With the Rio +20 conference coming up, the "member countries" are salivating at the possibility of stealing from developed nations.
Three weeks before the U.N.-sponsored Rio + 20 summit conference on sustainable development, member countries that the United States hoped would produce a five-page summary of goals are instead haggling over a mammoth grab-bag of demands for new planetary regulation and assertions that industrialized countries, led by the U.S., should pay for, among other things, an unprecedented and massively expensive transfer of technology and funds to the developing world.Of course they don't want to make the documents public, because it would just rile up the people they want to steal from. Anyway, Watts Up With That has a pretty good discussion of what we can expect from this summit, including the following:
At one point, the text being debated by hundreds of negotiators climbed to 171 pages before being cut back by executive fiat to 86 pages—only to start climbing steeply again.
The unwieldy document covers everything from sustainable food strategies to codes of corporate responsibility to technology transfers—on highly favorable terms—to developing countries. Copies of the document are not being made publicly available.
[T]hey say they want to rip people off “consistent with the principles of universality, democracy, transparency, cost-effectiveness and accountability”. What this means depends on the tide, the phase of the moon, and the desires of the person invoking it. Basically, it means whatever they want it to mean, unless it happens to favor development, business, or human beings, in which case it means the opposite.
Next, they pledge allegiance to the “Rio Principles“. The “Rio Principles” were an unprincipled declaration of how they planned to achieve their global redistribution of wealth. Among the un-principles are the “Precautionary Principle“, along with the usual feel-good clauses and paragraphs about how they planned to spend the money.
Finally, in a wonderful understatement, they back the idea of “common but differentiated responsibilities.” This is UN-speak at its finest. The “differentiated responsibilities” part means “the poorest in the rich countries have the responsibility of providing the money to pay to the richest in the poor countries, whose responsibility is to spend it on Mercedes sedans for Government Ministers.” Seriously. That’s what “common but differentiated responsibilities” means, except the part about the Mercedes, I added that because it’s the inevitable outcome.