Global Warming Fascists

[Yesterday]

Ok. I don't want to read the whole paper - I read the introduction and I have a sense of what it's about. What specifically do you want to talk about in the paper ?

The paper should have no impact on what you believe scientifically - they are entirely separate things.

Fair enough I suppose. It is hard to bring up small points of a large concept without losing context. However, with a reference copy, good enough. Let me refresh myself and get back to you as I was in the process of re-reading it myself.

[Yesterday]

41. [Providing financial support shall be additional to developed countries’ ODA targets.]

[Mandatory contributions from developed country Parties and other developed Parties included in Annex

II should form the core revenue stream for meeting the cost of adaptation in conjunction with additional

sources including share of proceeds from flexible mechanisms.] [This finance should come from the

payment of the adaptation debt by developed country Parties and be based principally on public-sector

funding, while other alternative sources could be considered.] [[sources of new and additional financial

support for adaptation] [Financial resources of the “Convention Adaptation Fund”] [may] [shall] include:

(a) [Assessed contributions [of at least 0.7% of the annual GDP of developed country

Parties] [from developed country Parties and other developed Parties included in

Annex II to the Convention] [taking into account historical contribution to

concentrations of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere];]

( [Auctioning of assigned amounts and/or emission allowances [from developed country

Parties];]

© [Levies on CO2 emissions [from Annex-I Parties [in a position to do so]];]

(d) [Taxes on carbon-intensive products and services from Annex I Parties;]

(e) [[Levies on] [shares of proceeds from measures to limit or reduce emissions from]

international [aviation] and maritime transport;]

(f) Shares of proceeds on the clean development mechanism (CDM), [extension of shares of

proceeds to] joint implementation and emissions trading;

(g) [Levies on international transactions [among Annex I Parties];]

(h) [Fines for non-compliance [of Annex I Parties and] with commitments of Annex I Parties

and Parties with commitments inscribed in Annex B to the Kyoto Protocol (Annex B

Parties);]

(i) [[Additional ODA] [ODA additional to ODA targets] provided through bilateral,

regional and other multilateral channels (in accordance with Article 11.5 of the

Convention).]]

I would like to have an understanding of just how much revenue this is going to generate.

[Yesterday]

42. Parties should commit to:

(a) Promoting the full range of available management tools and financing options in

implementing local, national or regional adaptation actions, including innovative

managerial and financial techniques;

FCCC/AWGLCA/2009/INF.2

Page 44

( Encouraging financial flows for adaptation to the LDCs and the poorest and most

vulnerable communities within countries;

© Promoting the conditions that will encourage private-sector investment to build

resilience in sensitive sectors;

(d) Promoting access to appropriate technologies, knowledge and expertise to address

adaptation, in particular for the least developed countries, including the creation of

enabling environments for the successful adoption of such technologies.

Section C, if I understood ZIRP properly about the negative effects on private sector growth...would the World Banks position on a global extraction from Zirp have anything to do with this?

[Michael Hardner]

I would like to have an understanding of just how much revenue this is going to generate.[/i]

Since they're talking about funds to assist with adaptation, then... it seems the answer is none, no revenue.

Also, keeping in mind that Kyoto and Carbon Trading Systems were more focused on mitigation than adaptation. Some discussion on adaptation already happened here.

Riverwind also links to an article about the economics - stating that adaptation is a relatively cheap option.

[Yesterday]

Since they're talking about funds to assist with adaptation, then... it seems the answer is none, no revenue.

Also, keeping in mind that Kyoto and Carbon Trading Systems were more focused on mitigation than adaptation. Some discussion on adaptation already happened here.

Riverwind also links to an article about the economics - stating that adaptation is a relatively cheap option.

I hope you are right about the funds comment. As I understand it the revenue will be let at interest with development controls. I'll post more as I read furthur. It does sound so very fair in some ways but in others I'm not so sure. Thank-you for the link to the adaptation discussion I'll go check it out.

[Yesterday]

Page 60

23. This Agreement does not affect the ability of Parties to establish emissions trading linkages

between or among themselves.

Any ideas of what this means read in the context of the surrounding pages?

[Yesterday]

Page 59

18. Parties shall further collectively reduce global emissions by 50–85 per cent by 2050 compared

with the 2000 level. These collective obligations should be adjusted in accordance with best available

scientific information, including the Fifth Assessment Report of the IPCC.

Is this open ended? I am trying really hard to be objective but instinct wants to tell me to read this as the contract it is and remember that interpretation is 9 10ths of the law. Earlier I was reading some posts about the BP oil spill involving valves that Bush disolved some legislation to avoid a conflict for BPs rigs on US soil. The first thing I wondered was whether or not there was a clause like chapter 11 (shown on CETA thread) which would of allowed BP to sue Bush over any legislation impedeing corporate profits. I realize this BP thought sounds completely unrelated but in a way, it shows how destructive open ended cluases can be. This whole section on greenhouse gases seems open ended. While perhaps innocuous at this moment, how could that change in a moment. Time will tell, I am not a doomsayer just wanted to point out what might be a red flag as to being able to actually enforce this ambitous reduction in the long run. I question a few more paragraphs in this section too.

[Yesterday]

http://www.voxeu.org...php?q=node/4101

This is a link to the ZIRP reference. A very interesting article in many ways.

PS In the end I would like to know if this is a good example of fascism. Not Zirp, although an understanding of that principle as far as alignment wouldn't hurt but most importantly the FCCC paper.

Edited June 14, 2010 by Yesterday

[Michael Hardner]

I don't know how it could be fascism, if it's the basis for an agreement that signatories would have to approve.

Your link is broken, btw.

[Pliny]

deleted

Edited June 14, 2010 by Pliny

[jbg]

Latest global warming summit

Link to image?

Was that the summit that President Osama Obama (edit to clarify that President is a patriot and not an Islamist apologist) had to leave a day early to avoid being kept out of Washington by an upcoming blizzard?

[Yesterday]

I don't know how it could be fascism, if it's the basis for an agreement that signatories would have to approve.

Your link is broken, btw.

Hi, still not sure what would describe the difference between socialism, fascism and so on. Giggle, I'll keep working on my understanding.

[Yesterday]

Link to image?

Was that the summit that President Osama Obama (edit to clarify that President is a patriot and not an Islamist apologist) had to leave a day early to avoid being kept out of Washington by an upcoming blizzard?

The date on this paper is for September, not sure if this is the one. Did they have snow last year at this time?

[Michael Hardner]

Hi, still not sure what would describe the difference between socialism, fascism and so on.

Ok, well then you should leave the board and go read some overviews of history.

[Yesterday]

Very well, I'm not going to fight 2 very grumpy old men and a moderator just to have a conversation. You go ahead and keep the history straight. It will be there when I get there. All the best.

[Oleg Bach]

Those global warming fascists are mostly very wealthy and extremely comfortable people....they like the idea of having control of human emotion and using the green factor to befuddle...Yet they have no respect for nature and I doubt if one of these jerks would spend an afternoon planting bull rushes on the shores of and injured lake.

[bloodyminded]

Link to image?

Was that the summit that President Osama Obama (edit to clarify that President is a patriot and not an Islamist apologist) had to leave a day early to avoid being kept out of Washington by an upcoming blizzard?

why the need to clarify something that everyone but a withering handful of frightened little droolers already knows?

[Oleg Bach]

why the need to clarify something that everyone but a withering handful of frightened little droolers already knows?

There are no patriots at the top of the national AMERICAN food chain - with globalization and international business concerns - patriotism amounts to not screwing your own citizens - and screwing your own citizens is the new game in Washington.

[jbg]

why the need to clarify something that everyone but a withering handful of frightened little droolers already knows?

First of all you should capitalize the beginning of a sentence, unless Canadian is different from English in that respect. Second of all, many Americans, aside from "a withering handful of frightened little droolers" has serious doubts on his patriotism.

[waldo]

Was that the summit that President Osama Obama (edit to clarify that President is a patriot and not an Islamist apologist) had to leave a day early to avoid being kept out of Washington by an upcoming blizzard?

why the need to clarify something that everyone but a withering handful of frightened little droolers already knows?

First of all you should capitalize the beginning of a sentence, unless Canadian is different from English in that respect. Second of all, many Americans, aside from "a withering handful of frightened little droolers" has serious doubts on his patriotism.

hee haw! Hey jbg... you one of those tea-bagger types?

[bloodyminded]

First of all you should capitalize the beginning of a sentence, unless Canadian is different from English in that respect.

First of all, you should position a comma after "[f]irst of all." While not considered absolutely necessary by all grammarians, that you did use it in your subsequent sentence demands its use in the first, for consistency.

Also, "many Americans...have," not "has."

Second of all, many Americans, aside from "a withering handful of frightened little droolers" has serious doubts on his patriotism.

Some people have boring lives and mundane interests, that's true. But I was referring less to the "patriot" part, and more to the "Islamist apologist" part.

[BubberMiley]

Second of all, many Americans, aside from "a withering handful of frightened little droolers" has serious doubts on his patriotism.

But they're all total retards uninformed by right-wing propaganda.

[Oleg Bach]

But they're all total retards uninformed by right-wing propaganda.

The left are liars - the right are highly skilled trained liars and lawyers.