What's the carbon footprint of a military invasion? And where's the army that the U.N. would use to invade a country that emits the CO2 that makes the world greener and greener?

This guy makes me even happier that I ditched academia after getting my Ph.D. and teaching at Harvard. Simon Kent reports for Breitbart:

The United Nations may resort to military action against states that defy its mandates on global climate action, according to Ole Wæver, a prominent international relations professor at the University of Copenhagen. In an interview with ABC News in Australia, Professor Wæver cautions that what he sees as "climate inaction" might draw the U.N. into considering other means to ensure its goals are met, even if that leads to global armed conflict.

The totalitarian impulse lurking behind the warmist agenda is clearly visible:

"If there was something that was decided internationally by some more centralised procedure and every country was told 'this is your emission target, it's not negotiable, we can actually take military measures if you don't fulfil it', then you would basically have to get that down the throat of your population, whether they like it or not," he says.

Global dictatorship, justified by a climate hoax. Does it get any more sinister?



Rounding up SUV drivers?

Photo credit: U.S. Army.

Ever wonder why so many powerful institutions adhere to the hoax?