Robin Hood goes global.

"Steal from the rich, give to the poor."
The motive behind the global climate change movement has been revealed as nothing more than global redistribution of wealth, as the AP reported Sunday. According to U.N climate chief Yvo de Boer, "Rich countries must put at least $10 billion a year on the table to kick-start immediate action up to 2012."
Apparently those of us in the modern, developed world were all wrong for using fossil fuels to achieve the highest standard of living and greatest wealth in the history of the world. In doing so we must have committed some great atrocity against the rest of the world and must be punished. For shame!
What is the answer? Take from the rich in the form of punitive taxation, and give to the poor to grease the wheels of like minded progressive governance. The World Bank estimates it will cost wealthier nations $75 to $100 billion per year for the next 40 years to "assist" the poorer nations. Some of those poorer nations would like upwards of $350 billion per year.
The green crowd has been pushing for punitive taxation to punish the perceived damage industrialized countries supposedly cause the planet's environment and prop up undeveloped and underdeveloped countries for decades, much to the delight of the poorer countries. This time they are flaunting their intentions openly as they unabashedly perpetuate the global climate change myth. And, really, who is going to say no to free money? Who won't continue to demand more? According to the report, if poor countries aren't offered enough, it could jeopardize the whole climate change conference.
Interestingly, however, the green movement wishes to prop them up only to a point. Poorer countries will use money from the wealthier countries to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. Green technology for all! You may, however, have to forgo such luxuries as turning your lights on when you want to. The incredible technological, societal and economical developments that coal, oil and natural gas enable are too damaging to the environment. The unimaginable leaps and bounds developed countries have enjoyed because of fossil fuels must be hindered for developing countries. Rather, still inefficient wind, solar energy, and fat stacks of cash will have to suffice.
So what will all this redistributed money do? According to the AP article, the initial "kick-start" money "would go to 'capacity building' — training, planning, getting a fix on needs, local emissions and related concerns." Sounds like slush funding on a global level. Furthermore, "upfront money would also help rebuild trust between the rich north and poor south, eroded by years of relative inaction on climate, particularly by the United States."
Generally speaking, I am not opposed to the idea of offering financial assistance to developing countries in the form of a loan or perhaps a stipend of some sort. As a wealthy country we have the option of generosity. We can choose to assist developing countries with resources to build infrastructure, propel scientific discovery and build up businesses to create jobs and raise the standard of living.
And as an aside, all the furor over businesses and jobs moving overseas, then, is puzzling. Isn't that what we want? Better conditions for all? In the worldview of progressives if private industry rather than government is doing it, it's wrong. Furthermore, the way progressives equalize is to bring down, rather than raise up. After all, citizens who have the means to provide for themselves are much more difficult to control.
Blaming yourself for the supposed ills caused another country based on science that despite claims is anything but settled is ridiculous. Promising to write a blank check based on science which at best is still unsettled and at worst is a complete hoax, is just stupid.
Funny how Robin Hood wears the color green...