[asa] AGW Useful as a Political Tool to North America Union Agenda

From: John Walley <john_walley@yahoo.com>
Date: Wed Dec 09 2009 - 21:20:21 EST

"When economy is strong public interest is strong in environmental issues however when weak people are willing to make tradeoffs.

There is significant interest however in climate change and this would be an issue ripe for a North American Integrated approach."

(see reference below)

From http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Security_and_Prosperity_Partnership_of_North_America%c2

The Security and Prosperity Partnership of North America (SPP) was a region-level dialogue with the stated purpose of providing greater cooperation on security and economic issues.[1] The Partnership was founded in Waco, Texas on March 23, 2005 by Paul Martin, Prime Minister of Canada, Vicente Fox, President of Mexico, and George W. Bush, President of the United States.[1] It was the second of such regional-level agreements involving the United States of America following the 1997 Partnership for Prosperity and Security in the Caribbean (PPS).

The Council of Canadians claimed that the SPP extended the controversial "no fly list" of the USA, made Canadian water a communal resource, and forced Canada and Mexico to adopt the USA's security policies - one of which would allow foreign military forces to neglect sovereignty in the case of a "civil emergency". In addition, it also touched on the issue of Albertan tar sands expansion to five times its current size.[13]
On May 10, 2007, Conservative MP Leon Benoit, chair of the Canadian House of Commons Standing Committee on International Trade, prevented University of Alberta professor Gordon Laxer from testifying that SPP would leave Canadians "to freeze in the dark" because "Canada itself – unlike most industrialized nations – has no national plan or reserves to protect its own supplies" by saying Laxer's testimony was not relevant, defying a majority vote to overrule his motion, shutting down the Committee meeting, and leaving with the other three out of four Conservative members; the meeting later continued presided by the Liberal vice-chair.[14] After these disruptions, the National Post reported on a Conservative party manual to, among other things, usurp Parliamentary committees and cause chaos in unfavourable committees.[15][16] The New Democratic Party also criticized SPP for being undemocratic, not open to Parliament, and opaque.[17] New Democratic Party
 leader Jack Layton described the process as not simply unconstitutional, but "non-constitutional", held completely outside the usual mechanisms of oversight.[18]
Some thirty US-based organizations also sent an open letter to Congress on April 21, 2008 criticizing the secrecy and lack of any sort of democratic oversight:
"What differentiates the SPP from other security and trade agreements is that it is not subject to Congressional oversight or approval. The SPP establishes a corporate/government bureaucracy for implementation that excludes civil society participation. ... Facing a worrisome pact pushed forward in secrecy, it is time for Congress to halt this undemocratic approach and establish a process based on openness, accountability, and the participation of civil society.[19]

Documents from the "North American Forum" which took place in September 2006 in Banff, Alberta have recently been released under Freedom of Information Act and may shed some light on the subject. For those who are unaware, the so called Security and Prosperity Plan of North America (SPP) was launched in March of 2005 by the leaders of Canada, the U.S., and Mexico in an effort to "increase security" and "enhance Prosperity" between the three nations through "greater cooperation and information sharing". More loosely known as the North American Union or NAFTA's big brother, the SPP has enjoyed relative anonymity in the media as it seeks to integrate the governmental, economic, and defense policies among others of the three North American countries.

As to the North American Forum meeting in Banff, notes from the meeting make the statement that there is "significant interest" in climate change, a fact which can be leveraged to impose a carbon tax. This document goes on to state that the infrastructure of the North American Union should be implemented in secret, essentially "Evolution by Stealth".

Official SPP website: http://www.spp.gov/ -




Page 5:

"When economy is strong public interest is strong in environmental issues however when weak people are willing to make tradeoffs.

There is significant interest however in climate change and this would be an issue ripe for a North American Integrated approach.

Needs to move beyond Departments of Energy and Environment and be a focus of Ministries of Foreign Affairs and Economy.

Long term solution cannot be a Cap & Trade syatem, rather a carbon tax or a technology solution."


To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
Received on Wed, 9 Dec 2009 18:20:21 -0800 (PST)

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Wed Dec 09 2009 - 21:20:39 EST