In a campaign speech given in Oregon on May 18th, 2008 Barack Obama said, “We can’t drive our SUVs and eat as much as we want and keep our homes on 72 degrees at all times … and then just expect that other countries are going to say OK.” This may have just sounded like typical campaign rhetoric to most casual consumers of politics, without any conviction but sounding good to the softened sycophants. By itself this statement seems harmless, but taken in context with calls for limiting our use of resources and apologies for what we have used, it supports the call for “Carbon Reparations” where the developed nations, with the United States specifically in Mr. Obama’s mind, pay the developing nations for our past gluttony and allow them to use more while we use less.
President Obama’s current foreign policy stances may seem anemic with regard to Islamic extremism, the pursuit of nuclear energy by nations that can’t be trusted with the rational and peaceful use of such power, and the increasing aggression by our old cold war enemies. Fortunately he is firm with regard to improving America’s standing in the world. As part of his demonstrated attempts at apologizing for America’s past transgressions (re: Cairo Speech) the Secretary of State, Hillary Clinton, recently urged India not to emulate America’s “mistakes,” and accepted responsibility on behalf of the U.S. and other developed nations for contributing towards climate change. A few excerpts from a (CNSNews.com) story provide a bit of meat for this bone:
While stopping short of an apology for a U.S. role in “global warming,” Clinton’s remarks came closer than previous ones.
“There is no question that developed countries like mine must lead on this issue,” she said in a joint media appearance with Ramesh and the U.S. special envoy for climate change, Todd Stern.
“And for our part, under President Obama, we are not only acknowledging our contributions to greenhouse gas emissions and climate change, we are taking steps to reverse its ill effects.”
Well, they aren’t buying it! Responses from Indian officials to Clinton’s comments were not surprising. They won’t tie their hands with strict emission limits and they reject the protectionist policies that the current Cap & Trade legislative effort in the U.S. would impose on them.
“India’s position is that we are simply not in a position to take on legally-binding emission reduction targets,” Indian environment minister Jairam Ramesh said Sunday, after he and Clinton toured an eco-friendly building near the capital and had a roundtable discussion on environmental issues.
“And as if this pressure was not enough, we also face the threat of carbon tariffs on our exports to countries such as yours,” he said. The reference was to the Waxman-Markey cap-and-trade bill passed by the U.S. House of Representatives late last month, which contains a clause that would impose tariffs on imports from countries that do not reduce emissions by 2020. (Obama has praised the bill, but says he opposes the “protectionist” tariff measure.)
There was even some mention of the need to consider population control during Hillary’s meetings with Indian leaders though no specifics plans or targets were mentioned. (This concept deserves posting all by itself)
Beyond the climate change advocacy of the current U.S. government, there are plenty of stories about environmental advocacy groups suggesting if not demanding action be taken by developed nations to fix the climate “problem” and repay developing nations for bad behavior. For example, a May 29, 2009 article from the Huffington Post was titled “African Officials Ask for Climate Reparations Payments”. In it, the continent’s environment ministers called for cash payments and support from developed nations, possibly up to $1 billion per year to manage the effects of climate change. And at the U.N. Climate Change Conference in Bali, held on December 11, 2007 a dispatch titled “Do the Rich Owe the Poor Climate Change Reparations?” discussed the idea of a climate “consumption luxury tax” on anyone earning over $9000 per year to address the “climate crisis”. For anyone amused by climate change alarmism and the self-stroking of climate change advocates the above article is, once you get past the verbosity, somewhat humorous. The dispatch even complimented Al Gore, the grand marshal of the “Cap & Trade Crap Parade”, for his achievements.
Given Obama’s position on climate change as exemplified by his comments and those of his administration and the current Congress I would not doubt his support of calls by other groups demanding that developed nations are mostly responsible and should be held accountable for damage to the climate so far and must be the ones to both solve the problem of climate change and remediate past inequities in carbon emissions. Let’s bluntly call this “Carbon Reparations” or “Climate Reparations”. I for one am not buying, or paying.
