http://www.ncpa.org/sub/dpd/index.php?Article_ID=20085&utm_source=newsletter&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=DPD The Climate Cash Cow A high-ranking member of the U.N.'s Panel on Climate Change admitted the group's primary goal is the redistribution of wealth and not environmental protection or saving Earth, says Investor's Business Daily (IBD). Ottmar Edenhofer, a German economist and cochair of the U.N. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change's (IPCC) Working Group III on Mitigation of Climate Change, told the Neue Zurcher Zeitung last week: "The climate summit in Cancun at the end of the month is not a climate conference, but one of the largest economic conferences since the Second World War." In his IPCC post, Edenhofer was a lead author of the IPCC's Fourth Assessment Report in 2007, says IBD. * Based on anecdotal evidence, it contained unsubstantiated claims that the Himalayan glaciers would soon disappear and Bangladesh would be totally submerged. * Edenhofer claims "developed countries have basically expropriated the atmosphere of the world community" and so they must have their wealth expropriated and redistributed to the victims of their alleged crimes, the postage stamp countries of the world. * He admits this "has almost nothing to do with environmental policy anymore, with problems such as deforestation or the ozone hole." It has everything to do with a different kind of green. * U.N. warm-mongers are seeking to impose a global climate reparations tax on everything from airline flights and international shipping to fuel and financial transactions. * At first, this punitive tax on progress is expected to net $100 billion annually, though that amount, like our energy costs, is expected to necessarily skyrocket. Given this administration's willingness to compromise American sovereignty, we could soon see Americans taxed to fund a global scam -- the ultimate form of taxation without representation, says IBD. [Note: Rather than discuss the point made, sciforum warm-mongers will of course attack the messenger, Investor's Business Daily. This is the lowest form of argumentation, and one that is constantly used by the left.]
Although I concluded this on my own, I LOVE reading about it. Socialists know they've lost the big fight ideologically, so they must resort to deception. The darkest secret in a Socialist's heart, though, is the deception upon himself that his motives are for the good of mankind.
This just proves a point about politicians (or committee members) missing the point. The worst polluting countries tend to be those with developing economies, tackling economics is therefore still dealing with environmental issues by identifying where the pollution arises. (Also money tends to talk, nobody listens to long-haired hippy tree-huggers about "the damage".)
Amen, RJ and Stryder. Amen. In case you haven't seen this earlier: http://www.thegwpf.org/ipcc-news/1670-hal-lewis-my-resignation-from-the-american-physical-society.html Ghetto fabulous.
Perfect example. If it's advanced nations doing the polluting, then we solve the problem by taxing production on them. If it's poor, developing nations that are doing the polluting, then we give them money so they are not poor. It's phenomenal how both scenarios are resolved with a little Socialism isn't it? The truth is, if being poor leads to pollution because the poor cannot afford anything else, doesn't it make more sense to maximize economic efficiency by purging the world of the economic disaster of Socialism?
The climate cash cow is MOMCOM doncha know? :bugeye: One U.N. guy, feigning to speak for all science, goes all mavericky and rogue, and who gloms on to his alleged revelations? Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! The not so well informed I would venture to say. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
The OP Belongs in Religion, or Cesspool, with the rest of this troll's output. You think Haiti is a better model than Sweden?
Exxon made something like 40 billion dollars in profit in 2008. Don't tell me that climate change is about the money. The National Center for Policy Analysis is a lobbying group, a front for Republican and Corporate interests, which are the same.
Why don't Republican want to cash in on green industry? Who cares why it exists, it's a demand, and if we aren't the ones to fill it, someone else will (probably China).
Because they have their own "cash cows" to feed already.Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
If there was more money to be made from climate change, the Republicans would reverse their position overnight. They know who pays their bills.
The fact that there is trillions to be made in the Green Movement exploitation and yet some of us still oppose it should give you a clue that maybe some of us are sincere about our motives. No but I think Haiti ($500 per year per citizen) is a better model than almost all African socialist countries (in some cases <$100 per year per citizen), which would be a demographically and culturally more appropriate comparison. Do you REALLY want to turn this discussion into one about the merits of Socialism vs Capitalism? I'd be happy to but we should probably start a new thread in the proper forum...
And since WHEN is a 10% Return on Sales bad? Or why didn't you mention that their sales plummeted in 2009 and their profits fell to just $19 Billion dollars (6% return on sales)? Exxon is a big company because WE demand oil and lots of it and will pay a lot for the convenience it brings (Forgetting all their other products, Exxon delivers over 60 Billion gallons of oil equiv to consumers each year). Why do you blame the company that supplies what we demand? Finally, the BIG push to rein in CO2 comes from reducing COAL use, and only to a very small extent, oil use. I've seen NO big programs that would seriously reduce our oil use. Build all the Wind Farms you want and it will have ZIP impact on our oil use. Build all the Solar Thermal and PV Panels you want and it will have ZIP impact on oil use. Build another 100 nuclear power plants over the next two decades and it will have ZIP impact on our oil use. Go crazy building Wave, Tidal, Geothermal stations and it will have ZIP impact on oil use. Arthur
I never said it's bad, it's just an example to illustrate that big oil is making so much money on the status quo that spending millions to fund lobby groups to lie to the public about climate science is just a drop in the bucket.
Counting other peoples' money is not a justification for taking it from them. The only difference between Big Oil and the Government is that Big Oil must actually PRODUCE something to profit, while Government simply garners some votes and proposes a bill... Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! ...oh yeah, and I can generally opt-out of contributing to corporate profits. Opting out of government taxes is not so easy.
In a sense, the oil industry is subsidized by the government. The costs of the use of their product, which leads to environmental devastation, cancer, obesity, dysfunctional community development and global warming, is absorbed by the tax payer. It's only fair that this disparity be recognized and corrected.
BS On July 25, 1997, 95 senators (with five senators not voting and none voting in opposition) adopted a resolution stating that ‘the United States should not be a signatory to any protocol to, or other agreement regarding, the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change of 1992, at negotiations in Kyoto.’ 95 to NOTHING. Why? Because it left out China, Russia, India, Brazil and Mexico. China, as was obvious even then, has gone on to be the world's largest producer of CO2. Republicans are at least smart enough to know that you can't leave China out of an Energy Taxing deal and still expect to compete with them in a global market. So let's see what's happened in the years since Kyoto was passed: 2000 to 2008 CO2 emissions. US DOWN .5% China UP 127% (57% of the Global increase in CO2 over the period) India UP 48% Russia UP 11% Pakistan UP 35% Mexico UP 16% Brazil UP 24% Middle East UP 53% In fact, just those few countries I listed that were all excluded from Kyoto accounted for ~80% of the global increase in CO2 since 2000. http://tonto.eia.doe.gov/cfapps/ipd...=8&cid=regions&syid=2000&eyid=2008&unit=MMTCD Arthur
You know that's not root of the problem. A particular climate change bill could be flawed, but Republicans don't even acknowledge that it's an issue. They even work to undermine the science and confuse the public. This is unethical in the extreme.
There are no African socialist countries, AFAIK. Most of them were colonies until fairly recently, unlike Haiti. If you want the closest "demographic and culturally appropriate" (you probably mean race, as ocean fishing, island trade, rice and pig agriculture on private small farms, strong Catholic influence, and nuclear family organization would resemble Sweden, southern China, Bali, or Ireland far more than it would Somalia, Congo, Rwanda, Zaire, etc) comparison Cuba would be obvious, but Cuba has been operating under such severe externally imposed handicaps the comparison would hardly be fair to Cuba. Haiti has enjoyed all the advantages of capitalist development for more than a century now. The fact that no one is making trillions in that fashion reminds us that sincerity is no guarantee of common sense. That's bs, in the first place: the books are not being kept to make the profit - on which taxes are owed - high. Oil companies enjoy many accounting privileges and other powers (accelerated depreciation allowances, etc) that hide their profits. In the second, the turnover rate is the key to profit - even a 1% return on investment is fantastic if you make it every week. In the third, regardless of how slim the profit margin, if the total is big enough the accumulation represents a serious threat to the rest of us. With billions on hand they can buy whole governments, entire research fields.
Externalities of Big Oil absorbed by the tax payer, yet "recognized and corrected" through higher taxes collected by the Gov't (also absorbed by the tax payer)?? Wow SpiderGoat that right there pretty much sums up our differing world views. Good luck with the Socialist agenda folks, I can't see anything constructive coming from this thread so I'm going to unsubscribe...
