One of the most misused – and terribly abused – words that one hears from those representing the alarmist front of the “climate change” (aka “global warming”) debate is “transparent” (and/or variants thereof). Google defines “transparent” thusly:
To my mind, few organizations can match the many branches (and considerably less than “transparently” associated arms, fingers and fingerlings) of the non UN Chartered United Nations Environment Program (UNEP). Consider, for example, the UNEP’s “partner in parenthood”, the World Meteorogical Organization (WMO) and their “child”, the decreasingly relevant Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC).
And let us not forget perhaps one of the least transparent of ’em all, the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) and its current head honcho, Christiana <tinkerbell> Figueres.
I’m not sure what mode of transportation Figueres might have used, but she did put in an appearance at the Apr. 14 gathering of the great and the good Provincial premiers at a one-day so-called “climate summit” in Quebec City. I suppose one is not supposed to ask the obvious question: Why could they not have convened via virtual connection (i.e. video conference) if they are oh-so-concerned about our <gasp> deadly and oh-so-dreaded “carbon footprint”.
For those who might be interested, evidently the outcome of this gathering – in which the premiers predictably agreed to pass the blame-buck to the Feds – is probably best summarized, as the article above mentioned:
The premiers did not agree to any specific goals in their joint declaration — only to “adopt” and “promote” ways to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and “advance” new technologies.
The final declaration also represented how divided the provinces are on the issue of how to fight climate change.
A draft document included a reference to the ministers agreeing to “put a price on carbon or adopt other structuring initiatives” to help reduce greenhouse gasses.
The final declaration only stated that premiers agreed to “make a transition to a lower-carbon economy through appropriate initiatives.”
Tuesday’s meeting ended with renewed calls for the federal government to show greater initiative in addressing the issue.
Excuse me?! “adopt other structuring initiatives“? Whatthehellis this supposed to mean, eh?! As for “putting a price on carbon” … well, we know how well this has worked out to date, even if these great and good provincial Premiers, apparently, do not!
Nonetheless, I suppose this is pretty mild stuff compared to developments down-under (where, in a recent election, voters had rejected the economy-killing “carbon tax” of now-former Prime Minister, Julia Gillard).
As Tony Thomas has recently observed, “transparency” is not a feature of the (un)duly reconstituted among the Australian advocacy crowd. An oh-so-dedicated crowd led by movers and shakers such as Tim Flannery, Will Steffen – and the recently recycled and elevated (from PR flack to CEO), Amanda McKenzie.
As Thomas had noted (inter alia … do read the whole thing) by way of introduction:
Tim Flannery and his Climate Commission cobbers were on a nice little earner when the former Labor government needed to spruik its carbon tax. Tony Abbott ended that, so the Commission became the Council and donations made up the shortfall. Still running a deficit, however, is financial transparency.
Goodness! What’s been going on at the Climate Council? Any charity living off appeals to the public for cash, needs to show a bit of transparency, but I mostly drew a blank from the council when I asked them about matters 1 to 10 below.
Thomas concluded by noting:
Alas, the council won’t even say how many Members it has, let alone who they are. I applied to the council to become a Member myself,[i] but within 24 hours the council advised me that “The Council board is not considering any new membership applications at this point in time.”
That does hold out some hope. My goal as Member would be to make the council’s work more balanced and transparent by the appointment of eminent climate scientists Bill Kinninmonth and Bob Carter as directors. Wish me luck with the note below!
I wish to apply to become a Member of the Council, as per the Constitution.
8.1.2 Every applicant for membership of the Company must apply in the form and manner determined by the Board. 8.1.4 After receipt of an application for membership, the Board must consider the application and determine whether to admit or reject the admission of the applicant. The Board need not give any reason for rejecting an application.
As per 8.1.2., could you please supply me with appropriate protocols for my application?
“The Board need not give any reason for rejecting an application“?! Such a dedicated commitment to “transparency”, eh?! YMMV, but it seems to me that this particular Board has a far greater “commitment” to trouble-seeking and trouble-making than to “transparency” of any known kind!
Perhaps this Board has taken its lead from Ontario’s Premier (who appears to be following the lead of her now disgraced predecessor) – and perhaps (you should pardon my use of the word) model, Dalton McGuinty,
If nothing else, these oh-so-dedicated high political profile “climate change” advocates – regardless of geographical location – seem to be totally dedicated to “recycling” any and all myths and memes as proposed and/or propagated by one or more of the UNEP’s “offspring” – and/or its ever increasing bank of affiliates of the Non-Governmental Organization (NGO) kind.