|
|
Post by Mira O'Halloran on Nov 11, 2009 11:18:26 GMT -5
I've been tossing up whether to share this for several days now. Last time I threw a mass email out to everyone urging them to have a look and do something about it, i got sworn at, threatened and told that i was a fear mongerer. And I am very sick of it. so if you don't want to know - Don't read the rest of this post. The basics of this post and it's related links? Next month, in Copenhagen, there is a climate change meeting. Why the fuss? I have a copy of a draft of the 181 pg document that nearly every country is due to sign. This document is to take precedense over any existing constitution, and binds every country who signed it closely to a global COMMUNIST government. And the only way out after signing it is for all countries to agree for your country to leave. Why won't the other countries agree? the entire point of this is that wealth is transferred from 1st world countries (UK, US Aust, ect) To 3rd world countries (African countries, Middle Eastern countries, ect) They call it "climate debt". So your country is essentially giving (in theory) money to the poorer countries, if your country is their cash cow, why would they let your country leave the agreement? Please pass this on. Here's some links. Excerp from a lecture: www.youtube.com/watch?v=PMe5dOgbu40Inverview: 2gb.com.au/index2.php?option=com_newsmanager&task=view&id=4998 |
|
|
|
Post by Rook on Nov 12, 2009 10:45:42 GMT -5
I'm not sure, having not read the document, how this is supposed to work. America for one is spending money it can't afford trying to turn its carbon footprint around by developing and instigating green energy and infrastructure. If you take that money away we'll have to continue conducting carbon emitting habits. And, since we can't manage to go 100% green here, no amount of money is going to make their country green, we're just going to be raising more countries to combustion technology which will pump out more greenhouse gasses.
I would like to read the document if you could send that along.
|
|
Gelare
Academy Faculty 
Citizen of Nerianti of Wolfshire
Dean Gelare of the Academy
Posts: 138
|
Post by Gelare on Nov 12, 2009 17:59:57 GMT -5
Obviously I don't know what the specifics of the document, but the U.S. doesn't even follow the Kyoto Protocol. Is it actually likely that the U.S. would sign on to a proposal as crazy as this?
|
|
|
|
Post by Rook on Nov 13, 2009 1:17:14 GMT -5
The question is what is the enforcement feasibility? If we get sick of it what stops us from saying no? America still likes to claim title of largest world power.
|
|
|
|
Post by Mira O'Halloran on Nov 13, 2009 5:56:24 GMT -5
I think that the US is meant to be putting $140 US billion a year into this "climate debt" a year... So that doesn't leave much for paying back international debt. Everyone is going to sign it. There's going to be a lot of pressure on those that don't becuase those who won't "don't care about the climate" But China won't if the US doesn't, which means other countries might opt out. So lets hope something drastic happens, because if someone in the government or the public out cry doesn't change what looks like might be, we're all <censored>. Here's the document. Have fun wading through all the UN garble. wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2009/10/un-fccc-copenhagen-2009.pdf |
|
|
|
Post by Mira O'Halloran on Nov 13, 2009 6:53:07 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by Mira O'Halloran on Nov 13, 2009 7:14:20 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by Rook on Nov 14, 2009 10:51:32 GMT -5
Thank you for the links. I have a slammed weekend, but I will set aside some time and read it all, then come back for discussion.
|
|
|
|
Post by Mira O'Halloran on Nov 15, 2009 9:04:04 GMT -5
You're welcome, I'm interested to hear what people have to say about all this. And it should only take 2 or 3 hours to read.
|
|
|
|
Post by Rook on Dec 22, 2009 10:23:32 GMT -5
I don't like it, what I've read of it, and I can't say I'm unhappy about Kopenhagen being at loggerheads. Perhaps this will go away.
|
|
|
|
Post by Mira O'Halloran on Dec 24, 2009 6:34:54 GMT -5
I was laughing soooo hard when I found out that no one could agree on anything and the meetings had come to a standstill. Typical modern goverment.
To be honest, I think it's total BS. It's about the money. If they were serious, they'd put money back into the countries for green energy - like getting that wind farm up and running that wasn't "cost effective" back in 2003. My country's government refused to, saying it was too expensive. Famous last words much?
|
|
|
|
Post by Rook on Dec 24, 2009 11:41:27 GMT -5
Here's my argument.
China produces nearly as much emission as we do and they only have 1/3 of their population up to American standards of running water and electricity. If China gets billions of dollars to bring their entire nation up to standard the emissions increase would be catastrauphic. I say pump the money into green energy for the first world nations so that there will be green house wiggle room for when the third world grows. And if we test out and work out all the bugs of green it will be that much cheaper for the third world to utilize the technology. Tell me the last time the Venezuelan Research Bureau developed something that the rest of the world didn't already understand. It's not cost effective to have the third world to the research and development because with their resources and facilities they will simply just discover things we as the first world already understand.
|
|
|
|
Post by Mira O'Halloran on Dec 27, 2009 9:02:28 GMT -5
I completely agree with you there... but how long (and how many disasters) do you think it will take everyone to understand that?
|
|
|
|
Post by Rook on Dec 27, 2009 11:05:45 GMT -5
I don't think they will. As hokey as it sounds they have found a way to 'take over the world' and no reasonable person thinks that ruling the world is a good idea. I'm happy to rule Uantir, but I wouldn't want to rule the world. There are too many different people, too many different cultures and ways of thinking for there to truly ever be a useful global government. But the power hungry want control over every nation, and reason wont stand in their way.
|
|
|
|
Post by Mira O'Halloran on Jan 1, 2010 8:08:00 GMT -5
Again, I agree with you. Even a full revolt from the people they've just taken over wouldn't change their minds.
That's why i'm a big fan of small community groups - It's easy to identify and flush out the power hungry the bigger the group gets the more smoke and mirrors that can get played into place.
|
|
