+menu-


  • Category Archives The UN Kyoto Protocol?
  • Pearl Revere China may end up owning the USA

    Pearl Revere China’s  going to end up owning the USA?

    We’ve all have heard stories about how the US government is using our Public American land, AKA natural resources as collateral, as security, for our foreign debts.  

    People joke about it.

    “China’s going to end up owning the USA” if we don’t pay our TRILLION DOLLAR DEBT TO THEM.

    This is definitely NOT A GOOD THING…..COLLATERAL by definition,  property or goods used as security against a loan and forfeited if the loan is not repaid.

    DEBT-EQUITY swaps involve the conversion of external debt (national debt which is owed to foreign investors) INTO SOME TYPE OF EQUITY.  Foreigners continue to hold a claim on the debtor nation’s resources.

    Those are THE DYNAMICS OF THE GLOBAL DEBT-FOR-NATURE SWAP

    In 1987 the first ever GLOBAL Debt-Nature swap took place between an America NGO, a commercial American Bank and Bolivia. (read more below)

    ————————————————————

    AMERICA’S NATIONAL  RESOURCES, OUR COUNTRIES PUBLIC LAND AND WATER USED AS COLLATERAL FOR FOREIGN DEBT- EQUITY?

    HOW MUCH OF  AMERICAN’S PUBLIC NATIONAL RESOURCES, LAND AND CLEAN WATER HAS ALREADY BEEN PUT UP AND USED UP AS COLLATERAL TO  FOREIGN COUNTRIES, TO HOLD A CLAIM ON  THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA ?

    ———————————————————————–

    D.C. Forgets about the Debt

    THE NATIONAL DEBT? is expected to top $17.6 trillion by August 1, 2014, the national debt has dropped out of the headlines recently. OUT OF SIGHT MAY INDEED MEAN OUT OF MIND, especially in Washington, but that hardly means the problem has gone away.

    OK? LET’S JUST  FORGET, THE NATIONAL DEBT AND THE COLLATERAL DAMAGE  BY USING AMERICAS PUBLIC NATURAL RESOURCES AS SECURITY FOR FOREIGN LOAN’S

    NO PROBLEM FOR WA DC… WHATS THE BIG DEAL?

    THE U.S. DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR  KNOWS THAT AMERICA’S GOT HUNDREDS OF TRILLIONS  OF DOLLARS WORTH OF PUBLICLY OWED NATURAL RESOURCES, WILD LAND, FOREST LAND, CLEAN WATER, OIL, COAL  TO SWAP FOR EQUITY AND TO PUT UP FOR COLLATERAL.

    WHAT THE HELL, COLLATERAL by definition,  IS ONLY property or goods used as security against a loan and forfeited if the loan is not repaid

    ———————————————————————————

    IT’S LONG AND IT’S  COMPLICATE UNITED NATIONS PROTOCOL  DISASTER JUST WAITING TO HAPPEN, IN THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, TO “WE THE PEOPLE”.

    To EVEN BEGIN to understand the implications of 1987 GLOBAL Debt-Nature swap on the United State of America.

    YOU BETTER “BONE UP” ON  THE HISTORY OF THE UNITED NATIONS

    1. The 1992 United Nations Rio Earth Summit

    ————————————————–

    2. April 1995, the United Nations Convention’s ‘‘Conference of the Parties’’ adopted the so-called ‘‘Berlin Mandate’’

    ————————————————-

    3. July 1996 the Undersecretary of State for Global Affairs called for the first time FOR ‘‘LEGALLY BINDING’’ (GLOBAL WARMING TREATY) EMISSION LIMITATIONS ON THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA.

    —————————————————-

    4. January 8, 1997 testimony of Secretary of State, given before the Committee on Foreign Relations of the Senate

    —————————————————————————

    5.  JUL 25, 1997 THE  US SENATE BYRD-HAGEL RESOLUTION (full text below)

    WHY DID THE UNITED STATES NOT BECOME A PARTY TO THE KYOTO PROTOCOL?

     The Senate’s 1997 ByrdHagel Resolution warned the Clinton Administration (several months in advance) NOT TO ENTER INTO ANY GLOBAL WARMING TREATY.

     THE BYRDHAGEL RESOLUTION  was a United States Senate Resolution passed unanimously with a vote of 95–0 on 25 July 1997.

    ———————————————————————

    6.  December 11, 1997 UNITED NATIONS KYOTO PROTOCOL

    THE UNITED NATIONS GLOBAL WARMING TREATY.

    CLINTON administration VICE PRESIDENT AL GORE was a main participant in putting THE KYOTO PROTOCOL together in 1997.

    PRESIDENT BILL CLINTON SIGNED THE KYOTO PROTOCOL AGREEMENT IN 1997

    ——————————————————————————————-

    This is a RED FLAG WARNING on THE UNITED NATIONS GLOBAL WARMING TREATY

    ——————————————————————————————————————–

    Back to THE GLOBAL DEBT-FOR-NATURE SWAP

    In order to facilitate THE GLOBAL DEBT-FOR-NATURE SWAP, DEBT-EQUITY SWAPS a dollar amount must be assigned for the value of NATURE?

    HISTORICALLY LAND HAD JUST A  REAL PROPERTY $$$ VALUE (we were taxed on the  assessed value)

    OK SO NOW, We have then NGO  ECO FREAKS (not the COUNTY assessor)  PAID WITH OUR TAX DOLLARS TO run around and CONJURE  up the NEWLY ENHANCED ADDED ecosystem service valuations (ENVRIONMENTAL)  and the GLOBAL $$$ VALUE of NATURE?

    They claim? “These appraisal values are based on scientific data and are applicable to

    decision-making at every jurisdictional level”

    —————————————————————–

    THE DYNAMICS OF THE DEBT-FOR-NATURE SWAP ( supporter)

    In 1987 the first ever Debt-Nature swap took place between America and Bolivia.

    AN AMERICAN NON-GOVERNMENTAL ORGANIZATION purchased USD650,000 worth of Bolivia’s foreign debt.  FOR A DISCOUNTED PRICE OF USD100,000, THE ENVIRONMENTAL ORGANIZATION BUYS THE NATION’S DEBT FROM A COMMERCIAL BANK.

    THE DEBT IS SWAPPED FOR “CONSERVATION PAYMENTS-IN-KIND” (2) EQUIVALENT TO THE FACE VALUE OF THE LOAN – USD650,000.

    ———————————————————————————–

    REALLY? IN-KIND OF PAYMENTS? OF USD550,000?

    FOR A DISCOUNTED PRICE OF USD100,000 AN AMERICAN NON-GOVERNMENTAL ORGANIZATION (NGO) GOT A USD550,000  “CONSERVATION PAYMENTS-IN-KIND”

    THE DEBT IS SWAPPED FOR?

    WHO? PAID THE PAYMENTS-IN-KIND OF USD550,000 TO THE COMMERCIAL  BANK?

    ———————————————————————————————

    In May 1992, the United States Senate gave its advise and

    consent to the ratification of the United Nations Framework

    Convention on Climate Change. The treaty, which was intended to

    address the global emission of greenhouse gases, WAS SIGNED BY

    PRESIDENT BUSH AT THE RIO EARTH SUMMIT.

    ———————————————————————————————— 

    FROM supporters of  THE KYOTO PROTOCOL

     Public awareness and support of this initiative is the only thing that will shift votes within the U.S. Congress and make Kyoto a global reality.

    Despite the hopefulness of this plan, several obstacles still block immediate progress.  THE GREATEST OF THESE BLOCKS IN THE U.S. REFUSAL TO RATIFY.  The agreement would require a 6% decrease in overall U.S. emissions.  Economics concerns are central to this political “unmomentum”.  The recent BYRD-HAGEL RESOLUTION ensured the that Congress would not pass THE KYOTO PROTOCOL if it proves to be too expensive or if developing countries do not commit.  According to past performance it seems probably that Kyoto will not pass.

    ———————————————————————————–

    My red flag warning

    THE BYRD-HAGEL RESOLUTION (complete text below) SAVED US ONCE AND ENSURED THE THAT CONGRESS WOULD NOT PASS THE KYOTO PROTOCOL

    ——————————————————————————————–

    The dynamics of THE DEBT-FOR-NATURE SWAP may lead to skepticism on both sides of the issue.  Although a non-governmental environmental agency owns the land, typically there is no system established to monitor the future security of the national forest reserves.

     WITHIN THESE NATIONS OF UNSTABLE ECONOMIC AND POLITICAL CONDITIONS there is no guarantee that the agreement made by one administration will transfer to the successor.

    —————————————————————————————–

    My red flag warning

    THIS KYOTO PROTOCOL IS LONG AND COMPLICATED, A UNITED NATIONS DISASTER PROGRAM, JUST SITTING AROUND IN WA DC, WAITING TO BE RATIFIED WHEN VOTES SHIFT WITHIN THE U.S. CONGRESS OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA.

    YOUR  VOTE IN 2014 MAY BE THE ONLY THING THAT WILL SHIFT VOTES WITHIN THE U.S. CONGRESS TO PREVENT THE KYOTO PROTOCOL FROM BECOMING  AN  AMERICAN  REALITY.

    —————————————————————————————————–

    Keep reading if you are concerned

    OK… So what was the Byrd-Hagle?

    That Byrd–Hagel was passed by the US Senate several months before the Kyoto meeting makes this outcome all the more puzzling. Indeed, Cutajar (2004: 63) terms it ‘something of a mystery’.

    ————————————————————————

     

    S. RES. 98

    www.gpo.gov/…/BILLS-105sr…

    United States Government Printing Office

    Jul 25, 1997 – Mr. BYRD (for himself, Mr. HAGEL, Mr. HOLLINGS, Mr. CRAIG, Mr. INOUYE, … submitted the following resolution; which was referred to the ..

    ————————————————————————-

    THE BYRD- HAGLE RESOLUTION

    105TH CONGRESS 1ST SESSION

    S. RES. 98

    [Report No. 105–54]

    Expressing the sense of the Senate regarding the conditions for the United

    States becoming a signatory to any international agreement on green-

    house gas emissions under the United Nations Framework Convention

    on Climate Change

     

    RESOLUTION

    Expressing the sense of the Senate regarding the conditions for the United States becoming a signatory to any international agreement on greenhouse gas emissions under the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change.

    Whereas the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (in this resolution referred to as the ‘‘Convention’’), adopted in May 1992, entered into force in 1994 and is not yet fully implemented;

    Whereas the Convention, intended to address climate change on a global basis, identifies the former Soviet Union and the countries of Eastern Europe and the OrganizationFor Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD), including the United States, as ‘‘Annex I Parties’’, and the remaining 129 countries, including China, Mexico, India, Brazil, and South Korea, as ‘‘Developing Country Parties’’;

    Whereas in April 1995, the Convention’s ‘‘Conference of the Parties’’ adopted the so-called ‘‘Berlin Mandate’’;

    Whereas the ‘‘Berlin Mandate’’ calls for the adoption, as soon as December 1997, in Kyoto, Japan, of a protocol or another legal instrument that strengthens commitments to limit greenhouse gas emissions by Annex I Parties for the post-2000 period and establishes a negotiation process called the ‘‘Ad Hoc Group on the Berlin Mandate’’;

    Whereas the ‘‘Berlin Mandate’’ specifically exempts all Developing Country Parties from any new commitments in such negotiation process for the post-2000 period

    Whereas although the Convention, approved by the United States Senate, called on all signatory parties to adopt policies and programs aimed at limiting their greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions, in July 1996 the Undersecretary of State for Global Affairs called for the first time for ‘‘legally binding’’ emission limitation targets and time tables for Annex I Parties, a position reiterated by the Secretary of State in testimony before the Committee on Foreign Relations of the Senate on January 8, 1997;

    Whereas greenhouse gas emissions of Developing Country Parties are rapidly increasing and are expected to surpass emissions of the United States and other OECD countries as early as 2015;

    Whereas the Department of State has declared that it is critical for the Parties to the Convention to include Developing Country Parties in the next steps for global action and, therefore, has proposed that consideration of additional steps to include limitations on Developing Country Parties’ greenhouse gas emissions would not begin until after a protocol or other legal instrument is adopted in Kyoto, Japan in December 1997;

    Whereas the exemption for Developing Country Parties is inconsistent with the need for global action on climate change and is environmentally flawed;

    Whereas the Senate strongly believes that the proposals under negotiation, because of the disparity of treatment between Annex I Parties and Developing Countries and the level of required emission reductions, could result in serious harm to the United States economy, including significant job loss, trade disadvantages, increased energy and consumer costs, or any combination thereof; and

    Whereas it is desirable that a bipartisan group of Senators be appointed by the Majority and Minority Leaders of the Senate for the purpose of monitoring the status of negotiations on Global Climate Change and reporting periodically to the Senate on those negotiations:

    Now, therefore, be it Resolved,

    That it is the sense of the Senate that

    (1) the United States should not be a signatory to any protocol to, or other agreement regarding, the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change of 1992, at negotiations in Kyoto in December 1997  or thereafter, which would—

    (A) mandate new commitments to limit or reduce greenhouse gas emissions for the Annex

    I Parties, unless the protocol or other agreement also mandates new specific scheduled commitments to limit or reduce greenhouse gas emissions for Developing Country Parties with- in the same compliance period, or

    (B) would result in serious harm to the economy of the United States; and any such protocol or other agreement which  would require the advice and consent of the Senate to ratification should be accompanied by a detailed explanation of any legislation or regulatory actions that may be required to implement the protocol or  other agreement and should also be accompanied by 5 SRES 98 ATS an analysis of the detailed financial costs and other  impacts on the economy of the United States which would be incurred by the implementation of the protocol or other agreement.

    SEC. 2. The Secretary of the Senate shall transmit  a copy of this resolution to the President

     THE BYRDHAGEL RESOLUTION  was a United States Senate Resolution passed unanimously with a vote of 95–0 on 25 July 1997.

    —————————————————————————————————————

    The Senate’s 1997 ByrdHagel Resolution warned the Clinton Administration (several months in advance) NOT TO ENTER INTO ANY GLOBAL WARMING TREATY.

    —————————————————————————————————————–

    CLINTON administration VICE PRESIDENT AL GORE was a main participant in putting THE KYOTO PROTOCOL together in 1997.

    PRESIDENT BILL CLINTON SIGNED THE KYOTO PROTOCOL AGREEMENT IN 1997,

    BYRD-HAGEL PREVENTED CLINTON FROM EVEN TRYING TO RATIFY THE KYOTO PROTOCOL, which also would have put the U.S.  economy at an economic disadvantage to CHINA AND INDIA.

     

    ————————————————————————————–

    THE KYOTO PROTOCOL was drawn up on 11 December 1997 as an implementary measure to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change signed on 9 May 1992 in Rio that set up binding obligations

    THE KYOTO PROTOCOL is an international agreement created under the UNITED NATIONS Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) in Kyoto, Japan in …

    —————————————————————————————————

    AND THEN THERE IS THIS…. ( snippets of a  22 page report)

    Clinton and Al Gore’s mess on climate change etc

    WHY DID THE UNITED STATES NOT BECOME A PARTY TO THE KYOTO PROTOCOL?

     http://www.uni-potsdam.de/u/sprinz/doc/Hovi.2012.WhytheUnitedStatesDidNotBecomeaPartytotheKyotoProtocol.EJIR.pdf

    ——————————————————————————–

     My comment, thank God!

    THE BYRDHAGEL RESOLUTION  was a United States Senate Resolution passed unanimously with a vote of 95–0 on 25 July 1997.

    ————————————————————————–

    A seemingly obvious answer is that Kyoto’s design gave it practically no chance of US

    Senate ratification.

    In addition to the requirement of 67 votes to ratify international treaties, the US

    Congress must pass enabling legislation to ensure fulfillment of a treaty’s objectives.

    Because of supermajority procedures in the Senate, such as the filibuster, significant

    policy shifts often require a three-fifths majority (60 votes) to pass.

    Consequently, votes on enabling legislation potentially face a supermajority hurdle that centrally placed veto players can exploit.

    During the Kyoto negotiations, it was reasonably clear that the climate-change issue caused conflicting positions in the Senate not only because of partisan  politics, but also because of deep regional differences.

    ———————————————————

    WHY DID THE UNITED STATES NOT BECOME A PARTY TO THE KYOTO PROTOCOL?

    ( snippets of a  22 page report supporting)

    Clinton and Al Gore’s mess on climate change etc.

    To be continued…..

    —————————————————————————————–

    if you are interested in the complete text of

    WHY DID THE UNITED STATES NOT BECOME A PARTY TO THE KYOTO PROTOCOL?

    Google it.

    —————————————

    WHAT IS “DEBT-for-NATURE” SWAPPING?

    Google Market-based conservation strategies (for the complete text)

     By Eric Thomas Marshall