How do we discover that a policy is a hoax? When the objectives are physically impossible to achieve.
According to the United Nations, the main objective of the United Nations Framework Convention against Climate Change (UNFCCC), signed in 1992, the objective is to protect the climate system, which it defines as “the entire atmosphere, the hydrosphere, the biosphere and the geosphere and their interactions. ”
Breathe well and thoroughly and read that goal again: “protect the climate system, the entire atmosphere, the hydrosphere, the biosphere and the geosphere and their interactions.”
There is no magic power or technology to “protect the climate system, the entire atmosphere, the hydrosphere, the biosphere and the geosphere and their interactions;” not at once and not over time. It is an objective of political dye, not scientific. It is like “eradicating poverty”, an objective that is impossible.
Together with the United Nations Framework Convention against Climate Change is the ambition to accelerate the commitments to implement the Paris Agreement, which aims to turn today’s society into a type of medieval society, without fuel, without agriculture to feed the population and without industry.
In addition to proposing clearly impossible goals, the UN faces another major obstacle: the national sovereignty of member countries.
Much of the airspace, maritime territory, forests, rivers and natural resources that are used for development are owned by the nation states, so the regulation of the use of these resources, and the protection of the climate system becomes a impossibility for the UN.
The only way to eliminate the obstacle of sovereignty is to end it. That is why the UN signs agreements of a binding and non-binding nature that must be approved by the parliaments of each of the countries, before these nations are subject to the guidelines of non-elected officials in the UN.
The UN frequently “suggests” policies of all kinds; in this case environmental, governments, especially of underdeveloped countries, so that they adopt them and little by little the policies of destruction of the national sovereignty of each country is carried out from within.
“We are facing goods whose components are both within and outside the sovereignty of the States. Thus, they exercise sovereignty in their territory that includes areas where components of the goods that make up the climate system are found, such as waters continental, but they do not exercise it in other areas such as in the atmosphere, which some consider as a common heritage of humanity, “says the Secretary General of the United Nations, Antonio Guterres.
Gueterres believes that the existence of national sovereignty is totally against that objective of “protecting the climate system”, which, we remember, is scientifically impossible to carry out, since there is no know-how or technology to magically create a protection of a system that is extremely complex and whose control is outside the hands of humans, because its behavior is defined by natural forces, internal and external to the planet.
“The activities carried out within the jurisdiction or sovereignty of the States negatively affect the stability of the climate system,” says Guterres, who blames humanity on the fires in the Amazon and all other natural disasters that occur every year.
Recall how, a few weeks ago, the fires in the Amazon caused a diplomatic tension between the government of Brazil and that of France. In an example of arrogance and incitement to neo-colonialism, Emanuelle Macron blamed the Bolsonaro government for not doing enough to avoid forest fires, although most of the fires occurred in areas belonging to Bolivia, and that were not even forests, but agriculture fields and livestock.
Under the Convention on Biological Diversity, the sovereignty of States over biodiversity resources within their jurisdiction is recognized, while the UNFCCC declares that “changes in the Earth’s climate and its adverse effects are a concern common of humanity ”.
The Amazon plays a fundamental role as a carbon sink, which is a service that benefits the climate system. Bolsonaro correctly emphasized his intervention at the opening of the General Assembly, on September 24, that under the spirit of the United Nations, sovereignty must be respected, emphasizing Brazil’s sovereignty over the Amazon.
The principle of permanent sovereignty over natural resources, still in force in international law, derives from the post-colonial debate when countries that became independent struggled to regain control over their natural resources.
In 1952 the General Assembly of the United Nations declared: “The right of peoples to freely dispose of their wealth and natural resources is inherent in their sovereignty in accordance with the purposes and principles of the Charter of the United Nations.”
However, the UN wants to dismiss the sovereignty of countries over their resources under the principle of “common concern of humanity” that has supposedly impacted and altered the traditional role and understanding of the sovereignty of States.
The UN already has limits on the sovereignty of the nation-states, according to the United Nations Summit on Human Environment, held in Stockholm in 1972.
Then, some limits to sovereignty were established, recognizing that “States have the sovereign right to exploit their own resources in application of their own environmental and development policy and the obligation to ensure that the activities carried out within their jurisdiction or under its control do not harm the environment of other States or areas located outside any national jurisdiction ”.
That is, no country in the world can have the interference of others, or of international bodies such as the UN, in the work of its development. But there is always a but.
At the same time, both the UNFCCC and the Paris Agreement include the principle of “common but differentiated responsibilities and their respective capabilities” and “in the light of different national circumstances” the latter.
The UN wants to appeal to the harmful collectivism, the “common good” to overthrow the rules that this same organization created in the past and thus undermine the sovereignty of nations over their territory and their resources, as well as development policies.
There is a tension between the concept of sovereignty, which is always used in the political sense, with different interpretations depending on the context and intention, and the need to protect the climate system and many other natural resources.
Thus, many countries claim, based on the principle of common but differentiated responsibilities, their right to continue exploiting their natural resources and using their territory for the sake of their development, which is correct. But the UN cares little about international law and the sovereignty of countries, because now it has a hoax like that of the climate emergency to politicize the fundamental rights of nations under the excuse that the principle of sovereignty of countries does not offer a adequate response to current needs and knowledge about the functioning of the climate system.
The UN claims that scientists have warned us that the Earth is a unique system, with nine planetary boundaries, a fact that was already known in 1972, when the principle of sovereignty was established.
The issue of sovereignty is so important, both for the Nation States and for those who want to end it, that even the Vatican has gotten its opinion, and not necessarily in favor of countries having complete control over their territory.
For example, when talking about Energy Transition, that is, stop using fossil fuels and natural gas to encourage development, the Vatican and corporations appeal back to collectivism by saying that the Earth as “our common house” and that ” it is undeniable that the Earth is a unique system and humanity a unique whole. ”
The unity of the land system is not recognized by international law and in order to protect our climate not only commitments are required, and in the absence of these, it is intended to use political coercion. Now the UN wants to impose “structural and profound reforms in international law” to end the sovereignty of States.