[Keepitsimple]

A previous topic was moved to another section but, really, this plot affects Canada - and its "Climate Change Policy". It's infuriating......these Leftists are trying to remake the world under the guise of Climate Change. Now their agenda is out in the open for all to see - it's not about the Global Warming farce, it's not about Climate Change adaptation, and it's not about CO2. It's about Wealth Transfer......Harper was right years ago....it's unfortunate that it's politically unpalatable to say it anymore. The entire article is informative and well worth reading....it provides a sober look at the Big Picture.

Quote

With Copenhagen, however, there is no hidden agenda: its authors say that transferring wealth is exactly what they aim to do. Though its draft form is a menu of optional language and policies intended to be narrowed in the lead-up to the conference, and at the conference itself, the spirit of the document is unmistakable. It proposes in plain language an arrangement that will see nations like Canada guarantee to send billions of dollars every year for decades to the developing world as payment of a “climate debt” owed for our long history of emitting carbon dioxide into the atmosphere. There is, of course, some talk of emission reduction targets, maximum CO2 concentrations in the atmosphere, limiting global temperature increases, and plans to adapt to inevitable climate shifts, with most of the details remaining to be hammered out. But as much as anything else, the Copenhagen treaty calls for the payment by rich countries of what can probably best described as climate reparations.

Quote

It would be “impossible to craft and draft” a detailed plan to effectively combat climate change in time for December. “That is not possible. But it is also not necessary,” Mr. De Boer said. “I think what Copenhagen has to achieve is a basic political understanding.”

Quote

These are some of the understandings proposed in the treaty’s current working version: industrialized countries should compensate developing nations for not just the cost of preventing and adapting to climate change, but for “lost opportunities, resources, lives, land and dignity” triggered by it; industrialized countries are to commit “at least 0.7%” of their annual GDP, above and beyond existing foreign aid commitments, to compensate the developing world for lost dignity and other distress (in Canada’s case, roughly $10-billion a year, based on current GDP levels, on top of the $4-billion already spent on foreign aid); and that the money will be deliverable to the United Nations, which will be in charge of handing it all out. “By 2020,” the treaty insists “the scale of financial flows to support adaptation in developing countries must be [either] at least USD 67 billion [or] in the range of USD 70 to 140 billion” every year. If Ottawa signs on to Copenhagen, the size of our resource-based export economy means Canada may pay more dearly for the UN’s latest climate change arrangement than almost any other country on the planet. And in the end, because it may only shift carbon-intensive production from cleaner countries to less efficient ones, the entire exercise may do very little to limit emissions.

Quote

How much our federal government appreciates this is unclear. What is certain is that a Conservative minority government will face immense pressure from opposition parties, and environmental groups, to commit Canada to the Copenhagen treaty. And that it will be particularly challenging for any political leader here to turn away from an internationally popular plan billed as something to save the planet, even if, in reality, Copenhagen probably have as much to do with unleveling the planet’s economy as it does with protecting its ecosystem.

http://network.natio...al-economy.aspx
Link:

This post has been edited by Keepitsimple: 10 October 2009 - 05:37 AM

[Catallaxy]

Excellent post, Keep It Simple. Thank you for that. Environmentalists or "Greens" are the Neo-Communists of the 21st century, because they share the same agenda as the old Communists; to give the government control over the commandig heights of the economy.

[Shady]

Thankfully it appears that ration people in our federal government will prevent us from being dragged down by this farce. And not a moment too soon. Great piece from the BBC today.

What happened to global warming?

This headline may come as a bit of a surprise, so too might that fact that the warmest year recorded globally was not in 2008 or 2007, but in 1998.

But it is true. For the last 11 years we have not observed any increase in global temperatures.

And our climate models did not forecast it, even though man-made carbon dioxide, the gas thought to be responsible for warming our planet, has continued to rise.

BBC

The maddness must end!

[Argus]

I was interesting this morning to see the juxtaposition of the two posts linked here. I read the BBC one first - what happened to global warming - which basically states there has been no warming for ten years and that none is likely for thenext 20 or 30 years. Then I come upon this luidcrous nonsense of Copenhagen, an outright demand we pay out $10 billion a year to the very corrupt UN for distribution to even more corrupt, 3rd world dictators as "compensation" for everything from lost opportunity to "dignity".

The one thing we can be grateful for is that Stephen Harper, and not Stephan Dion, is our PM. Can you imaginewhat Dion would do? Sign it, of course. I cannot imagine Harper doing so. However much he wants to twist and twirl away from his roots in order to get votes I just can't see a Conservative government led by him signing onto this kind of thing. If they did, i would have to say they had utterly abandoned all principles and become nothing more than another Liberal Party.

The question is, will Obama sign onto it? If he does, there could be immense pressure on us to follow along.

[noahbody]

Argus, on Oct 10 2009, 09:02 AM, said:

The question is, will Obama sign onto it? If he does, there could be immense pressure on us to follow along.

Obama's adviser on the subject is a global warming freak, but Obama isn't a fool.

[Argus]

noahbody, on Oct 10 2009, 11:31 AM, said:

Obama's adviser on the subject is a global warming freak, but Obama isn't a fool.

No, but he will be under enormous pressure. He is the hope of the world, remember. The Europeans just gave him a Nobel freaking peace prize just because they're so in awe of him. Any human being would find that sort of mass adoration very difficult to resist. If Europe is behind this thing will have be willing to say "The hell with you all. I'm just like George Bush on this one" - or words which will be taken in much the same way?

[Riverwind]

Argus, on Oct 10 2009, 08:34 AM, said:

No, but he will be under enormous pressure. He is the hope of the world, remember.

Obama can't sign any treaty unless he can get 67 votes in the senate - an unlikely event given the current make up of the senate. The best Obama can hope for is some watered down bill that dishes out enough pork to moderate democrat senators.

[eyeball]

I really don't know why you guy's are so worried about all this, if the past is anything to go by it's pretty obvious we're not going to change our ways anytime soon.

We've done dick all up to this point so why all the fuss?

[ba1614]

Argus, on Oct 10 2009, 11:02 AM, said:

I was interesting this morning to see the juxtaposition of the two posts linked here. I read the BBC one first - what happened to global warming - which basically states there has been no warming for ten years and that none is likely for thenext 20 or 30 years. Then I come upon this luidcrous nonsense of Copenhagen, an outright demand we pay out $10 billion a year to the very corrupt UN for distribution to even more corrupt, 3rd world dictators as "compensation" for everything from lost opportunity to "dignity".

The one thing we can be grateful for is that Stephen Harper, and not Stephan Dion, is our PM. Can you imaginewhat Dion would do? Sign it, of course. I cannot imagine Harper doing so. However much he wants to twist and twirl away from his roots in order to get votes I just can't see a Conservative government led by him signing onto this kind of thing. If they did, i would have to say they had utterly abandoned all principles and become nothing more than another Liberal Party.

The question is, will Obama sign onto it? If he does, there could be immense pressure on us to follow along.

I can't see Harpers government signing onto this farce either, or at least I'm really hoping he won't.

[Riverwind]

eyeball, on Oct 10 2009, 10:21 AM, said:

We've done dick all up to this point so why all the fuss?

Because we have a minority government and an opposition party with a history of screwing Canadians in order to seek the approval of politically correct morons.

Harper is between a rock and a hard place - taking a firm position against Copenhagen would likely prod the Liberals into making it a campaign issue and commiting Canada to it no matter how bad it is for the country. His best move now is to say nothing positive or negative and keep it off the table in any coming campaign. That would give the pragmatists in the Liberal party a chance to kill it in the event they won an election.

[eyeball]

Riverwind, on Oct 10 2009, 11:37 AM, said:

Because we have a minority government and an opposition party with a history of screwing Canadians in order to seek the approval of politically correct morons.

We have an opposition?

Quote

Harper is between a rock and a hard place taking a firm position against Copenhagen would likely prod the Liberals into making it a campaign issue and commiting Canada to it no matter how bad it is for the country.

Okay so Harper just nods and says nice things, what's so hard about that?

Quote

His best move now is to say nothing positive or negative and keep it off the table in any coming campaign.

I'm sure there must be a piano he can play in Copenhagen, throw in a nice fluffy sweater and, this will be easy as pie.

Quote

That would give the pragmatists in the Liberal party a chance to kill it in the event they won an election.

Like I said nobody has done dick about global warming/climate change up to this point so I doubt if you're going to see anyone, least of all the Liberals, suddenly jumping to it.

This post has been edited by eyeball: 10 October 2009 - 11:34 AM

[Keepitsimple]

No matter how Kyoto and Copenhagen are phrased, and no matter how we use the terms "cap and trade" and "emission reductions" and no matter what the UN's IPCC reports say, all of us must be ware - and never forget that at the crux of all this is a transfer of wealth - as stated by the UN itself:

Quote

Industrialized countries should compensate developing nations for not just the cost of preventing and adapting to climate change, but for “lost opportunities, resources, lives, land and dignity” triggered by it; industrialized countries are to commit “at least 0.7%” of their annual GDP, above and beyond existing foreign aid commitments, to compensate the developing world for lost dignity and other distress (in Canada’s case, roughly $10-billion a year, based on current GDP levels, on top of the $4-billion already spent on foreign aid); and that the money will be deliverable to the United Nations, which will be in charge of handing it all out.

The tree huggers have been duped and in many respects, I believe Al Gore has been duped. So many well-intentioned people want to naively "save the planet" but they quickly became pawns in the World Leftist movement. Al Gore is not that bright - that was plain to see when he was VP.....he is a greedy opportunist whose ego craved the limelight......but I believe that even he didn't appreciate the big picture of what the bloodsuckers at the UN were trying to accomplish. I'm no completely sure because I admit - I'm a bit of a cynic - but I think Obama's Nobel award (a Danish award) was a subtle way to put some pressure on him in Copenhagen.

The media is always looking for sensationalism......Global Warming and Climate Change are either humdrum news or falling in deaf ears.......so how to gain new sensationalism? Gradually move over to the skeptics....or at least start to present the other side.....that'll drum up some good arguments and most importantly - sell papers and TV advertizing. I think it's coming....I don't think the media is locked onto the Global Warming religion - they're locked onto selling papers. They just need someone to take the jump and then there'll be a stampede. I can't wait.

This post has been edited by Keepitsimple: 10 October 2009 - 11:45 AM

[Pliny]

eyeball, on Oct 10 2009, 10:21 AM, said:

I really don't know why you guy's are so worried about all this, if the past is anything to go by it's pretty obvious we're not going to change our ways anytime soon.

We've done dick all up to this point so why all the fuss?

Environmentalism is the latest tool for pushing totalitarian state socialism.

We have done a few things, Eyeball. It will be illegal to manufacture incandescent light bulbs shortly.
The mercury filled florescent bulbs will soon be contaminating our landfills. How mad is that?

On the provincial level Gordon Campbell has burdened us with a carbon tax.

The article is right global warming..er...Climate Change is about the redistribution of wealth and does nothing for the environment. Actually, it will make productive nations less productive and less productive nations squalid sinkholes of global welfare. Just the same as our have-not provinces have never been able to rise out of their economic status and make anything of themselves - Loss of transfer payments is a ball and chain on incentive, and incentive is what they want to kill.

[Argus]

Here's what I don't quite get. Are the Europeans just incredibly stupid, or are the overly bureacratized governments so distant from the will and needs of the people that they feel free to advocate programs which will harm their own people and economies in order to (possibly) benefit others?

[noahbody]

For the record, I'm not in favour of any hair-brained scheme, but if I was representing Canada, my position would be that targets should be based on surface area and not per capita. Does that make more sense?