NewsThu Sep 5, 2019 - 8:06 pm EST
UN rights chief: Climate change to ‘generate ... restrictions and harm’ to people’s rights
September 5, 2019 (LifeSiteNews) – Michelle Bachelet, UN High Commissioner for Human Rights since 2018, has warned humanity against upcoming “harm to Human Rights” and “major conflicts” that will occur in the future due to “climate change.”
The former liberal Chilean president gave a lengthy interview to emol.com, a major news site in her own country, in which she used the “climate scare” in order to promote widespread migration and globalist solutions, suggesting that refusal on the part of sovereign states to follow the United Nations on those counts would lead to disruption and injustice the world over.
The interview marked Bachelet’s first anniversary as figurehead of the UN Human Rights Commission, a position she reached after giving many proofs of her political correctness. she was responsible for the partial lifting of Chile’s total abortion ban during her tenure in 2017 and she has also been a vocal proponent of same-sex “marriage” and “women’s rights.” Daughter of a Pinochet opponent, she chose to study German and medicine in former communist East Germany long before the fall of the Berlin Wall. Back in Chile, she made her political career in the socialist party.
This “communist” option as well as her very positive attitude towards freemasonry define her political thought. Of freemasonry, she has said “it has been a firm defender of the liberty of conscience and the autonomy of thought,” a commendation that underscores freemasons’ refusal of dogma. It is precisely the Gran Logia de Chile, one of the country’s most important and influential masonic lodges, that today is making the rounds of Chilean High Schools to encourage youngsters to join the upcoming UN climate conference in Santiago de Chile, the COP25.
How can “climate change” – the words that have replaced “global warming” since local temperatures have failed to obey the doomsayers’ announcements promising that temperate zones would no longer see snow from 2010 and that summer hot spells would reach unequaled levels – affect Human Rights?
“For me, climate change has been a reality for a long time and in the various jobs I had I’ve not only tried to be an advocate but to take concrete action in order to implement the Paris agreement. I know that climate change is going to generate, voluntarily or not, restrictions and harm to people’s rights. Obviously, it isn’t nature that violates Human Rights, but when people need to displace themselves because of drought, lack of food or fighting for water, powerful conflicts will be generated,” she explained.
Several points arise here. One, is climate change certain, as are its purported consequences? All the doom and gloom predicted by Paul Ehrlich in 1969 – worldwide famine and population-related catastrophes by the 1980s and 1990s never happened. Many prophecies made by the “global warming” UN specialists and their mainstream friends have already proved wrong, as LifeSite recalled as recently as August 21. But they have given rise to policies that include population control and a shift to so-called “renewable,” expensive energy in developed countries that are thus put at a disadvantage towards the “emerging” nations.
The second point is this: need Human Rights be damaged by the consequences of “climate change?” This sounds like another form of a “great scare” made to measure to obtain a form of public approval of a number of unpopular policies that would otherwise be rejected. The fear of conflict here acts as a tool for change.
Third point: What did Bachelet mean by the words “voluntarily or not?” Is she suggesting that “climate change” could be used by governments to “generate, voluntarily or not, restrictions and harm to people’s rights?” Who exactly will make restrictions? Will damage to Human Rights be one of the deliberate consequences of the whole thing?
One thing is quite certain: Bachelet, as an official spokeswoman of the UN, is repeating the obligatory lesson of the day. “Governments need to listen to civil society because in the face of climate change changes of conduct are necessary and this has to do with the situation in the Amazon. Part of the fire problem has to do with a set of practices on the part of human beings that are harmful to such a fantastic region of biodiversity,” she said, repeating after the members of the G7 most developed countries of the world that the indigenous peoples in the protected areas of the Amazon “will be one of the groups that will be most affected by climate change.”
Having accused certain unnamed countries of “decreasing” the space available to their “civil society,” while some “elected” persons “have started to weaken institutions and lessen civil society’s participation” because of “populism, nationalisms and anti-multilateralism,” Bachelet went on to plead mainly for the respect of the UN Marrakech Migration Pact that restricts sovereign states power to manage the migration and refugee problem.
Here it is easy to verify that the required answer to “climate change” and its “Human Rights” issues is, according to Bachelet and the organization she represents, lies in facilitating population movements and considering the problem as a “global” one that requires “global,” that is, supranational solutions.
The signing of the Marrakech Pact by 152 countries last December, Bachelet added, “means that the large majority of countries does understand that this is a global problem that cannot be solved individually, and I believe that the big problem nations have really lies there: believing you can solve problems alone through that are usually restrictive of regressive…”
In a nutshell: to avoid the largest possible amount of Human Rights violations linked to “climate change,” sovereign countries should let the international community lay down the rules for migration and refugee welcoming, because it knows best. And obviously, accepting large numbers of foreigners from different countries and, above all, cultures, leads to restrictions, as many western Europeans have already experienced: the cost of welcoming the newcomers and the security problems that have been seen to accompany the sudden arrival of masses of non-European people – mostly alone-standing young men.
Bachelet’s comments about the changes that will or should be wrought by the fight against “climate change” and its human consequences recall a number of statements by Ottmar Edenhofer of the IPPC (International Panel on Climate Change) in 2010, which LifeSite already quoted here last October.
He was quoted by the Swiss newspaper Neue Zürcher Zeitung as saying: “We redistribute de facto the world’s wealth by climate politics.” Was he indicating that the fight against climate change’s true objective is to “redistribute” (in a very socialist sense) the “world’s wealth?”
Not quite so clearly. His full quote (as translated to English by blogger Victor Venema on variable-variability.blogspot.com) is more nuanced:
“Fundamentally, it is a big mistake to discuss climate politics separately from the big issues of globalization. The climate summit in Cancún at the end of the month is not a climate conference, but one of the largest economic conferences since the Second World War. Why? Because we have 11,000 gigatons of carbon in the coal reserves under our feet – and we can only add 400 gigatons more to the atmosphere if we want to stay within the 2 °C target. 11,000 to 400 – we have to face the fact that a large part of the fossil reserves must remain in the ground.
“De facto, this is the expropriation of the countries with these natural resources. This leads to an entirely different development than the one that has been initiated with development policy.
“First of all, we as industrialized countries have quasi expropriated the atmosphere of the world community. But one must explicitly say: We de facto redistribute the world’s wealth due to climate politics. That the owners of coal and oil are not enthusiastic about this is obvious. One has to free oneself from the illusion that international climate politics is environmental politics. This has almost nothing to do any more with environmental politics, [as is was with] with problems such as deforestation or the ozone hole.”
He appears to have meant that fighting against “climate change” cannot do otherwise than have economical implications and end up by redistributing wealth to the detriment of those nations who have profited by fossil fuels and industrialization at the expense of the developing nations – as the most consequent and candid “climate change” fighters have been saying for quite some time.
The question remains: Is “climate change” real? What is the value of the innumerable scares that continue to accompany talk about “climate change,” and of which a staggering majority have indeed never come true? And if the “climate change” story is untrue, or unduly attributed to humankind (together with the idea that a change of conduct could influence the climate for better), then is it not reasonable to assume that the real, deliberately unstated, main objective is to forcibly or otherwise “redistribute the world’s wealth?”