UN official: Rich countries pay poor to cut CO2
-
A while ago ...somewhere down there *points down the soapbox postings* i said that the drive behind kyoto etc was the UN trying to transfer wealth from rich nations (not exempt) to poor nations (exempt from kyoto) Sure enough...dollars to donuts A top UN official has triggered a row by claiming rich countries should be allowed to buy their way out of cutting carbon emissions. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/main.jhtml?xml=/earth/2007/08/22/eaemiss122.xml[^] that didnt take long now did it? Bryce
--- To paraphrase Fred Dagg - the views expressed in this post are bloody good ones. --
Publitor, making Pubmed easy. http://www.sohocode.com/publitorOur kids books :The Snot Goblin, and Book 2 - the Snotgoblin and Fluff
-
A while ago ...somewhere down there *points down the soapbox postings* i said that the drive behind kyoto etc was the UN trying to transfer wealth from rich nations (not exempt) to poor nations (exempt from kyoto) Sure enough...dollars to donuts A top UN official has triggered a row by claiming rich countries should be allowed to buy their way out of cutting carbon emissions. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/main.jhtml?xml=/earth/2007/08/22/eaemiss122.xml[^] that didnt take long now did it? Bryce
--- To paraphrase Fred Dagg - the views expressed in this post are bloody good ones. --
Publitor, making Pubmed easy. http://www.sohocode.com/publitorOur kids books :The Snot Goblin, and Book 2 - the Snotgoblin and Fluff
bryce wrote:
the drive behind kyoto etc was the UN trying to transfer wealth from rich nations (not exempt) to poor nations (exempt from kyoto)
Well I suppose if you are going to have a conspiracy theory you may as well make it convoluted. I see the proposal has gained widespread support.
Peter "Until the invention of the computer, the machine gun was the device that enabled humans to make the most mistakes in the smallest amount of time."
-
bryce wrote:
the drive behind kyoto etc was the UN trying to transfer wealth from rich nations (not exempt) to poor nations (exempt from kyoto)
Well I suppose if you are going to have a conspiracy theory you may as well make it convoluted. I see the proposal has gained widespread support.
Peter "Until the invention of the computer, the machine gun was the device that enabled humans to make the most mistakes in the smallest amount of time."
ahh typical left wing trait, try and undermine the person rather than focus on the issue. Let me say how disappointed I am with you sir. As it happens this wealth transfer idea isnt a new theory Bryce
--- To paraphrase Fred Dagg - the views expressed in this post are bloody good ones. --
Publitor, making Pubmed easy. http://www.sohocode.com/publitorOur kids books :The Snot Goblin, and Book 2 - the Snotgoblin and Fluff
-
bryce wrote:
the drive behind kyoto etc was the UN trying to transfer wealth from rich nations (not exempt) to poor nations (exempt from kyoto)
Well I suppose if you are going to have a conspiracy theory you may as well make it convoluted. I see the proposal has gained widespread support.
Peter "Until the invention of the computer, the machine gun was the device that enabled humans to make the most mistakes in the smallest amount of time."
it is hardly a conspiracy theory. Kyoto was a wealth redistribution scheme to begin with. The Co2 reduction aspect was secondary at best (why else exempt India and China - particularly since China is on course to be the largest single CO2 emitter within a decade).
-
A while ago ...somewhere down there *points down the soapbox postings* i said that the drive behind kyoto etc was the UN trying to transfer wealth from rich nations (not exempt) to poor nations (exempt from kyoto) Sure enough...dollars to donuts A top UN official has triggered a row by claiming rich countries should be allowed to buy their way out of cutting carbon emissions. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/main.jhtml?xml=/earth/2007/08/22/eaemiss122.xml[^] that didnt take long now did it? Bryce
--- To paraphrase Fred Dagg - the views expressed in this post are bloody good ones. --
Publitor, making Pubmed easy. http://www.sohocode.com/publitorOur kids books :The Snot Goblin, and Book 2 - the Snotgoblin and Fluff
Given the relative levels of pollution control and the costs needed to improve them between the 1st and 3rd world, much larger gains could be made for a given amount of expenditure installing and operating basic systems in the 3rd world rather than trying to tighten 1st world systems even farther.
-- You have to explain to them [VB coders] what you mean by "typed". their first response is likely to be something like, "Of course my code is typed. Do you think i magically project it onto the screen with the power of my mind?" --- John Simmons / outlaw programmer
-
A while ago ...somewhere down there *points down the soapbox postings* i said that the drive behind kyoto etc was the UN trying to transfer wealth from rich nations (not exempt) to poor nations (exempt from kyoto) Sure enough...dollars to donuts A top UN official has triggered a row by claiming rich countries should be allowed to buy their way out of cutting carbon emissions. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/main.jhtml?xml=/earth/2007/08/22/eaemiss122.xml[^] that didnt take long now did it? Bryce
--- To paraphrase Fred Dagg - the views expressed in this post are bloody good ones. --
Publitor, making Pubmed easy. http://www.sohocode.com/publitorOur kids books :The Snot Goblin, and Book 2 - the Snotgoblin and Fluff
-
bryce wrote:
A top UN official has triggered a row by claiming rich countries should be allowed to buy their way out of cutting carbon emissions.
Isn't it the 'Bush solution'?
In principal there's nothing wrong with that. As noted above it spreads the wealth! If say the US (richest) want's to give away half it's economy to third world countries, just so it can stay the way it is, thats good with me. With China coming into the polution game so fast, the interesting thing will be when poor countries are playing the rich ones off against each other and earning really big bucks for their carbon allowance!
-
it is hardly a conspiracy theory. Kyoto was a wealth redistribution scheme to begin with. The Co2 reduction aspect was secondary at best (why else exempt India and China - particularly since China is on course to be the largest single CO2 emitter within a decade).
I know that you don't accept that AGW is a problem, hence you are looking at all sorts of conspiracy theories to explain the actions of those that do. I don't know if AGW is definitely a problem or not, but given the science and evidence I lean towards doing something about it. If we are going to do something about it, one option is clearly to reduce CO2 emissions. So I ask you the simple (hypothetical if you don't believe in AGW) question, if we have to reduce global CO2 levels, how would you do it? Would it be fair to set limits based on what you produced in 1990 or any other date, simply set limits on a per county basis, on a per capita basis? IIRC there are a group of countries (US, Canada, Australia) that run at about 20tons/capita/year, whilst India and China are more like 5. Most of the European countries are 10-13 or so. (These are from memory but I am sure the relativities are correct). If there are to be limits on how much can be produced, how should it be allocated? I would not suggest simple per capita allocations (this would achieve bryce's worst fears), but clearly the developing countries have some claim to be allowed to continue to develop. They shouldn't be frozen at an emission level that holds them at a level of CO2 emissions that appears such an anathma to the AGW opponents on this forum.
Peter "Until the invention of the computer, the machine gun was the device that enabled humans to make the most mistakes in the smallest amount of time."
-
it is hardly a conspiracy theory. Kyoto was a wealth redistribution scheme to begin with. The Co2 reduction aspect was secondary at best (why else exempt India and China - particularly since China is on course to be the largest single CO2 emitter within a decade).
china already _is_ the largest c02 emitter http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2007/jun/19/china.usnews[^] Bryce
--- To paraphrase Fred Dagg - the views expressed in this post are bloody good ones. --
Publitor, making Pubmed easy. http://www.sohocode.com/publitorOur kids books :The Snot Goblin, and Book 2 - the Snotgoblin and Fluff
-
Given the relative levels of pollution control and the costs needed to improve them between the 1st and 3rd world, much larger gains could be made for a given amount of expenditure installing and operating basic systems in the 3rd world rather than trying to tighten 1st world systems even farther.
-- You have to explain to them [VB coders] what you mean by "typed". their first response is likely to be something like, "Of course my code is typed. Do you think i magically project it onto the screen with the power of my mind?" --- John Simmons / outlaw programmer
yes that'd be possibly corect however do you think that china will do just that? i think not they're on an upward curve and they aint stopping for anyone or anything Bryce
--- To paraphrase Fred Dagg - the views expressed in this post are bloody good ones. --
Publitor, making Pubmed easy. http://www.sohocode.com/publitorOur kids books :The Snot Goblin, and Book 2 - the Snotgoblin and Fluff
-
In principal there's nothing wrong with that. As noted above it spreads the wealth! If say the US (richest) want's to give away half it's economy to third world countries, just so it can stay the way it is, thats good with me. With China coming into the polution game so fast, the interesting thing will be when poor countries are playing the rich ones off against each other and earning really big bucks for their carbon allowance!
barney_parker wrote:
In principal there's nothing wrong with that.
theres nothing wrong with that IF its not being done by subterfuge. AND those whose money it is are aware that is the game. If there is a false premise such as man made global warming, and its being used to affect this funds transfer then its nothing short of fraud. And the UN - the mess it is - would be shown to be even more of a disgrace. cheerypips :) Bryce
--- To paraphrase Fred Dagg - the views expressed in this post are bloody good ones. --
Publitor, making Pubmed easy. http://www.sohocode.com/publitorOur kids books :The Snot Goblin, and Book 2 - the Snotgoblin and Fluff
-
barney_parker wrote:
In principal there's nothing wrong with that.
theres nothing wrong with that IF its not being done by subterfuge. AND those whose money it is are aware that is the game. If there is a false premise such as man made global warming, and its being used to affect this funds transfer then its nothing short of fraud. And the UN - the mess it is - would be shown to be even more of a disgrace. cheerypips :) Bryce
--- To paraphrase Fred Dagg - the views expressed in this post are bloody good ones. --
Publitor, making Pubmed easy. http://www.sohocode.com/publitorOur kids books :The Snot Goblin, and Book 2 - the Snotgoblin and Fluff
bryce wrote:
If there is a false premise such as man made global warming
How do you know this is false? do you have information the rest of us don't? To my knowledge there is no definitive evidence either way as to whether Global Warming is or is not man made. What we do know for sure is we are having an impact on our biosphere which is unmatched by any animal in history. We also have an issue in that our predictions show that, global warming or not, the planet will eventually become unsuitable for human habitation. One way or another we need to be able to manage and control what we do, the polution we create and the damage we do. If we don't, I have to agree with Agent Smith. Our closest resembling organism is a Virus. We consume and desroy until there is nothing left. I do hope thats not the case....
-
bryce wrote:
If there is a false premise such as man made global warming
How do you know this is false? do you have information the rest of us don't? To my knowledge there is no definitive evidence either way as to whether Global Warming is or is not man made. What we do know for sure is we are having an impact on our biosphere which is unmatched by any animal in history. We also have an issue in that our predictions show that, global warming or not, the planet will eventually become unsuitable for human habitation. One way or another we need to be able to manage and control what we do, the polution we create and the damage we do. If we don't, I have to agree with Agent Smith. Our closest resembling organism is a Virus. We consume and desroy until there is nothing left. I do hope thats not the case....
re-read what i said. I was using the GW stuff as an EXAMPLE and i also said "IF" and "such as" I personally thing AGW is a pile of leftie bollocks - but putting that to one side the issue of "tricking" wealthy countries into giving their money to poor nations is what i'm talking about here. If wealthy nations want to give their money to poor nations because they think its a good thing to do - then thats fine, but the UN should not be using smokescreen issues to facilitate it nor to deceive those nation's peoples. I'm sure you agree with me on this issue (even though you might disagree with me over the GW issue) cheerpups Bryce
--- To paraphrase Fred Dagg - the views expressed in this post are bloody good ones. --
Publitor, making Pubmed easy. http://www.sohocode.com/publitorOur kids books :The Snot Goblin, and Book 2 - the Snotgoblin and Fluff
-
re-read what i said. I was using the GW stuff as an EXAMPLE and i also said "IF" and "such as" I personally thing AGW is a pile of leftie bollocks - but putting that to one side the issue of "tricking" wealthy countries into giving their money to poor nations is what i'm talking about here. If wealthy nations want to give their money to poor nations because they think its a good thing to do - then thats fine, but the UN should not be using smokescreen issues to facilitate it nor to deceive those nation's peoples. I'm sure you agree with me on this issue (even though you might disagree with me over the GW issue) cheerpups Bryce
--- To paraphrase Fred Dagg - the views expressed in this post are bloody good ones. --
Publitor, making Pubmed easy. http://www.sohocode.com/publitorOur kids books :The Snot Goblin, and Book 2 - the Snotgoblin and Fluff
Actually Bryce, I completely disagree. If wealthy nations want to give money to poorer nations from the goodness of their hearts, thats great, but what are the chances? If the UN can con wealthy nations in to giving money to poor nations, then well done UN, great for poor nations! The sad fact is that rich nations are often so far removed from the realities of the poorer nations (while also using them as slave labour) that they don't even really understand why we should give them money. They also control the global economies that are causing the problems in the first place. You say "if" and "as such" in a way that suggests you do not believe in things, and will not participate until you do. My point in the last mail was that you cannot prove GW either way, so we should do what we believe to be right. If that means lying, then thats the way it should be. Rich countries have lied to poor countries for years......after all, why did we invade Iraq?.....
-
Actually Bryce, I completely disagree. If wealthy nations want to give money to poorer nations from the goodness of their hearts, thats great, but what are the chances? If the UN can con wealthy nations in to giving money to poor nations, then well done UN, great for poor nations! The sad fact is that rich nations are often so far removed from the realities of the poorer nations (while also using them as slave labour) that they don't even really understand why we should give them money. They also control the global economies that are causing the problems in the first place. You say "if" and "as such" in a way that suggests you do not believe in things, and will not participate until you do. My point in the last mail was that you cannot prove GW either way, so we should do what we believe to be right. If that means lying, then thats the way it should be. Rich countries have lied to poor countries for years......after all, why did we invade Iraq?.....
barney_parker wrote:
If the UN can con wealthy nations in to giving money to poor nations, then well done UN, great for poor nations!
Let me ask you a question - You're telling us that you're OK with an organisation essentially deceiving its members to benefit "a cause" i.e. you're telling us that "the ends justify the means" am i correct in this assessment? Bryce
--- To paraphrase Fred Dagg - the views expressed in this post are bloody good ones. --
Publitor, making Pubmed easy. http://www.sohocode.com/publitorOur kids books :The Snot Goblin, and Book 2 - the Snotgoblin and Fluff
-
barney_parker wrote:
If the UN can con wealthy nations in to giving money to poor nations, then well done UN, great for poor nations!
Let me ask you a question - You're telling us that you're OK with an organisation essentially deceiving its members to benefit "a cause" i.e. you're telling us that "the ends justify the means" am i correct in this assessment? Bryce
--- To paraphrase Fred Dagg - the views expressed in this post are bloody good ones. --
Publitor, making Pubmed easy. http://www.sohocode.com/publitorOur kids books :The Snot Goblin, and Book 2 - the Snotgoblin and Fluff
In some case, yes, i certainly am. The ideal political situation to be in would be (i believe this is the name for it...) a benevolent dictatorship. Someone who tells you what to do, but only when it's for your own good. I know people don't like to hear it, but governments and ismilar organisations should make decisions for the good of their members, and the world. not because i want them to make a particular choice. People call it a nanny state but think of it this way... Some people say we should all be able to do whatever we like without the government telling us what to do...i disagree. My government forces me to wear a seatbelt. Partly this is becuse i am more likely to survive a car crash. Partly it's because without one, some poor bugger has to clear up the mess made when i make a mistake and crash..... my choice to wear a seat belt was taken away from me. the only loss is my choice. the benefit is to me, the guy who scrapes me from the pavement, the people who have to try and identify me, my family, my friends..... sometimes taking away our choices is best for us and the world around us.... the real trick is to work out where to draw the line.....
-
In some case, yes, i certainly am. The ideal political situation to be in would be (i believe this is the name for it...) a benevolent dictatorship. Someone who tells you what to do, but only when it's for your own good. I know people don't like to hear it, but governments and ismilar organisations should make decisions for the good of their members, and the world. not because i want them to make a particular choice. People call it a nanny state but think of it this way... Some people say we should all be able to do whatever we like without the government telling us what to do...i disagree. My government forces me to wear a seatbelt. Partly this is becuse i am more likely to survive a car crash. Partly it's because without one, some poor bugger has to clear up the mess made when i make a mistake and crash..... my choice to wear a seat belt was taken away from me. the only loss is my choice. the benefit is to me, the guy who scrapes me from the pavement, the people who have to try and identify me, my family, my friends..... sometimes taking away our choices is best for us and the world around us.... the real trick is to work out where to draw the line.....
barney_parker wrote:
In some case, yes, i certainly am.
in that case you're sitting in the box with Adolf Hitler - well done you agree with one of the tennants of Mein Kampf and thus warrent no further discussion until you realise that this attitude is wholely distasteful to the point of being dangerous. cheers bryce
--- To paraphrase Fred Dagg - the views expressed in this post are bloody good ones. --
Publitor, making Pubmed easy. http://www.sohocode.com/publitorOur kids books :The Snot Goblin, and Book 2 - the Snotgoblin and Fluff
-
barney_parker wrote:
In some case, yes, i certainly am.
in that case you're sitting in the box with Adolf Hitler - well done you agree with one of the tennants of Mein Kampf and thus warrent no further discussion until you realise that this attitude is wholely distasteful to the point of being dangerous. cheers bryce
--- To paraphrase Fred Dagg - the views expressed in this post are bloody good ones. --
Publitor, making Pubmed easy. http://www.sohocode.com/publitorOur kids books :The Snot Goblin, and Book 2 - the Snotgoblin and Fluff
Bryce, i am suprised your ability to read is so bad. Did you read the word "Benevolent"? Did you understand it's meaning? check out http://www.thefreedictionary.com/benevolent[^] Do you actually know anything about hitler? wow, i am suprised you have such a sad attitude. I guess you're the kind of guy who thinks Anarchy should reign. you have managed to ignore my whole post, and just reply in an offencive and immature way. well done! Seriously, while i accept critisism, i do at least expect you to bother trying....