Should we the taxpayers of the United States support a global warming agenda that is clearly NOT in our national interest? Should we the taxpayers of the United States support a global warming agenda that is clearly NOT in our national interest?[/caption] There is a great public debate, as well as that among scientists, over whether the Earth is experiencing warming, and whether that warming is caused by human activity. But the political agenda proposed by “climate change” activists is quite another issue. While leaders of many nations convene in Paris to work out another global warming accord, the United Nations and several partnering groups are organizing a campaign to convince the world to support the global warming agenda. But the truth about the global warming agenda is simple, when their real goals are examined, it clearly reveals it is a massive international re-distribution of wealth from the wealthiest nations to the less economically successful nations of the world. There is no doubt that much of the costs of this will be paid by U.S. taxpayers. “Whether anything substantive happens at all in Paris is still up in the air, as developed and developing nations squabble, among other things, over whether and how to provide a $100 billion annual transfer from rich to poor nations as part of the agreement, and over how the greenhouse gas promises might actually be measured,” FoxNews reported. The campaign is organized by the UN with support of the United Nations Foundation and the Energy Future Coalition., designed to create a “bandwagon effect” of mindless support for the extreme global warming agenda of wealth redistribution, carbon taxes, etc. The Coalition was founded in 2002 by Timothy Wirth, U.N. Foundation president from 1998 to 2013 and still a foundation board member, and John Podesta, chairman of the 2016 Hillary Clinton presidential campaign, former senior counselor to President Barack Obama and onetime chairman of the Center for American Progress, a highly influential liberal think tank,” FoxNews reports, adding that Boyden Gray, who served in both Bush administrations, was also a founder. The coalition desires to “change the rules that currently dominate our energy sector” and build support for an agenda including mandating higher usage of expensive renewable energy resources, higher fuel economy standards for vehicles, and carbon taxes that would cause massive inflation, economic decline, and millions of lost jobs. The Coalition works closed with the United Nations Foundation, and shares an office with them in Washington D.C. The work of the Energy Future Coalition is supported chiefly by foundation grants, especially from the Turner Foundation, the Better World Fund, and the Energy Foundation, and by corporate partners on specific projects,” the Coalition’s web site says, “The Energy Future Coalition works closely with the United Nations Foundation, with which it is co-located, on energy and climate policy, especially energy efficiency and bioenergy issues. The UN Foundation provides financial and in-kind support to the Coalition. While we still have nearly 100 million Americans are out of work, and the recovery from the recession that started earlier this decade is sluggish at best, can we afford to take the hit to our economy that would result from the agenda advocated by climate change activists? Given that it’s not clear we humans are causing global warming, nor has it been established that such policies would have any effect on global climate, should we support them anyway? While our country is more than $18 trillion in national debt, and Congress should be asked, why do our tax dollars go to supporting this agenda, and isn’t it time we pull the plug on it?]]>