I'm beginning to think its worse than even you imagine...

While trolling another site, I found a link to a video from the Minnesota Free Trade Association. The speaker in the video was decrying the Copenhagen Treaty that Obama is under so much pressure to sign, and he details very clearly why the treaty is so dangerous.

I found the text of the treaty HERE, and let me tell you, this isn't some vague conspiracy notion reminiscent of the grand old days of sweating the "New World Order"... this is pretty scary stuff.

The treaty calls for the mandatory reduction of all industrial "greenhouse" emissions by 80% by 2050, with peak emissions reached by no later than 2017. The cost for the global program is projected to be a minimum of $160 billion per year from 2013 to 2017, with the cost spread out over the signatory nations based, not on their projected carbon footprints but on their projected GNP. That means that the US would owe $544 BILLION dollars in four years, or 68% of the bill... while China (projected to out-pace the US in carbon production by more than a factor of 4x by 2017) would owe less than 9% of the bill. Mexico, at 1/3 of the size of the US and with half the carbon production, would owe less than 1/20th of the bill (5%). Shockingly, neither China nor Mexico would be bound by the Treaty to PAY THE BILL, though, because they do not qualify as fully-developed nations capable of leading the charge against global warming the way the US is. We would pay a greater portion of THEIR carbon debt in lieu of carbon credits... which would add (roughly... I'm no math expert) as much as 18% to the cost of production in any industry that is fossil fuel dependant on manufacturing and distribution of material and/or services.

The final say in what regulations and requirements would be in effect here in the US would lay entirely with the Copenhagen Climate Facility, and the Treaty would bind us to the edicts and regulations laid down by them. Once signed and ratified, the only means of backing out of the Treaty would be to cut off trade and ties with the entire EU and the bulk of the Eastern Pacific Rim nations (including Japan and Australia) until such time as we could get our emissions to required levels without participating in the Protocols.

This kind of surrender of sovereignty is unlike any that we have faced in the past, and I am including the UN in that assessment as well. This equates (in my opinion) to the US joining a new "climate-oriented" global union of states, capable of regulating economies across continents and instituting a degree of control that is, literally, unprecedented.

Now, having given the "doom and gloom" portion of my post, let me tell you what I think is going to happen.

Nothing.

Even if the bulk of the US were willing to surrender that kind of sovereignty and control (which I am sure they are not), or even if the US Congress and the President could "buffalo" the ratification process past an oblivious US public (a distinct possibility), there isn't a 3rd world nation on the face of this Earth that would be willing to use the funds offered by the treaty ONLY for the means of production of safe, green energy. We would see the call for nuclear power stations across the African continent, or across southeast Asia, and the resulting inability of even a bureaucratic jaugernaut like the UN to monitor and regulate the amounts of refined and (very possibly weapons-grade) material flowing out of these plants would be enough to bring even Al Gore to his senses.

However, given the chance that the President might push this through ratification, once the bill came due and the American public saw that every single facet of their materialistic, consumer-driven world was effected heavily by the cost associated with the Treaty obligations, compliance would simply END. Suddenly, the study of facts and figures refuting global warming would get substantial private funds and the message would be shouted from the mountain tops that the entire premise of this "protocol" is false. It seems painfully obvious to me that, looking at the published need for 68% OR MORE of all funding needing to come from the US tax payer, without the US the protocols fall apart like a cheap suit in a rainstorm.

This is a serious matter, in my eyes, because of the time, energy and money that will need to be expended to fix the problem once it is enacted... but it is an effort doomed to an early, painful and graphic death that will cost those involved untold billions in measurable economic prosperity.