support projects, programme, policies and other activities in developing countries related to mitigation including REDD-plus, adaptation, capacity building, technology development and transfer.


The financial branch of the governance. Now in place. Rumoured the IMF will provide assistance to the Copenhagen Green Climate Fund. Will dictate to developing countries.

"Rumored" It says "support" not "dictate" although I'm skeptical with you.





11. In order to enhance action on development and transfer of technology we decide to establish a Technology Mechanism to accelerate technology development and transfer in support of action on adaptation and mitigation that will be guided by a country-driven approach and be based on national circumstances and priorities.


This is the real bureaucracy. Will be a operational link between the executive and financial branch of the global government.

All, of which, will be under the control of the United Nations Climate Change Committee.
It seems a little too clandestine for them to birth a new global governmental body within a dysfunctional committee of the UN. I agree though that 'technology mechanism' is an ambiguous name for something.

The main issue is whether your position on this being an Accord is correct.


[edit on 21-12-2009 by Moonsouljah]



posted on Dec, 21 2009 @ 05:08 AM
link   
reply to post by Moonsouljah
 


This is all in accordance with the UNCCC Treaty - which has been covered on ATS.

Did you even bother to read through this thread. I'm having to correct basic mistakes..



Have agreed on this Copenhagen Accord which is operational immediately.


(Taken from source)

Please read the link
It clearly states the Accord is operational immediately.



Stipulation 12 states, "We call for an assessment of the implementation of this Accord to be completed by 2015" that's not immediate.


By 2015, an assessment will be carried out on the implementation of the accord and its success - in relation to the main UNCCC Treaty. Not the accord itself by 2015 (a review). The UN will be reviewing the accord next year and adding to it.

Again, please read the document properly instead of trying to pick holes


And you honestly questioning the US Senate not voting on this? Tell me, how many G8 accords have the United States voted on? None. Why? None of them are treaties.

In future, please read through the links provided and understand the language.

[edit on 21-12-2009 by infinite]



posted on Dec, 21 2009 @ 06:50 AM
link   
reply to post by Thumb
 
The president can not (or isnt suppose too) give out cash on his own accord, only congress is able to do that.
_____________________________________________________________

Which is why everything from here on out will be done by "bailout", not "appropiated funds" which requires congressional oversight committees and total disclosure to the CBO! What the senate and congress and realize is that they are cutting their own throats. It won't be long until Obama, or whoever is occupying the oval office will find a way around the constitution via all those treaty "accords". Our politicians are just that stupid and can't see it coming. Think about it, if Obama gets everything he wants via a global treaty from now on, why does he need a congress or a senate?

Neither will have any authority to write and pass anymore laws, for we will be governed by "global" treaties, thus dissolving our sovereignty, and abolishing our constitution.



posted on Dec, 21 2009 @ 07:02 AM
link   
reply to post by infinite
 

1. What UNFCCC Treaty are you referring to? Link?
2. Yes I did read through the thread. I found it to be lacking in balanced analysis.
3. What source is that taken from?
4. I think the "financial mechanism" is the Global Environment Facility GEF which frighteningly is independent.
5. "The European Union said the accord -- weaker than a legally binding treaty and weaker even than the 'political' deal many had foreseen." Here's a LINK to my source:
www.reuters.com...
6.
not legally biding
7.Shouldn't pages 5 and 6 be filled with Country names?
8.'Currently, international agreements are executed by executive agreement rather than treaties at a rate of 10:1. Despite the relative ease of executive agreements, the President still often chooses to pursue the formal treaty process over an executive agreement in order to gain congressional support on matters that require the Congress to pass implementing legislation or appropriate funds, and those agreements that impose long-term, complex legal obligations on the U.S."
en.wikipedia.org...
9. Clearly the language in this accord is vague and unclear so don't get on my case when I attempt to curb your notion that Copenhagen was a success.

I don't like this either. If I'm right about GEF being the "financial mechanism" in which they set up a new fund. It could surely raise some red flags. They're independent yet were spawned from not the IMF but the WB and now retain a WB governorship. It looks like they basically extort SDRs from G5s annually. Pretty red flaggish.


www.gefweb.org...



posted on Dec, 21 2009 @ 07:18 AM
link   
The British government wants the original UNCCC edited, I'm not joking, to reduce the number of nations taking part in future conferences. Currently, all 192 UN members take part in the discussions - the British want it reduce.

Due to a few African nations and the majority of Latin America, demanding more finance from the developed world, Gordon Brown now wants them out of future UNCCC events.

Now, that is terrifying.



posted on Dec, 21 2009 @ 07:40 AM
link   
Seems to me liek they are going to try and do what they did with the EU.

First they set it up and put the framework in place, then they gradually give it more and more power until it gets to the stage where it has the power to run the world.

i know that no one here wanted into the EU but they forced it on us....

Peace



posted on Dec, 21 2009 @ 07:51 AM
link   
reply to post by tempest501
 

articles have been saying that by getting the ball rolling and some money appropriated now they can aim to formalize next year in Mexico.



posted on Dec, 21 2009 @ 08:11 AM
link   
reply to post by Moonsouljah
 


It will be similar to the European Union.
From now until Mexico, expect all African and Latin American nations - who demanded more money - to be effectively bullied.

That's why the finance is very small, developing nations will only get $100 billion if they co-operate with us.



new topics

top topics



 
8
<<   2 >>

log in

join