The U.N. is again proposing a new program to tax oil in rich nations of the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) in order to “revive the world economy and protect the environment”. $750 billion green investment could revive economy: U.N. | Environment | Reuters . The latest is in addition to proposals to cap/trade/tax CO2 emissions in order to reduce greenhouse gases as the Kyoto Protocol would have done. 

This latest “Green New Deal” is touting the figure of $750 billion and suggesting it could be raised by a tax on oil consumption. To listen to the proponents of this program one would think it had been designed after the policies of Barack Obama, by promoting  investments in “green”  technologies for transportation, energy production using wind and solar power, and improved energy efficiency for buildings. The nonspecific benefits of such efforts are expected to satisfy the vague lofty goals of creating jobs, curbing poverty and fighting climate change.

In fact, the head of the U.N. Environment Program sounded like Rahm Emanuel when stating “The opportunity must not be lost”, and repeated the same dire warnings of the climate change activists. Much of the rhetoric used by the U.N. officials discussing this program seems as though it was lifted from the speeches of President Obama. Conversely, I would suggest that the President had been using standard Leftist ideological positions, which he shares with the Leftist-leaning United Nations. The linked article compares the program to FDR’s New Deal, which may not be a positive comparison given that there is much controversy about the real “benefits” of the New Deal and whether or not it extended the Depression.  

My concern now is that our government will accept this program and other international programs claimed to protect the environment and help the global economy, willingly accepting damaging consequences to our economy and way of life. Our national sovereignty is currently at risk given the control the Democrats have achieved in Congress and the White House, and not simply moderate Democrats but true socialist ideologues. If proposals such as this “Green New Deal” are being considered or actually being negotiated by our elected officials or unelected bureaucrats (ala E.P.A) we must be watchful and raise our voices in dissent when necessary.

Here is the full text of the linked article:

By Alister Doyle, Environment Correspondent

OSLO (Reuters) – Investments of $750 billion could create a “Green New Deal” to revive the world economy and protect the environment, perhaps aided by a tax on oil, the head of the U.N. environment agency said on Thursday.

Achim Steiner said spending should focus on five environmental sectors including improved energy efficiency for buildings and solar or wind power to create jobs, curb poverty and fight climate change.

“The opportunity must not be lost,” Steiner, head of the U.N. Environment Program (UNEP), told Reuters of a UNEP study that will be put to world leaders meeting in London on April 2 to work out how to spur the ailing economy.

The UNEP report said investments of one percent of global gross domestic product, or about $750 billion, could bankroll a “Global Green New Deal” inspired by the “New Deal” of U.S. President Franklin D. Roosevelt that helped end the depression of the 1930s.

Investments should be split between more energy efficient buildings, renewable energies, better transport, improved agriculture and measures to safeguard nature — such as fresh water, forests or coral reefs, it said.

Thursday’s study adds details of spending after UNEP called for a Green New Deal late last year.

Steiner also said that the world urgently needed funds to jump start a U.N. deal to fight global warming, due to be agreed in Copenhagen in December to succeed the U.N.’s Kyoto Protocol beyond 2012.

He floated the possibility of taxing oil in rich nations of the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) to help a new pact become the cornerstone of a greener economy.

“If, for argument’s sake, you were to put a five-year levy in OECD countries of $5 a barrel, you would generate $100 billion per annum. It translates into roughly 3 cents per liter,” he said.

UNNOTICED

“It would be almost, if not totally, unnoticed by the consumer,” he said, especially since oil prices have fallen from more than $140 a barrel at mid-2008 peaks to about $40.

A barrel of oil contains 158 liters and OECD consumption is about 20 billion barrels a year, he said. “This is just one example, there may be many others,” of funding, he said.

“I am concerned about the prospect of a meaningful deal in Copenhagen if there is not a significant financial package on the table,” he said. Cash would encourage poor nations to step up actions to curb rising greenhouse gas emissions.

“The argument that we cannot afford this does not, on any serious analysis, hold much water — especially given the cost to the global economy of failure to act on climate change,” he said.

Carbon markets, which could also be a source of funds to help fight climate change, were unlikely to contribute enough cash in early years of a new climate deal, he said.

Steiner said there were promising signs that economic stimulus packages by many nations, ranging from the United States to China, were being tailored to help a shift toward greener growth and away from dependence on fossil fuels.

The U.N. Climate Panel says that greenhouse gases from burning fossil fuels are a prime cause of warming that will cause more heatwaves, droughts, rising sea levels and more powerful storms.

(Editing by Jon Boyle)