Prominent scientists have offered some of the more extreme suggestions. Professor Kevin Anderson, for example, director of a “Centre for Climate Change Research” in the U.K., authored a paper urging the adoption of a World War II-style rationing system — for carbon: “The Second World War and the concept of rationing is something we need to seriously consider if we are to address the scale of the problem we face,” Anderson explained in an article, urging world rulers to limit electricity and prohibit food imports, among other things.
“I am not saying we have to go back to living in caves,” he said. “Our emissions were a lot less ten years ago and we got by ok then.” His suggestion would involve a total freeze on economic growth in developed countries and “carbon rations” for every person on the planet.
Perhaps trying to make his colleagues seem moderate by comparison, another British scientist writing for the Royal Society said such drastic measures would not be enough to stave off “global warming.” “Peak warming is determined by the total amount of carbon dioxide we release into the atmosphere, not the rate we release it in any given year,” claimed Oxford University physicist Myles Allen.
The idea of a global “one-child policy” modeled after Communist China’s has also been a hot topic, but not just among Chinese communists. In fact, it has even attracted the support of CNN boss Ted Turner, who urged world leaders to adopt the barbaric tactics at a luncheon in Cancun over the weekend. “If we’re going to be here [as a species] 5,000 years from now, we’re not going to do it with seven billion people,” said Turner, who already has five children of his own.
Economist Brian O’Neill of the U.S. National Center for Atmospheric Research, who also spoke at the luncheon, presented a study claiming that population growth was bad for the planet. He suggested that “family planning” — code words for abortion and birth control — should be made universally available to help limit emissions.
The Chinese regime is still hoping to implement its family policy worldwide, though it drew strong condemnation when it was proposed at the COP15 global-warming summit in Copenhagen last year. The communist government frequently brags that its brutal scheme — which includes forced abortions for women with more than one child — has helped limit “emissions” by reducing the number of children, possibly by as much as half of a billion.
Then, of course, are calls from “scientists” for a carbon tax, a particularly popular proposal among cash-strapped Western regimes that fund the scientists. “What the world needs now is a bold, experimental, daring step — to simply try out something that has never been done before, and that is a global carbon tax,” urged Professor Johan Rockström of the Stockholm Environment Institute in an interview with a Singaporean paper.
“It will be a crazy step, a daring step, but something the world simply needs to experiment with,” he said, proposing carbon taxes as high as $40 per ton of CO2. “And you set that up as a global mechanism,” using the money raised for so-called “development.”
“That might be what we might need to turn things around in the short term,” Rockström added.
There are several other proposals for global taxation that are also gaining traction at the conference. Those include a tax on aviation and shipping paid directly to the UN or a similar tax on banking and financial transactions, also paid straight into global coffers. Before the climate summit in Cancun had even started, the UN put out a document proposing its global taxation schemes. What will come of them remains to be seen.
As The New American reported last week, another idea being pushed in Cancun would ban incandescent light bulbs and kerosene lamps worldwide. That plan is backed by a coalition of governments, the UN, several humongous corporations, and various communist dictatorships. The cost would be enormous. And the wisdom of using the far more expensive CFL bulbs — which contain the toxic element mercury — is still a matter of great debate.
Another radical proposal coming from a powerful coalition of radical leftist regimes in Latin America involves killing what little is left of the free market. “The environmental imbalance capitalism has caused is without doubt the fundamental cause of the alarming atmospheric phenomena," wrote socialist Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez in his most current column, referring to recent rains that have washed away some shanty towns in his socialist “utopia.” He blamed the deluges on capitalism.
"The world's powerful economies insist on a destructive way of life and then refuse to take any responsibility," Chavez added. Other regimes, including that of Bolivian leader Evo Morales, have echoed Chavez’s call to end “capitalism,” transfer the wealth it produced to Third World countries, and implement global socialism.
There are numerous other extreme proposals coming from global bureaucrats and scientists riding the climate gravy train. How far they will get, however, remains to be seen, as newspapers and columnists around the world continue to ridicule the whole confab and its theories and ideas. Analysts have even suggested the "global-warming scam" is unraveling.
For now, “climate negotiators” are trying to figure out how to extort $100 billion a year from “rich countries” for a “Green” slush fund. Agreed to in Copenhagen last year with the help of bribery, espionage, and threats from American and European officials, the fund would supposedly hand out money to corrupt Third World regimes to deal with the alleged threat of “global warming.”