Global Governance: The Emperor Strikes Back

I'd found it hard to believe that Congress had dared vote on, and then pass the Caps and Gains Bill before it had been technically enumerated. While I have yet to hear of anyone fully reading the 1,200 page behemoth legislation all the way through, some of its key benefactors are nonetheless jumping to some rather absurd conclusions.
As the next process of voting is pending in the Senate, Democrat Barbara Boxer had some curious forewarnings. According to Boxer, should the Senate not pass the Bill as well, there will be dire results including droughts, floods, and fires, loss of species, damage to agriculture, worsening air pollution, and more. Now, before anyone could stop and wonder how droughts, floods, and fire could happen simultaneously, apparently in agricultural areas, Boxer reassured those inconvenient doubters with the huge upside.
If the Senate does act, millions of clean-energy jobs, reduced reliance on foreign oil and less pollution for the nation's children will all result. Now maybe we should give Baxter the benefit of the doubt and leave aside the whole issue with the massive reserves of oil which are being taken painstakingly slowly thanks to overly done and unnecessary regulation. Maybe we shouldn't keep in mind that there has been one Oil rig spill since they started drilling, far less than the number of tanker spills bringing “foreign oil”. Also, even though it’s inconvenient, let’s leave aside the probability that, if there are fires, floods, droughts, and no agriculture all going on at once, our nation’s children probably won’t really have the time or convenience to notice the superfluously damaging pollution--they might just be amazed to experience a fire and flood at once, all in the middle of a drought. Instead, I’m still trying figure out how increased taxes on American domiciles and the deliberate reduction and reverse of industry will lead to millions of clean energy jobs. Even Obama hasn’t yet laid claim to having “created or saved” that many jobs. Addressing the threat of a Republican filibuster Boxer responded, “This is consistent with a pattern of 'No. No, we can't. No, we won't,” she continued, "I believe that this committee, when the votes are eventually taken on our bill, will reflect our president's attitude, which is 'Yes, we can, and yes, we will.” Now while Boxer finds these slogans ever appropriate here, how would they respectively address such questions as, “Will you disregard the Constitution?” “Will you tax and spend until the American people really are the helpless victims you claim us to be?”
Speaking of which, former vice president Al Gore declared that the Congressional climate bill will help bring about “global governance.” To better describe this ambiguous scheme, Gore reference the proposed 2007 UN carbon tax. In December 2007, the UN climate conference in Bali, urged the adoption of a global carbon tax that would represent “a global burden sharing system, fair, with solidarity, and legally binding to all nations.”
“Finally someone will pay for these [climate related] costs,” Othmar Schwank, a global tax advocate, said at the conference. Schwank insisted that wealthy nations like the U.S. would bear the biggest burden based on the “polluters pay principle.” The U.S. and other wealthy nations need to “contribute significantly more to this global fund,” according to Schwank, who then added, “It is very essential to tax coal.”
Despite the vast majority of coal burning being done in Africa, the U.S. tax payers would foot the bill, apparently disregarding the “polluters pay rule” because the U.S. hasn’t contributed enough to said fund enough. Is getting involved in such a farcical “governance” really so dangerous though? I mean small amounts of trees and coal may be left in the ground, and that’s kind of nice, but then take into account also that at the same conference the self-titled group “Friends of the Earth” advocated the transfer of money from rich to poor nations. "A climate change response must have at its heart a redistribution of wealth and resources," according to spokeswoman Emma Brindel. If we just redistribute the resources, how will any less be burned? They insist the problem is the necessary use of harsh fuels such as coal by 3rd world countries, so I guess the rationale is that if Everyone becomes a 2nd world country, the nice compromise between 1st and 3rd, everyone will be happy (the happiness of course being forcibly distributed).