Its important to have read 1984 before you try to understand anything the UN says. “UNspeak” is like “Newspeak” in that it changes the meaning of words to mean the exact opposite of what they mean in “Oldspeak” (Standard English). For instance, the UNspeak word “profit” means “taxes” in Oldspeak.
Let’s illustrate UNspeak by looking at the following AP story:
WARSAW, Poland (AP) — The global financial crisis will make it harder for countries to agree on an ambitious new treaty to combat global warming and underscores the need to make green technologies profitable, the U.N. climate chief said Thursday.
You Oldspeakers could be forgiven if you thought that, in this context, “profitable” meant that someone had manufactured a product, found willing buyers to purchase that product which created net income after expenses making the business what is known in Oldspeak as “profitable”. Unfortunately, if you believed that you would be wrong.
Let’s read a little further to examine the real meaning of “profit” in UNspeak:
“The financial crisis will throw a shadow over the climate change negotiations,” said de Boer, executive director of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change. “That is why I put so much emphasis on the climate regime becoming self-financing.”
Citing an example, he said that could involve the auctioning of CO2 emission rights in industrialized countries.
We now know that, in UNspeak, “profit” is synonymous with “self-financing”. We also know that this “self-financing” is to be achieved through the practice of something called “auctioning of CO2 emission rights”.
“Auctioning of CO2 emission rights” is UNspeak for requiring manufacturers to purchase the “right” to emit what they currently emit for free. This is a new expense and will diminish net revenues (“profit” in Oldspeak). Because this additional cost is imposed by governments it is called a “tax” in Oldspeak.
Because this tax makes the climate regime “self-financing” according to the UN’s Mr. de Boer and we know that “self-financing” is synonymous with “profit”, we now know that “profit’ in UNspeak equals “tax’ in Oldspeak.
Neatly done, huh? Use words that have the opposite meaning to what the casual listener will assume they mean when they hear them and hope they don’t get it.
That’s the UN and its UNspeak. And its not just on “climate change” issues. I challenge you to read nearly any “emission” from the UN, from population control to nuclear regulation to disaster aid. Listen to the words they use and ask yourself if you could get away with being that disingenuous in your own communications. I doubt you’d even try because you’d be afraid for your own credibility. Not the UN.
Now. Apply what you’ve just learned to another part of the same article:
De Boer cited a 2006 report by British economist Nicholas Stern, which warned that if the world does not act to halt global warming, it will cause an economic catastrophe on the scale of the two world wars and the Great Depression combined.
Using you Oldspeak dictionary, do you believe it?