United Nations Conference in Bonn, Germany

UN Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC)

Fifth Session of the Conference of the Parties (COP 5)



For Immediate Release

Contact: Cathie Adams (cathieadams@texaseagle.org)

October 25, 1999



The United Nations is "All Hat and No Cattle"



As a Texan, let me explain to outsiders that it is rude to ask a Texas

rancher how many cattle he owns or how many acres are on his ranch. When

the United Nations asks, then, how many cattle a rancher owns because they

want to figure how much methane gas they produce, it's beyond insult; it's

outrageous! The UN is worried that cattle produce one of the "global

warming" gases: methane. 



Delegates from 150 countries are meeting to negotiate the implementation

"rules" for the UN Kyoto Protocol in Bonn, Germany through November 5. They

are considering a "rule" that would force Texas ranchers to declare how

many cattle they own and what they feed them in order to estimate how much

"global warming gas" they produce! 



Consider the same "rule" in India where cows are considered "sacred." The

cows are not owned and no one knows what they eat. Since the number of cows

in India is unknown, it would be impossible to determine how much methane

gas they expel. 



Methane gas is only one of the six "greenhouse gases" that delegates from

150 countries are trying to define the "rules" by which the U.S. is to meet

her target to reduce greenhouse gases by 7% below 1990 levels by 2008-2012.

The delegates are also to determine what the "consequences" will be if the

U.S. fails to comply with that target. It is conceivable that in the near

future the UN will "rule" that global citizens become vegetarians in order

to reduce methane gas levels! 



Yesterday, I attended a workshop of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate

Change (IPCC), the body charged with producing the science that proves the

globe is warming. They have yet to produce a glossary! Regardless, they

claimed they "will scope the uncertainty" of global warming and present

ways to "manage these uncertainties," adding that "justice must be done and

be seen to be done."



The bottom line is that this "global warming" treaty presents the ultimate

government control mechanism. If they can create "rules" about how much

methane gas cows can produce, then imagine the extent to which they will

try to press their unscientific agenda to create "rules" for every American

industry from automobile manufacturers to widget makers. 



During this UN conference, delegates are also to define and measure

"sinks," nature's own air cleaners that take in the "global warming"

gases-trees for example. How many trees will the UN busybodies require a

Texas rancher to plant in order to offset his cattle's methane gas

production? The situation would be funny if the UN was not dead serious!



It may be a good thing, however, that the UN wants to tangle with Texas

farmers and ranchers because they know how to handle hot air producers.

They simply tell them they are "all hat and no cattle!" Too bad the White

House can't handle such a simple task.

End of Report I







REPORT II:

United Nations Conference in Bonn, Germany

UN Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC)

Fifth Session of the Conference of the Parties (COP 5)



For Immediate Release

Contact: Cathie Adams (cathieadams@texaseagle.org)

October 29, 1999



The United Nations Pushes Economic Equalization Under the Guise of

"Capacity-building"



United Nations bureaucrats commonly pervert words in order to manipulate

unsuspecting people. Take "capacity-building" for example, a

double-barreled word used in the UN's Agenda 21 written in Rio de Janeiro

in 1992 and currently at the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change in

Bonn, Germany.



How might Americans interpret "capacity-building?" American parents send

their children to schools in order to "build their capacities" to be all

they can be. A builder increases his "capacity to build" by purchasing more

properties on which to build more houses. A baker buys a new oven to

"capacity-build" quality and quantity of his baked goods.



The UN has yet another meaning for "capacity-building" revealed at a UN

Development Program workshop entitled, "Capacity-building for sustainable

development and climate change policies." 



A panelist from Red China focused on building self-reliance. The Chinese

are indeed becoming self-reliant by buying political favors from President

Clinton in order to obtain some of America's most sensitive technologies;

they have hood-winked American industries into abusing Chinese citizens for

slave labor; and they have secured both ends of the world's most important

waterway, the Panama Canal. The Chinese are "capacity-building" at

America's expense.



A panelist from an African country mumbled a few words about sustainability

and that the 38 nations bound by the Kyoto Protocol (the balance of the

countries are exempt) must assist developing countries in

"capacity-building." Then he confessed that he really didn't know what he

was supposed to talk about!



Finally, a presentation by a panelist from Columbia described how

"capacity-building" is to be used in this "radically different approach to

pollution control:" the Kyoto Protocol. The representative, Thomas Black

Arbelaez, interpreted the Kyoto Protocol to mean "international

capacity-building" in which "national institutions must be developed" in

order to trade greenhouse gases. 



The UN contends that greenhouse gases, mostly carbon dioxide, the gas

produced by burning fossil fuels AND by humans when we breathe out, are

warming the globe. If ratified by the U.S. Senate, the Kyoto Protocol would

limit America's greenhouse gas emissions to 7% below 1990 levels by

2008-2012. Since American industries have grown since 1990, it would mean a

reduction in her industrial strength by 25%! Science has not proven that

the globe is warming or that industrial burning of fossil fuels (or humans

breathing out) could cause it if it does exist. Science has yet to figure

out how to measure greenhouse gases or how to measure "carbon sinks" such

as trees that remove carbon dioxide from the air. Regardless, President

Clinton signed the Kyoto Protocol last year during another "global warming"

meeting in Buenos Aires, Argentina. He has yet to send it to the Senate for

ratification.



Arbelaez said that using the White House's own numbers, Columbia could

probably export $450 million per year in carbon dioxide credits. That means

that in order for the U.S. to meet her requirements under the Kyoto

Protocol, at least in part, American taxpayers could send $450 million

annually to Columbia to buy the "right" to operate carbon dioxide producing

industries within our borders. He said that that would be higher than

Columbia's exports in gold, emeralds, bananas and coffee. No wonder he said

it would be "worth working towards." He complained, however, that if the

U.S. does not ratify the Kyoto Protocol, then carbon dioxide trading would

only be worth $1 or $2 per ton rather than the $15 to $30 if we do ratify

the boondoggle. 



The Columbian also warned that if governments build bureaucracies that

support big industries while neglecting middle and small ones, then this

greenhouse gas trading system would impose a big stumbling block. He

rightly fears that corrupt government officials will hi-jack the greenhouse

gas trading system. The world has already witnessed such

"capacity-building" abuses in Russia.



The bottom line of "capacity-building" is that it grants developing

countries the tool with which to demand more funds from U.S. taxpayers,

while developing countries must build their own bureaucracies charged with

distributing our "gifts." In other words, the UN Kyoto Protocol's

greenhouse gas trading system would "build the capacity" of the UN to

become the global economic equalizer. 



When former President Bush signed the original Climate Change Treaty in

1992 and the Democrat-controlled Senate ratified it, America became

entangled in the UN web that intends to redistribute wealth globally. The

Clinton-Gore administration has enhanced it by committing to

legally-binding targets. Now, the UN is discussing what "consequences" will

be applied to the 38 nations that must adhere to the Climate Change Treaty

follow-up called the Kyoto Protocol. If America, however, wants to retain

her "capacity to build" the greatest nation on earth, then citizens must

ask their U.S. Senators to demand that Clinton-Gore send the Kyoto Protocol

to them. Then Senators must "build the capacity" to vote NO.

End of Report II







REPORT III:

United Nations Conference in Bonn, Germany

UN Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC)

Fifth Session of the Conference of the Parties (COP 5)



For Immediate Release

Contact: Cathie Adams (cathieadams@texaseagle.org)

October 30, 1999



First Week Review, UN Conference in Bonn, Germany



A brochure presented to conferees asks the question, "Can we predict the

climate for the 21st century?" As I lifted the brochure from the table, I

asked the question of several official delegates from differing countries

standing around the table. Every one of them laughed as they responded, NO!

I asked the follow-up, "Then what are we doing here? It seems there must be

an alternative agenda." Each of them smiled politely then walked away.



The two UN agencies using political arm-twisting to push the unscientific

"global warming" theory are the UN Environment Program (UNEP) and the UN

Development Program (UNDP). While scientific evidence does not prove human

activities cause "global warming," the UNEP and UNDP agenda is to "reduce

scientific uncertainty about climate change," harmonize greenhouse gas

measuring methods "to ensure comparable results," link environmental issues

to "population size, level of affluence and choice of technologies," and

"establish national public outreach programs." Their predetermined outcome

is to redistribute wealth, Marxism.



"According to the UN Charter, everybody is born equal, and has

inalienable rights to enjoy modern technological civilization. Today the

per capita consumption [of natural resources] is just one tenth of that of

the developed countries, one eighth of that of medium developed countries,"

claims Dr. Son Jian, State Counselor with responsibility for Climate Change

and Population, to the China council for International Cooperation on

Environment and Development. The Red Chinese know a "gift-horse" when they

see one, and the Climate Change treaty is it!



UN Secretary-General Kofi Annan calls the UN Framework Convention on

Climate Change and the Kyoto Protocol "a solid foundation for long-term

action." "Building institutions" (bureaucracies), "data-gathering", setting

"targets" and designing a "system to ensure compliance" are "signs of a

maturing international regime," explains Annan. "The Convention and the

Protocol are moving with this tide" leading to "green profits." Beware of

the "maturing international regime!"



In a brochure entitled, "The International Climate Agenda," the UN states

that "governments need to recognize the close interrelations and

interdependence that exists between national programs and the international

programs which governments have helped to design." U.S. participation in

this UN conference obliterates national sovereignty.



David Hales, Deputy Assistant Secretary, Agency for International

Development (USAID) is a member of the Clinton-appointed American

delegation. He claims "climate change is not an academic phenomena,"

therefore "people need real choices to change citizens' behavior since at

COP 5 [this meeting], the President recognizes we cannot wait…climate

change is real." America must "privatize production of electricity

[according to international rules], have good forestry uses [according to

international rules], increase the capacity of developing countries to

participate and be able to predict weather better [redistribute wealth and

technologies to developing countries]." The Clinton administration are

betrayers of the American dream.



Joining Hales at U.S. press conferences this week was Mark Hambley,

alternate head of the U.S. delegation. Hambly has led the U.S. negotiating

team at numerous climate change conferences. He was Ambassador in Qatar

during the Gulf War. Also in the delegation is Jefferson Seabright,

Executive Director of the White House Task Force on Climate Change.

Seabright was formerly with USAID and has worked for Senators John D.

Rockefeller IV and Timothy Wirth. The fox is in charge of the hen house!



During a field trip to the Mulheim-Karlich nuclear power plant, I

received an introduction to the issue of nuclear production of electricity.

Everyone agrees that disposal of radioactive waste is the greatest negative

to nuclear energy, however, it produces no greenhouse gases which the

radical environmentalists claim causes global warming. They also oppose

hydropower that produces about 11% of our electricity. Nuclear plants

produce about 20% of America's electricity. 



In a statement to The Washington Post National Weekly Edition, October

25, 1999, presidential candidate George W. Bush claims to "oppose the Kyoto

Protocol." A closer look at his position, however, reveals that he believes

there is global warming, but opposes the "current" Kyoto Protocol. In other

words, he believes the Kyoto Protocol can be altered in order to become

acceptable. Remember, his father signed the original Climate Change Treaty

in 1992 that put America into the UN's web.



The infamous Greenpeace organization is represented in Bonn by Bill Hare,

their climate policy leader. He said this week, "Climate change is here

now-temperatures are increasing, the Arctic is melting and sea levels are

rising-but there is a disturbing lack of urgency in the international

political negotiations which are currently moving at a snail's pace." Since

none of his catastrophic claims are scientific, his comments seem to reveal

a preference for snail darters over humans.



What a week it was!

end of Report III
















© 1999,



Legislative Advertising, Texas Eagle Forum


P.O. 795354


Dallas, TX 75379




(972) 250-0734