Keepitsimple Posted October 10, 2009 Report Posted October 10, 2009 (edited) 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. 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. 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.” 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. 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.nationalpost.com/np/blogs/f...al-economy.aspx Link: Edited October 10, 2009 by Keepitsimple Quote Back to Basics
Catallaxy Posted October 10, 2009 Report Posted October 10, 2009 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. Quote
Shady Posted October 10, 2009 Report Posted October 10, 2009 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! :angry: Quote
Argus Posted October 10, 2009 Report Posted October 10, 2009 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. Quote "A liberal is someone who claims to be open to all points of view — and then is surprised and offended to find there are other points of view.” William F Buckley
noahbody Posted October 10, 2009 Report Posted October 10, 2009 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. Quote
Argus Posted October 10, 2009 Report Posted October 10, 2009 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? Quote "A liberal is someone who claims to be open to all points of view — and then is surprised and offended to find there are other points of view.” William F Buckley
Riverwind Posted October 10, 2009 Report Posted October 10, 2009 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. Quote To fly a plane, you need both a left wing and a right wing.
eyeball Posted October 10, 2009 Report Posted October 10, 2009 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? Quote A government without public oversight is like a nuclear plant without lead shielding.
ba1614 Posted October 10, 2009 Report Posted October 10, 2009 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. Quote
Riverwind Posted October 10, 2009 Report Posted October 10, 2009 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. Quote To fly a plane, you need both a left wing and a right wing.
eyeball Posted October 10, 2009 Report Posted October 10, 2009 (edited) 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? 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? 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. 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. Edited October 10, 2009 by eyeball Quote A government without public oversight is like a nuclear plant without lead shielding.
Keepitsimple Posted October 10, 2009 Author Report Posted October 10, 2009 (edited) 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: 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. Edited October 10, 2009 by Keepitsimple Quote Back to Basics
Pliny Posted October 10, 2009 Report Posted October 10, 2009 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. Quote I want to be in the class that ensures the classless society remains classless.
Argus Posted October 10, 2009 Report Posted October 10, 2009 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? Quote "A liberal is someone who claims to be open to all points of view — and then is surprised and offended to find there are other points of view.” William F Buckley
noahbody Posted October 10, 2009 Report Posted October 10, 2009 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? Quote
eyeball Posted October 10, 2009 Report Posted October 10, 2009 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? I don't know, why don't you ask the Danes? While much of the world talks about the problem, the Danes are finding solutions.How about this stat: The Danes use about the same amount of energy today as they did in 1980. But over that same period of time, the country's economy has grown by 70 per cent. Story Yep, they're doomed alright. Quote A government without public oversight is like a nuclear plant without lead shielding.
Keepitsimple Posted October 10, 2009 Author Report Posted October 10, 2009 (edited) I don't know, why don't you ask the Danes?Yep, they're doomed alright. Here's some information on Denmark's folly - there's three sides to every story.....but this will give you some insight into the issues - all is not as the tree-huggers would suggest. In general it says when the wind blows, they get to use expensive wind-power. When it doesn't they import nuclear and hydro power from Norway and Sweden. And any extra wind power gets exported at far less than cost. Uh oh. First President Obama pointed to Spain and Germany as models for how the U.S. could create a robust “green jobs” economy that even would lift us out of our current - an increasingly approriate term - malaise. Confronted by meddling academics who analyzed the Spanish situation and laid out the monitory lesson of its green-jobs regime, the White House quickly pivoted and said, uh, look to Denmark and Germany, yeah, that’s it, Denmark. OK. That’s been done - by the establishment think tank CEPOS, and you can read it here. The answer is that the president’s (repeat) claim that “Denmark produces almost 20 percent of their electricity through wind power” is false. Denmark actually produces much less of its own electricity from wind, as low as 4 percent depending on the year, with the recent average of 9.7 percent. This despite a massive buildout of what they flatteringly call the “wind carpet,” on some of the most hospitable terrain for wind power in the world. It is also in return for its households paying the highest eletricity rates in Europe. With a substantially lower per-capita energy use. That means, to get half of what Obama seeks, the U.S. would have to carpet itself twice over - which means lots of windmills where birds fly and Kennedys live - and pay Danish-style rates. Oh. Wait. That still won’t do it. Apparently Denmark’s experience isn’t even scalable to Scanadanavia. It turns out that, if the Norwegians and Swedes tried to replicate Denmark’s expensive folly, well, it would blow the system up. Here’s why. Denmark took advantage of long-since-paid-for interconnectors between Jutland and Norway, and the island on which Copenhagen sits and Sweden. It made a political decision that windmills would be their “national champion” industry, and as you will hear to no end throughout the Copenhagen COP, a big part of their national identity. So they built a lot of windmills, and started a mythology. This buildout was only possible because the Norwegians and Swedes use enormous percentages of hydropower and nuclear, both of which can be dialed up or down according to the whimsy of the wind. When the wind does deign to blow, Denmark sends fully half of its very expensive, ratepayer subsidized wind power to its neighbors at cut rates, in return for said neighbors indulging Denmark’s wind mill image-making by dialing up or down its hydro power or nukes at other times (which, most of the time, means “up"). When the wind picks up, the story gets worse. On top of subsidizing their neighbors’ electricity and allowing them to go without building more of their own, it turns out that increases in wind generation, under the current buildout, are shipped nearly 100 percent and at a considerable below-cost discount right out of the country. With its politicians now vowing to massively increase installed wind ("50 percent of our elecricity” - how about getting to 20 percent first?), that means Denmark will be sending even more domestic wealth to its neighbors. Because it is displacing carbon-neutral electricity - as a condition precedent even to deploying the machines, mind you, so this is not something that can be changed - you can kiss claims to massive CO2 reductions (or reduced fuel use) goodbye. When it comes to Obama’s claim that Denmark, not discredited Spain, is the model to follow: waiter, the food was horrible, and the portions too small. You can’t replicate Denmark’s model - and its a good thing, too. Although, I’m informed that the Danish wind industry admitted the problems to the media this morning before muttering about needing further (ratepayer) investment, expect the American wind power industry to spin wildly in coming days. Which, incidentally, is more than we can say about their products. Link: http://icecap.us/index.php/go/political-cl...mething_rotten/ Edited October 10, 2009 by Keepitsimple Quote Back to Basics
Argus Posted October 11, 2009 Report Posted October 11, 2009 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? An interesting notation on incompetent Europen governments. The Labour Party in the UK have decided to halt all training for the Territorial Army (whose members do wind up going to Afghanistan) for six months in order to save 20 million pounds. Now by the standards of their budget that's a pittance, and the Brits have major problem with equipment and support in Afghanistan. At the same time, the Labour government approved a new 6 million pound ad campaign on the desperate need to fight global warming in order to encourage support for Copenhagen. Quote "A liberal is someone who claims to be open to all points of view — and then is surprised and offended to find there are other points of view.” William F Buckley
eyeball Posted October 11, 2009 Report Posted October 11, 2009 Here's some information on Denmark's folly - there's three sides to every story.....but this will give you some insight into the issues - all is not as the tree-huggers would suggest. In general it says when the wind blows, they get to use expensive wind-power. When it doesn't they import nuclear and hydro power from Norway and Sweden. And any extra wind power gets exported at far less than cost. Yes but still...The Danes use about the same amount of energy today as they did in 1980. But over that same period of time, the country's economy has grown by 70 per cent. But who knows, if they'd thumbed their nose at all this bullshit too perhaps their economy would have grown by 700%. Whaddya think? Quote A government without public oversight is like a nuclear plant without lead shielding.
Slim MacSquinty Posted October 11, 2009 Report Posted October 11, 2009 Yes but still...The Danes use about the same amount of energy today as they did in 1980. But over that same period of time, the country's economy has grown by 70 per cent. Perhaps they were just horrible inefficient 28 years ago? My guess is that has something to do with it, I also would be willing to bet that industry uses a whole bunch of cogeneration solutions that are largely off grid so does not get counted, this is particularly possible given the exceedingly high price of energy in that country. Quote
eyeball Posted October 11, 2009 Report Posted October 11, 2009 Yes but still...The Danes use about the same amount of energy today as they did in 1980. But over that same period of time, the country's economy has grown by 70 per cent.Perhaps they were just horrible inefficient 28 years ago? My guess is that has something to do with it, I also would be willing to bet that industry uses a whole bunch of cogeneration solutions that are largely off grid so does not get counted, this is particularly possible given the exceedingly high price of energy in that country. I'll take that bet. Are there other western countries that can claim anywhere near the same thing? Assuming there is no uncounted cogeneration and the claim Danes are using the same amount of energy they did in 1980 stands, are there other countries who can boast that their economies grew faster because they stuck to conventional energy sources? And please don't forget to subtract the environmental costs if they did. Quote A government without public oversight is like a nuclear plant without lead shielding.
Riverwind Posted October 11, 2009 Report Posted October 11, 2009 Yes but still...The Danes use about the same amount of energy today as they did in 1980. But over that same period of time, the country's economy has grown by 70 per cent.I don't believe your figures. This report indicates that Danish Electricity consumption has increased 55% since 1980. http://www.ens.dk/da-DK/Info/TalOgKort/Sta...202007%20uk.pdf Yet their population was virtually unchanged: http://www.indexmundi.com/denmark/population.html i.e. their electrical consumption per person has increased 55% as well Quote To fly a plane, you need both a left wing and a right wing.
Slim MacSquinty Posted October 11, 2009 Report Posted October 11, 2009 (edited) here is one piece of info on the virtue of wind power, make note of their use of coal. http://www.world-nuclear.org/info/inf99.html It would also appear they are subsudising their domestic gas industry through industrial gas prices, thereby encouraging what I mentioned earlier. http://ec.europa.eu/energy/energy_policy/d...arket_dk_en.pdf It also appears that their per capita consumption is not better than the EU on average, worse than Ireland and the UK: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_count...ity_consumption Edited October 11, 2009 by Slim MacSquinty Quote
eyeball Posted October 11, 2009 Report Posted October 11, 2009 (edited) I don't believe your figures. This report indicates that Danish Electricity consumption has increased 55% since 1980. http://www.ens.dk/da-DK/Info/TalOgKort/Sta...202007%20uk.pdf The Globe and Mail story my figures come from said energy not just electricity. Moreover the story also notes... A tighter focus shows that from 1990 to 2007, economic activity in Denmark grew by 45 per cent while carbon-dioxide emissions were reduced by more than 13 per cent..By the way I think your link is broken. Yet their population was virtually unchanged:http://www.indexmundi.com/denmark/population.html i.e. their electrical consumption per person has increased 55% as well Perhaps, but their overall energy consumption still hasn't. Edited October 11, 2009 by eyeball Quote A government without public oversight is like a nuclear plant without lead shielding.
eyeball Posted October 11, 2009 Report Posted October 11, 2009 People who say it can't be done should either get out of the way of those who are doing it or better yet follow them. Quote A government without public oversight is like a nuclear plant without lead shielding.
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.