Shocking Warning

" the countdown to Copenhagen is on next month leaders from around the world will converge on Denmark to attend a United Nations. "

" Climate change summit now it is expected."

" That the meeting could produce a new global warming agreement. That requires countries to drastically reduce their carbon emissions however that raises very serious questions right here in the US. As sweeping reductions could gravely damage our economy and it's frightening to think that the president. Could hand over this country's sovereignty with one signature in Copenhagen. And joining me now with reaction from Brussels is the British member of the European Parliament Daniel -- welcome back sir thanks for being with us. I -- it's always nice to see it I think it's a pretty broad consensus that if that during this summit. On the issue of climate change which -- by the way think is a farce and that's a separate issue. But the US will bear the brunt of blame and responsibility. Is that instinctively. A fair assumption on my part."

" That's usually the starting position of everyone -- and it pretty hard regardless of the reality I mean it's. The US actually has had a -- recorded on the carbon emissions and some of the countries that are as loud as critics. But I it to as you say this is really about. Showing the -- sky rather than doing nothing and so yeah. That the traditional place of an American I'm afraid in Europe now is in the wrong."

" Do you think it is accurate to point out that the US may be giving up some a sum of its sovereignty. If in fact they go along with what is now currently being proposed and discussed."

" I think this is the really worrying. It's -- hit. I mean you said at the beginning -- the Europe pick skeptic about the whole climate changes here I'm not really I just I admired you know I I see guys with tripled Mike coats on anyone thing and then dies and equally impressive white coats and -- time -- other thing in. You know I I don't know to what -- the science is -- a qualified and I I envy the moral certainty. That's some of the guys on both sides at this document that I am worried about the direction that these talks fed taking in the sense that. It's completely disproportionate even if you take the figure is being questioned by the most optimistic supporters of the whole process. They're talking about a new -- tree reduction -- Climate change rates over the next century. I look at the price of -- wanting us to pay for that we eat together Western Europe and the US account for. But -- at most 15% of all the CO2 emissions so what we do is really don't know affect things very much even. On the thing is even if even if you're wrong and all the climate change guys are right about us."

" It isn't coming after -- the one of the main reasons I am. They a skeptic is that we go back to the first birthday here in the US and I can show you pictures of the very same people. That are now saying global warming is about to destroy the world they were holding up signs say in new -- seat is coming. If there are more climatologists meteorologists. Scientists all suggesting. That we have been bamboozled that this is a a hoax that there's no scientific data we come off one of late. Coolest years on record and they even blame that on global warming which makes no sense to me. So should we be making you know decisions like this that have such a broad economic impact without. The scientific community being and in full agreement."

" Suddenly it seems to be indicates that if it's getting often asked global warming and everything told us global warming and it fits -- pretty much the way it is here in Brussels today over costs and -- that shows that -- serious but I don't. I think they're good people on both sides of this debate and one of the slightly unpleasant things is the way in which people. It computes -- motions to each other you know most of the people who agree with you I'm not in the pay of big multinationals -- a they've reached a reasonable. And reasoned opinion about. And what's happening. These are logically similarly most of the guys on the other -- and have some plot to take over the world with a great you can take democracy they've just reached a different view not that we can keep the AM. All the debate rational and unscientific. What Scott Wilson -- I think is really important. It environment from his movement is too important to be left to the left. Are we shouldn't accept that the only solutions because there there there are issues which we all agree on right to -- a psychiatrist there. We all want cleaner we all want clean water. We shouldn't accept the argument that the only way of getting those things. Is with less -- currency more bureaucracy more intervention more regulation more global power. The real solutions says things are property rights in -- extend copyrights into things like -- and Walter. Give people ownership and they will make things can that put the great Adam Smith once said that. If you give them a seven year -- All. I've gotten he will turn into a desert that if you give him ownership of the deserts he will tonnage and took out."

" The -- well when you -- quoting spent time -- all four. Let me ask you this is it a conspiracy theory. Or is it a real possibility. But as we hear about redistribution of the wealth we talk a lot about socialism versus capitalism. Is that a conspiracy theory. That is based in reality those that would like to see industrialized countries take their wealth and -- distributed. To less prosperous countries in the world and is this a mechanism or means by which that goal can be achieved."

" definitely some people have jumped on to this agenda in order to -- different one I mean the language is green but the much as the red and it is we're in a way that this has happened in my point is you know we conservatives should be natural conservationists. It was mocs who told that. The environment without that as a result to be exploit it. And that teaching found a brutal realization in the smokestack industries of the eastern bloc states. So we shouldn't give the other side -- Tehran on this. That there was a wonderful case as long ago as the seventeenth century England lack. A man successfully sued his night because his neighbor how to pick from and the smell of the pick from blows to the serious to his enjoyment of his prophecy -- and US -- the good traditions of our common law which which we share with you. To enforce his property rights in a way that would now be cold. Cleaning up the environment. -- Yet we don't need to go down this road towards both C global eco techno Christie's in order to clean our environment should be the opposite we should be encouraging ownership. And we should be encouraging. Individual local action the green he'd say think global act local literary go to the first bit but I think we can serve as a better the second."

" I would agree that a -- form moving in next door would be quite deleterious to my quality of life not only anybody would would would dispute that in this country. How much do you think this is an attack on on capitalism itself."

" The environmental and and definitely some. It's definitely some people have some film to the environment agenda to advance a whole bunch of other positions about. Global redistribution of wealth about regulation of business about seeking to have less trade him gless international commerce. And about generally make -- feel -- making people in wealthy countries feel bad about themselves and that but that's definitely the case with some of the people -- the agenda. I think it would be wrong to say that's the home of the action there I think there'll also as I say. Good -- people who -- about. Climate change by the way -- I've never met anyone who believes in -- faces I think we will agree that this climate is changing. It's just not a question all or whether what we do about it is proportionate."

" I and on top of all of this the wouldn't be a level playing field we certainly know the developing. Economies. Be it China or India or India they wouldn't be participants. In whatever agreement comes about which would mean that the United States and Britain and some other countries who bear the burden. -- putting themselves in a position where where economically. As it goes. As they go forward manufacturing that would not be in in a very enviable position because. They've been great advantage for those other countries know."

" That that's right now we're talking as I say about the tiny amount of social atmosphere through emissions. That are likely -- coming from for most of Europe and America. There is a great hypocrisy about this I mean. Well I'm talking to you from Brussels and European Parliament will meet here next week and next we -- in Strasbourg. Every month it shuttles back in -- that's a great fleet of trucks that carries all the papers that carries within -- hundred members only interpret -- in the committee thoughts. Generating hundreds of thousands of tons of CO2 to. From the organization that more than any other house this -- table preaching about. People have greenhouse gas emissions -- but I think that there are a lot of this is about posturing about. Being seen to take the right position and say the right thing problem about what effect any real time. It's like I've really got to with the image of Al Gore getting on a private jet but Daniel good to see a thank you as always -- I based on facts and let not your."