Canadian Cons Desertify Planet with Tar sands, Pull Out of UN Conferen

[RNG]

Likewise, the push to "cleaner" fuels in the midst of Global Warming fears in the UK is literally killing thousands of people:

Link: http://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/379680/Coldest-winter-freeze-of-the-year

It sounds like they are advocating allowing the burning of coal in household fireplaces again. What a disaster that was.

[Rocky Road]

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/03/31/opinion/sunday/sundown-in-america.html?src=me&ref=general&_r=0

Here is a link to a controversial article By DAVID A. STOCKMAN over on the New York Times website.

It refers to the bleak outlook and just how desperate governments are getting to prop up the "exponential growth" paradigm.

[eyeball]

Oh well, sounds like zeroing everyone's accounts won't hurt anyone who's below that as much as it hurts the 1%...and their representatives in government.

Bring it on.

[waldo]

Likewise, the push to "cleaner" fuels in the midst of Global Warming fears in the UK is literally killing thousands of people:

no - not according to the Government of the UK - Department of Energy & Climate Change (DECC) --- Policy impacts on prices and bills

Factors that increase our energy bills

Recent increases in energy bills have mainly been driven by rising international prices for fossil fuels, particularly gas, not energy and climate change policies. Energy bills are likely to continue on an upward trend over time, with or without policies, as a result of rising fossil fuel prices and network costs.

DECC policies – designed to deliver low-carbon, secure and affordable energy supplies, help households and businesses save energy and to support low income and vulnerable consumers – will have an impact on energy consumers across the UK. This will be felt through changes in prices for goods and services and changing patterns of consumption, in particular for energy.

Were the UK to do nothing, our energy supplies would become much more dependent on imports, more vulnerable to volatility in global fossil fuel prices, and there would be a far higher chance of costly and disruptive blackouts.

Policies which help decarbonise the UK’s energy supplies (such as the Renewables Obligation (RO)) will reduce the vulnerability of UK energy prices to movements in fossil fuel prices but will add costs to retail prices in the short- to medium-term.

If fossil fuel prices rise more than DECC’s central projection, the impact of policies on businesses will be reduced and the savings for households increased, because government policies help to shield energy consumers from rising fossil fuel prices. However, if fossil fuel prices fall, then the benefits of policies would be less and the costs more.

.

[waldo]

Well said. Millions died from the banning of DDT back a few decades ago, thanks to the same do-gooders behind this initiative. We now know that DDT is perfect ably acceptable to use. But the millions that died don't get a do-over.

banned? By who/what? For what application/usage? Please correlate your described 'do-gooders' between your described "DDT banning" and this UN sponsored conference... i.e., support your declared "sameness".

"millions died from the banning of DDT" ===> citation request

(on edit: perhaps call in your lil' buddy MLW member, 'PIK', for support... I seem to recall a post of his the other day where he similarly beaked off about a "DDT ban")

Edited April 3, 2013 by waldo

[PIK]

Canada has been widely criticized for reducing aid to Africa, but the most recent CIDA statistics are interesting. Ethiopia, Tanzania and Ghana are among the top five aid recipients in 2010, joining Haiti and Afghanistan. Africa, in fact, received 42 per cent of all foreign aid in 2012, up from 38 per cent the previous year.

http://thestar.blogs.com/worlddaily/2013/04/ethiopia-top-recipient-of-canadian-foreign-aid-new-cida-data-shows.html

[CliffStir]

In Canada 93,000 people each month access a food bank for the first time and 38% of those are children and youth.

So giving Canadian tax dollars to corrupt regimes around the world, or providing UN member countries a forum to promote their racist and oppressive ideologies is absolutely unconscionable in my opinion.

The fact of the matter is and always has been that the money earmarked to help starving children in too many parts of the world is sucked up by already overpaid and greedy politicians and their friends.

How much have we already poured into Haiti as an example? and those people are still living in the street.

Canadian tax dollars should be spent on our own starving kids before a single penny is given to some rich dictator who couldn't care less if his own people are starving in the streets.

[CliffStir]

Although you really really really have to ask why we still give financial aid to China!!!

[hitops]

There's no question about it, UN money is almost entirely eaten by bureaucrats on the administering end and corrupt officials on the receiving end. Very little actually makes its way into the hands of people that might need it. Even the money that does make its way, is rarely put to any good long term sustainable use, and usually just results in 'eating the seed corn'. These facts about the UN are obvious to those of us that follow it.

The 2 possible exceptions are generating data for reports and studies, and peacekeepers. The data is useful and highly interesting (although it rarely results in anything productive happening, as mentioned). The peacekeepers don't really do anything either, but at least the money does make it into the pocketbooks of the individual soldiers.

The UN is kind of like a club you need to be part of to be considered an ok country, but it's practical relevance is highly questionable.

There's no question this drought initiative we dropped was completely pointless, and the money going into it contributed pretty much nothing apart from probably hosting a few nice parties. All that said however, it was probably not worth the symbolic blow-back to save $300,000.

Edited April 4, 2013 by hitops

[waldo]

There's no question about it, UN money is almost entirely eaten by bureaucrats on the administering end and corrupt officials on the receiving end. Very little actually makes its way into the hands of people that might need it. Even the money that does make its way, is rarely put to any good long term sustainable use, and usually just results in 'eating the seed corn'. These facts about the UN are obvious to those of us that follow it.

pfffft! Haters gonna hate! That's right... there are no United Nations success stories - none... ever.

but wait, nice to see you couch your "no question, facts and obvious" absolute certitude in such mealy-mouthed CYA's like "almost... very little... rarely... usually".

[PIK]

You will see alot of countries following canada's lead on the UN.

[PIK]

There's no question about it, UN money is almost entirely eaten by bureaucrats on the administering end and corrupt officials on the receiving end. Very little actually makes its way into the hands of people that might need it. Even the money that does make its way, is rarely put to any good long term sustainable use, and usually just results in 'eating the seed corn'. These facts about the UN are obvious to those of us that follow it.

The 2 possible exceptions are generating data for reports and studies, and peacekeepers. The data is useful and highly interesting (although it rarely results in anything productive happening, as mentioned). The peacekeepers don't really do anything either, but at least the money does make it into the pocketbooks of the individual soldiers.

The UN is kind of like a club you need to be part of to be considered an ok country, but it's practical relevance is highly questionable.

There's no question this drought initiative we dropped was completely pointless, and the money going into it contributed pretty much nothing apart from probably hosting a few nice parties. All that said however, it was probably not worth the symbolic blow-back to save $300,000.

Just show harper is not afraid to stick to what he believes. People are not use to us taking a STAND on things instead of being fence sitters ,to scared to offend anyone.

[Michael Hardner]

I think I would be all right with a 'stand' if it meant doing something to change the process so that more 'programming' got funding more quickly. But simply dropping out seems like sort of an empty protest.

[hitops]

pfffft! Haters gonna hate! That's right... there are no United Nations success stories - none... ever.

but wait, nice to see you couch your "no question, facts and obvious" absolute certitude in such mealy-mouthed CYA's like "almost... very little... rarely... usually".

How much money did you donate to the UN this year? Be specific.

[hitops]

Just show harper is not afraid to stick to what he believes. People are not use to us taking a STAND on things instead of being fence sitters ,to scared to offend anyone.

Sure but for $300,000? Why not just leave it alone and cut something worthwhile, there are many choices in the subsidy department.

[PIK]

Sure but for $300,000? Why not just leave it alone and cut something worthwhile, there are many choices in the subsidy department.

It is a start and not just about saving money, why should people make a living off this sort of thing.

[Archanfel]

Although you really really really have to ask why we still give financial aid to China!!!

Maybe because we want to do business with China? And a $1000 aid might allow us to sign a $10 million contract?

Any decisions on aids should not be ideological. The only question we should ask is whether it will benefit Canadian interests. Having said that, I'd rather the aid came from "donations" from businesses who would benefit. If no business is willing to donate, then maybe the benefit is not there.

[hitops]

It is a start and not just about saving money, why should people make a living off this sort of thing.

I agree, but the problem is it might only a be start to get pounded at the polls. In fact I would suggest adding on yet another super cheap program that sounds nice to the clueless, while targeting real financial liabilities. For examples, medicare.