It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

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

Thank you.


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


U.N. Climate Organization Wants Immunities Against Charges of Conflict of Interest

page: 1

log in


posted on Jun, 13 2012 @ 01:22 AM
U.N. Climate Organization Wants Immunities Against Charges of Conflict of Interest, Exceeding Mandate, Among Others

Read more:

The organization responsible for managing a global cap-and-trade system worth billions of dollars for carbon emissions projects around the world is trying to get sweeping legal immunities for its actions

I'm not going to pretend that removing any and all 'conflicts' of interest' isn't going to be difficult, especially considering the entire idea of cap-and-trade, for it involves everything.

In the wake of Rio + 20, UNFCCC also hopes to manage a mammoth Green Climate Fund, intended to help mobilize as much as $100 billion a year for projects to lower global greenhouse gases.

Ok... Am I the only one that thinks that $100 Billion a Year number is a little high? Cap-and-Trade is a joke, ok... we should all get that. But $100 Billion a year? Where could they possibly spend all that money effectively?

People need to stop allowing crazy amounts of money to be dedicated to such projects. There's no reality reflected in it, no risk management.

The CDM’s record so far, however, at doing the job it is supposed to do is is deeply unimpressive to many. A study by consultants for the European Commission last December critiqued the mechanism for “lack of transparency,” “inconsistency of decisions,” “conflicts of interest,” and extensive support for “unsustainable technology for emissions reduction.”

Says John Bolton, a former U.S. Ambassador to the U.N., frequent critic of the U.N.’s lack of accountability and transparency, and a Fox News contributor: “The creeping expansion of claims for privileges and immunities protection for U.N. activities is symptomatic of a larger problem. Before the United States acquiesces piecemeal to increased claims for immunity, Congress should comprehensively investigate this issue.”

“Only by exposing the arguments to full public scrutiny,” Bolton continued, “will we be able to develop a sensible U.S. approach.”

Wait a minute, what's going on here. I thought FOX news was part of some 'elite' machine that has goals of making everyone a slave, and keeping people as sheep. Why in the world are they reporting this. What is the motive?!?

I say...

Screw their immunity... If they want to be responsible for so much money. Then they must remove themselves from profiting off it it, through behind doors deals. The UN machine is so diverse, that I doubt this is possible to avoid. There will always be conflicts of interest, all of these people are connected, related, and owners of many of the companies that would be contracted to carry out such projects.

This whole things pointless to begin with... I mean cmon, cap-and-trade. Why is this still around?!?!
edit on 13-6-2012 by FractalChaos13242017 because: clarification

posted on Jun, 13 2012 @ 01:30 AM
The very fact that they are seeking immunity surely shows that they are full of crap and acting illegally, otherwise there would be no need for this action in the first place.

See, this is why I hate the political class so much. As soon as they start bringing in the lawyers to apply their own "interpretation" of laws and bills passing before them, you know immediately that there is a conflict or potential for litigation against them.

Shame we can't all have the same immunity from prosecution and investigation that they enjoy!

Leading by example and showing once again just what a bunch of crooks and liars they all are.

posted on Jun, 13 2012 @ 01:32 AM
Oh man, here I thought I found something good. Looks like everyone's best friend
is already all over this...

Climate Fund Seeks UN-Style Diplomatic Immunity


posted on Jun, 13 2012 @ 01:39 AM

Why in the world are they reporting this. What is the motive?!?


The Green Climate Fund (GCF), of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC), is looking for UN-style immunity that would protect its operations from any kind of legal process; including civil and criminal prosecution, in the countries where it functions.

However, this entity is not part of the United Nations.
UN’s Green Climate Fund Seeks Ambassadorial Immunity from Legal Action

The formality of creation of this “branch” of the UN has questionable origins. The GCF has its origins from a climate conference in Durban, South Africa in December of 2011. The monetary funding for the GCF is suspect, considering the economic austerity facing that nation. Its goal of $30 billion dollars in “fast start-up” money was promised by UN member states which consist of 194 countries. Twenty-four nations interim Board of Trustees will hold its first meeting in Switzerland next month. Switzerland is to be the new home of the GCF.

Ok, so they are not a part of the UN, so then... FOX news LIED?!?!

Why in the world are they reporting this. What is the motive?!?

posted on Jun, 13 2012 @ 01:42 AM
I thought I would also bring light to this part of the article

The global Elite, through their international march toward global governance are extending the reach of diplomatic immunity to its limits. With the support of the US government, GCF and the UN are gaining a stronghold that they have no right to wield. The Green Climate Fund is based on scientific data about our earth’s climate that has been proven to be fraudulent. Yet, the UN is still allowed special powers to continue their surreptitious rise to power.

If usurping control over nations one country at a time constitutes the need for diplomatic immunity than this move is strategic in nature. It is the global Elite making up rules as they go along. Misappropriating diplomacy as an excuse to commit atrocities without fear of retribution is the actual agenda.

Get em'

posted on Jun, 13 2012 @ 02:49 AM
The issues of conflicts of interests extend all through politics, the higher up the chain the greater the conflicts become. The fact that they do acknowledge the problem is a good start as it does create many personal dilemmas and wide spreading repercussions as decisions have to be made. The establishment of ethics boards is one way to help with the sometimes confusing, sensitive and complex situations. Opening up topics for public discussion can also help as new ideas and perspectives can some times help resolve and find a better solution.

The legal system can be sometimes be a long, drawn out and painful experience for all involved. When working with global issues and the cultural diversity of law it can quickly turns into an expensive nightmare. The haziness of law on the global stage is also problematic as a might verses right situation has lead to many conflicts in the application and definition of law.

For universal crimes like fraud, deception and harassment there should be no legal protection. For the more complex issues that need to be faced some support, mediation and common sense is required before the legal knifes come out and the endless battles begin, the legal system is already under enough stress these days. I can very much understand the desire for legal protection if they are to take on BP or a similar organisation, but it is a double edge sword which could also cut down individual protections. If at the end of the day they can stand up in public and provide their justification for the decisions that have been made, I will at least respect that.
edit on 13-6-2012 by kwakakev because: changed Monsanto to BP

new topics

top topics

log in