Rio+20 Recap: Climate Change ==> Social Justice
06/27/2012 2 Comments
Russ Steele
“The former buzz words ‘environment’ and ‘climate change’ have disappeared … now it’s all about “social justice” with “collectives” that will tell you what you want or should do.”
Who knew, it was never about changing the climate, it was really about wealth distribution. You can read the full report in the Canada Free HERE. The article by Dr. Klaus L.E. Kaiser concludes:
The Agenda Shift
The agenda shift from the original Eco-92 gathering in Rio (1992), i.e. “global warming” to “climate change” to “environmental justice” to “social justice” happened slowly, but it was a long-term goal by its ideologists all along. By now it’s all about “social justice” with “collectives” that will tell you what you want or should do. The former buzz words ‘environment’ and ‘climate change’ have disappeared too.
Moreover, with the previously touted “Global Warming” scare, supposedly due to carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, rapidly being exposed as the greatest scientific hoax since “Piltdown Man” certainly does not help its cause either. However, the new deity, “social justice” also comes with its own set of conundrums.
Social Justice
In the end, it all boils down to a simple question: What would you rather have, the subsistence lifestyle of the peasant farmer or the conveniences of the modern city dweller? The answer is obvious from a simple fact:
The majority of the 45,000 activists attending Rio+20 had not gone there by dug-out canoe!
Now what are our local lefty defenders of global warming and climate change going to say? Social Justice will not burn down our houses, just drain our bank accounts. What will CARB do now that we know it was not climate change but wealth distribution and social justice? Oh, Cap and Trade is wealth distribution from your bank account to a democrat controlled slush fund!


I take your last sentence to correctly imply that the ‘democrats’ are the one and the same Democrats we have been suffering under for a generation or two.
Yes. “democrats” should have read Democrats.