The intrepid executive editor of Fox News read an entire United Nations report, so you don’t have to, and I read the intrepid executive editor of Fox News’s report on the United Nations report, also so you don’t have to.

You’re welcome…

A United Nations document on “climate change” that will be distributed to a major environmental conclave next week envisions a huge reordering of the world economy, likely involving trillions of dollars in wealth transfer, millions of job losses and gains, new taxes, industrial relocations, new tariffs and subsidies, and complicated payments for greenhouse gas abatement schemes and carbon taxes — all under the supervision of the world body.

Look at that, treehuggers want to redistribute the wealth! Hey, who put conservative peanut butter in my right-wing chocolate? (Also, the illegals and the gays are probably involved, somehow.)

Those and other results are blandly discussed in a discretely worded United Nations “information note” on potential consequences of the measures that industrialized countries will likely have to take to implement the Copenhagen Accord, the successor to the Kyoto Treaty, after it is negotiated and signed by December 2009.

The results are blandly discussed, because the United Nations does the Socialist bidding of President Obama, the most boring man on earth. And this “information note” is “discretely” worded because, um, words in sentences often have spaces between them? Whatever, patriots don’t need grammar.

In the stultifying language that is normal for important U.N. conclaves, the negotiators are known as the “Ad Hoc Working Group On Further Commitments For Annex I Parties Under the Kyoto Protocol.” Yet the consequences of their negotiations, if enacted, would be nothing short of world-changing.

They tried to slip that by us, those sneaks, hiding the potential global impact of their actions behind misleading non-global phrases like “United Nations” and “Kyoto protocol.”

In the same bland manner, the note informs negotiators without going into details that cap-and-trade schemes “may induce some industrial relocation” to “less regulated host countries.” Cap-and-trade functions by creating decreasing numbers of pollution-emission permits to be traded by industrial users, and thus pay more for each unit of carbon-based pollution, a market-driven system that aims to drive manufacturers toward less polluting technologies. [...]

Another form of “adjustment” would require exporters to “buy [carbon] offsets at the border equal to that which the producer would have been forced to purchase had the good been produced domestically.”

Kind of like how all those financial services firms relocated to the Cayman Islands, at least on paper! I mean, Huh? I don’t know anything about that.

The impact of both schemes, the note says, “would be functionally equivalent to an increased tariff: decreased market share for covered foreign producers.” (There is no definition in the report of who, exactly, is “foreign.”)

ILLEGALS. (Gays?)

Indeed, only rarely does the “information note” attempt to inform readers in dollar terms of the impact of “spillover effects” from the potential policy changes it discusses. In a brief mention of consumer subsidies for fossil fuels, the note remarks that such subsidies in advanced economies exceed $60 billion a year, while they exceed $90 billion a year in developing economies.”

Why won’t you give us simple, specific dollar amounts for all the hypothetical situations that might arise from potential policies that may or may not affect multiple countries’ economies now and in the future? Yes or no? In the Constitution, what provision can you point to?

Much depends, of course, on the extent to which harsher or more lenient greenhouse gas reduction targets demand more or less drastic policies for their achievement.

And, precisely because the [upcoming] Bonn meeting is a stage for negotiating those targets, the note is silent. Instead it suggests that more bureaucratic work is needed “to deepen the understanding of the full nature and scale of such impacts.”

This is a terrible excuse to create bigger government, when all we need is for Joe the Plumber go to stand in a field, “on assignment,” and tell us what is happening to the environment. It will take him like forty seconds.

In an influential but highly controversial paper called “Key Elements of a Global Deal on Climate Change,” British economist Nicholas Lord Stern, formerly a high British Treasury official, has declared that industrial economies would need to cut their per capita carbon dioxide emissions by “at least 80% by 2050,” while the biggest economies, like the U.S.’s, would have to make cuts of 90 percent.

Stern also calls for “immediate and binding” reduction targets for developed nations of 20 percent to 40 percent by 2020.

To meet Stern’s 2050 goals, he says, among other things, “most of the world’s electricity production will need to have been decarbonized.”

EVERYBODY GO OUT AND BURN A PILE OF FOSSIL FUELS, RIGHT NOW. DO NOT LET THIS LIMEY PUSH YOU AROUND. Look, “Lord” Stern, remember 1776? Yeah, we won. You’re not the boss of anything any more, except maybe Canada. The solution to all this, obviously, is more tea parties. Tea parties are always the solution.

Let us start by dumping coal in the East River, right in front of those hacks at the United Nations, and the illegals/gays of New York City, not to mention the liberal media elites, who can be dunked in a large tank if someone is willing to build one.