Guest essay by Eric Worrall
Bolivia, a country whose basket case centrally planned economy should be an example to us all, has boldly proposed that we solve the Climate crisis by giving them all our stuff.
According to Bolivia;
The structural cause that has triggered the climate crisis is the failed capitalist system. The capitalist system promotes consumerism, warmongering and commercialism, causing the destruction of Mother Earth and humanity. The capitalist system is a system of death. Hence, capitalism is leading humanity towards a horizon of destruction that sentences nature and life itself to death. In this regard, for a lasting solution to the climate crisis we must destroy capitalism.
The capitalist system seeks profit without limits, strengthens the divorce between human beings and nature; establishing a logic of domination of men against nature and among human beings, transforming water, earth, the environment, the human genome, ancestral cultures, biodiversity, justice and ethics into goods. In this regard, the economic system of capitalism privatizes the common good, commodifies life, exploits human beings, plunders natural resources and destroys the material and spiritual wealth of the people.
…
As a result of implementing the Bolivian index proposal, non- Annex I countries [e.g. Bolivia] would have a total of 89% of the [future emissions] budget and Annex I countries [like America] only 11%. Also, to perform monitoring and sanction non-compliance with international commitments involves establishing an International Climate Justice Tribunal.
…
Extreme poverty in Bolivia reached 17.3% of the population in 2015, and this will be erradicated by 2025. However, this is not possible if there are no actions to fully develop the national economy and reduce the impacts of change climate. Thus, Bolivia has prioritized a linkage of mitigation and adaptation actions in complementarity with the holistic development in the areas of water, energy, forests and agriculture as part of its 2025 Patriotic Agenda, and national development plans.
…
Structural solutions to the climate crisis
1. Adoption of a new model of civilization in the world without consumerism, war-mongering, and mercantilism, a world without capitalism; build and consolidate a world order of Living Well that defends and promotes the integral rights of our peoples, undertaking the path of harmony with nature and respect for life.
2. Construction of a climate system based on responsibility to Mother Earth,the culture of life and the full realization of humanity in their holistic development, humanizing the economy, surpassing the simplistic approach to decarbonization of the economy.
3. Protection of the Rights of Mother Earth in an articulated and complementary manner to the rights of peoples to their development.
4. Defense of universal common goods such as the seas and oceans,water,atmospheric space, as well as the technological monopoly, promoting people’s access to the common heritage.
5. Elimination of patents on technologies and recognition of the human right to science and technology of life.
6. Effective implementation by governments of the human right to water.
7. Establishment of the International Court of Justice Climate and Mother Earth to enable countries to fulfill their international commitments to climate change in a context of respect for the rights of peoples and of Mother Earth.
8. Allocate the resources of the military machinery of the imperial powers and the war-mongers to finance the activities of the peoples against climate change.
9. Eradication of commodification of nature and carbon markets promoting business climate millionaires, which do not solve the problem of the climate crisis.
10. Decolonize natural resources environmental colonial biased views that see the peoples of the South as forest rangers of Northern countries and communities as enemies of nature.
…
Bolivia has a vast abundance of valuable natural resources – their poverty is a political failure, not a lack of opportunity.
Perhaps if the Bolivian government were to prioritise straightforward economic development and consumerism, and enthusiastically embrace profit making, rather than whining about all the stuff other people own, and talking up their national love of nature, they might actually help the 17.3% of their people who are currently suffering extreme poverty, instead of having to keep stringing them along with implausible national poverty eradication plans plans.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
The CAGW madness is hiding the upcoming fiscal nightmare, that is going to affect all countries. Why did the US government print money (Aka quantitative easing)? What is going to happen to the world economy when US interest rates starting to rise above near zero?
The following table is an excerpt from a table in the Oct 31- Nov 6, 2015 ‘The Economist’ Magazine.
Country, Yearly Budget Deficit as % of GDP
US, – 2.6%
China, – 2.7%
Japan, – 6.8%
Britain, – 4.7%
France, – 4.1%
Spain, – 4.4%
Greece, – 4.1%
Brazil, – 6%
Australia, -2.4 %
Germany, + 0.7%
Denmark, + 5.9%
What are the consequences for the countries that run never ending yearly budget deficits?
William, obviously the West (US, et al) is living on borrowed time financially. The govt warmists have tried to get their world govt climate treaty for several decades, to create a new market bubble to cover the sins of their past QE bubble(s). We can safely say, for at least a few more weeks anyway, until Paris, that this effort has thus far failed to allow them to cover these huge losses with new financial mechanisms such as the carbon trading schemes under development.
Our selected/elected officials are playing brinksmanship with everyone’s long-term well-being by driving us deeper in the hole with their boundless need to control the world.
That is why the big (world) govt mouthpieces like Obama, Gore, Clinton, Bush and their lackeys are vilifying anyone who dares get in their way. The stakes are very high for them. They have made way too many promises here and abroad, and they’ve cried wolf on the climate for far too long to be credible, considering that temps aren’t through the roof, and extreme events have declined in number and severity for over a decade. The carbon emissions trading system would be just another bubble… that also pops.
William
You piqued my interest and I think you are correct in focusing on the monetary aspect of CAGW.
The overwhelming majority of participants in a community tolerate nonsensical decision making by insulating themselves from the community. It’s a rather normal reaction to things you can’t control. This group is sometimes referred to as the silent majority.
The silent majority knows that you can’t sustain running a community on borrowed money forever because they know that they can’t run a household that way. It’s simple, clearheaded thinking that goes on at many dinner tables across communities.
The silent majority will also tolerate relatively small increases to their cost of living because they have no choice. I’m guessing that a 10% increase in the cost of living due to increased energy will be tolerable for this group. Anything more than that will make them vocal. CAGW supporters know this, so they bury the costs associated with the policy by spreading it around in government issued debt, shakedowns of wealthy corporations and realignment of other expenditures.
Obviously, if you spend your money on things that are not real, eventually the negative consequences of that become realized in the things you should have spent your money on. This consequence holds true if you have a limited wealth base.
Almost all countries base their fiat currency on a promise to pay. That promise to pay is based on the ability to make more debt, realign expenditures, produce something of value or liquidate an asset. You get the idea. If you don’t produce growth you have to eventually liquidate in order to defend the viability of your paper.
As I walk thru the post in my head, I can see it will be too long so I’ll cut to the quick.
By making CO2 bad and then controlling how much is allowable, the controller gets to establish a new asset. The controller gets to be the “house” which creates the exchange rate for its fiat which is then based on that asset. The mostly likely candidate for that is the UN/IMF. They have the structure, the global representation and already have the name for the fiat currency … SDRs.
My little brain thinks that insiders are aware of this and are positioning themselves for a piece of the action.
CO2 bad.
“They” control how much of it is bad.
I have to pay and build my cost into any business I do.
Others are doing exactly the same.
“They” take what I pay them and do whatever they want with it.
Knute,
That’s it exactly. The central motive for the “climate change” scare is passage of a carbon tax.
A carbon tax would sharply raise the cost of all goods and services, without any offsetting rise in incomes. The result would be a massive influx of money into the government. That would be great for the federal bureaucracy, but hell on everyone else. It would be worse (more expensive) than the EU’s Value Added Tax (VAT).
When the income tax was proposed in the early 20th Century, Americans were promised that it would never exceed 1% of their income. How did that work out?
The very same thing would happen with a carbon tax. At first it would be relatively small, in order to set the precedent and get taxpayers used to the idea. But just like the income tax went from a top tax rate of 1%, up to the current 39.6%, a carbon tax would quickly skyrocket. Anyone who doesn’t think so does not understand human nature, or how governments operate.
The gov’t is lying, folks, for the oldest reason in the book: to take in more money. Your money, and lots of it. That’s why they’re pushing the “climate change” narrative, and I doubt if one scientist out of twenty really believes it.
Either we open our wallets wide, or we reject a carbon tax. That’s the only choice we have.
DB
If I can simply look at the ice cores from Greenland and see that mankind flourished during much warmer temperatures, my mind immediately relaxes concerning the risk. I hear CO2 and go, whatever. Case closed, what’s for dinner. Honey, your ass looks awesome in those jeans.
Lindzen was right. Modern society did fall in love with scientists after WWII. She was young, vibrant and offered so many opportunities to make the world a better place. Like so many things that appeal to the ego, she fell in love with the attention, the admiration, the deification. Can’t blame her. We all want to be loved.
Along the way, one of the single greatest things scientists didn’t do well was to explain the concept of risk. I don’t think they did it on purpose, although some obviously misled. It’s hard talking to people who aren’t as trained. It’s messy, emotional and distracts from the squiggly lines that might mean something.
I think science is responsible for abdicating its role in explaining the degree of uncertainty in the things they discuss. Some do it on purpose. Some don’t do it because they cant be bothered. Far too many reap the benefit of untrained people abdicating their fears to them. When people are afraid, they listen to you. Instant relevance and attention. Love rekindled.
CAGW will destroy the confidence of modern society in science. It’s not real. The risk isn’t there. Crying wolf. It will end the love affair. Trust broken is often hard to regain. And if a scientist thinks he will be spared because he was a skeptic, just try and think of whether your confidence in the banking is the same after the housing crisis.
Perhaps the way out of this mess, is that scientists learn to communicate risk. Maybe it starts with one guy, then another and then a group or an NGO. Maybe that group of NGOs begets an audience. Who knows, but I’m pretty sure one of the effective tactics for science to bring clarity to the CAGW mess, is staring them right in the mirror.
The facts are that Bolivia has an infrastructure problem with its agriculture system that is causing it’s crop yields to fall behind it’s population growth. And this can only be solved by embracing the many western agricultural technological innovations created by good old fashion capitalism. And further, without the additional CO2 in the atmosphere created by our civilization their crop yields would be even worse. We should send them an invoice for the plant fertilizer we are putting in the atmosphere.
Sorry I had to roll around laughing @richardscourtney and his great view Scandinavian utopia. So I have to ask him besides the glossy poster pinup story that someone has sold him has he actually spoken to anyone in Scandinavia or visited his utopia and have first hand knowledge?
He sounds like the wide eyed communists of the cold war era that wanted to defect to the West because it was the promised land, where just arriving at made you instantly rich.
I trade with several companies in the Scandinavian block and have visited several times the latest last year to Bergen in Norway. What I got was a sense of countries in quite a deal of financial strain and the household debt figures are alarming and the current refugee crisis causing more pain. The fact the debt is private not government means you can’t qualitative ease your way out of it and the IMF has concerns and a paper out on the risks. I am expecting a net reduction in trade of around 10% with the zone as conditions tighten and it gets worse.
There is an American expat who ran a fairly good blog on life in Sweden which I used to follow (http://swedenreport.org/) but he has headed back to USA you can read his reasons and his commentary of his time in the country and his fears for it’s future.
The lesson here Richard is don’t put too much faith in a few graph and rankings put out by some organization. Compare Swedish ranking in that report to the actual report from someone living there in the Sweden report.
So I would be interested do you have any actual experience or knowledge of life in Scandinavia to base you views on Richard?
LdB,
That link is shocking, especially scrolling down to the previous posts in it. I didn’t know it was that bad.
Sweden can do what it likes regarding redistribution. It’s their country, after all. But when Sweden gives top priority to citizens of other countries over its own citizens, whom it completely ignores, then there is something very wrong.
While doing a quick search I came across this link. If it’s even partly true, I think the situation is beyond control, and Sweden is lost.
Norway runs its socialist utopia on North Sea fossil fuels. It is just a better-run Venezuela. When the oil and gas run out, so will the funds for the welfare state.
Sweden lives on borrowed money, like that other socialist utopia, the USA, whose only advantage is that its currency is the world’s reserve, and it has merely doubled its debt in seven years, a piker compared to other socialist states.
It’s hard for me to imagine how otherwise intelligent, adult people can believe in the socialist Santa Claus.
LdB
You got my attention.
I had heard it was bad, but not this bad.
“As a current resident of Sweden, I sometimes find myself questioning my own sanity. All these problems I blog about are right there in the open for anyone to see and getting worse by the year, yet media and politicians act as if everything is hunky-dory. Most people on the street also appears to be completely oblivious to details like the enormous increase of burning cars in the ghettos, the 1472% increase in rapes and the ever bolder gangs choking their enclaves with drugs and violence.”
Ya know, it’s been 7 years since the housing crash. I’m sure most readers here know that the overwhelmingly amount of crashes get retested. My NASDAQ and S&P trackers indicate net assets leaving the equities market since earlier this year. Last time I got a signal like that was pre housing crash.
15K dollar Birken bags and a waiting list.
Sweden in an unstable bubble.
Signs ?
The timing of crashes only happen when the majority of investors think it won’t.
LdB:
You ask me
Yes, I have visited Scandinavia. The Scandinavians have a variety of lifestyles in their different countries. Most of those countries are socialist, few have many natural resources, and all are among the world’s richest countries.
And you say
I will continue to consider official and independent statistics in preference to the whinging of a businessman who ran back to America when he failed to make a success of a business he established in Sweden.
Richard
Wow! The word “hypocrite” must have been invented for those actors and politicians and ex-politicians who think humans are causing climate change. The President of Bolivia is building a new palace for $36 million (US?) and I think he wants the first world to pay for it with climate ransom money.
http://www.bbc.com/news/world-latin-america-29868704
From your link, for which, thanks!
“A government spokesman, Joan Ramon Quintana, said the current palace was where “former governments despoiled the Bolivian state of its wealth, its heritage and its memory”.
“He said that within the building, acts of betrayal, corruption, and murder had occurred…”
Plus ça change…
Reduce moderate poverty to 13.4% in 2030 and eradicated extreme poverty by 2025, according to impact, among others, of the generation and energy coverage, including growth, distribution and redistribution of energy income.
I can see the plan
To support Richard Courtney, I think our cultures are doing some of the speaking here. As Churchill said, we’re divided by a common language.
In America, the Socialist and related Communist movements are fringe elements of our society. But in the UK they comprise a large fraction of society (although maybe not as much as half). So the UK has a history of socialist activism, much more than the U.S.
America was founded on economic (and related) freedom. With that kind of freedom, great wealth inevitably results. The flip side: that great wealth is not evenly shared. You can have economic freedom resulting in great wealth, or you can have economic equality. You can’t have both.
I may be saying things that Richard disagrees with, but I susprct his motive is that he wants everyone to be provided for. His idea of Socialism isn’t the same as the examples I and others normally post here.
The problem (IMHO) is that when Socialism is mixed with popular voting, the proles (or whatever label you assign) always vote more of other folks’ money into their own pockets. In fact, that becomes an accelerating process, as we see most everywhere. (And there are always despicable politicians willing to promise the earnings of the productive folks to the less productive.)
There is an alternative system, as demonstrated by Singapore, for example. President Lee Kwan Yew was essentially a benevolent dictator for decades. He did not allow the earnings of successful people to be taken by those who merely had more votes. He also provided a great safety net, where no one starved or did wouithout the basics. As a result, Singapore is one of the richest countries per capita in the world. (The first American presidents did the same thing following the founding of the country. Singapore was just following our early example, and adding a safety net).
But Americans want their votes, so that isn’t likely to happen here. Unfortunately, just the opposite is happening: the current Administration is confiscating ever more money from the middle class, and buying the votes of the “poor” with it. It has gotten so bad that the Administration has ordered the Border Patrol to essentially stand down, in hopes of getting the votes of millions more non-citizens.
So Americans have a much different view of Socialism than many in the UK. If I’m not mistaken, Richard sicerely wants to provide for those who really need it. But socialism means equally poor, or at best equally mediocre economic results. On the other hand, most Americans understand that with economic freedom the economic pie grows much faster, making the country immensely wealthier than with something like Socialism. And also, the economic benefits will be shared unequally. That is the choice.
That dichotomy is what rabble-rousers in the U.S. (Hillary, Sanders, etc.) are using against their opponents: Americans believe in freedom and equality. But cleverly, the far Left has altered “equality” from its original American meaning, from ‘equality of opportunity’ (“Equal Opportunity”), to “equality of results” (everyone must get a prize; Obamaphones; and everyone, citizens and non-citizens, gets to vote, etc., etc).
“Equal Opportunity” is a good and worthwhile American character trait. But ‘equality of results’ is nothing more than Communism: ‘To each according to his need’.
By corrupting the language, the Left in Amertica has convinced the average person that it is government-provided results that matter. But rational, thinking people here understand that the best economic results by far come from equal opportunity on a level playing field — and may the best man or woman win. That is fair. Equality of results is not fair, and it eventually destroys the economy and our culture.
Anyway, Richard sees things from the perspective of his culture, while we are influenced by what has made America great. But The Left in America is working hard to convince folks that we should feel guilty because the results are not equal. That is their big lie. Because no one should feel guilty for a system that has made this country much wealthier than any other system — and that includes those at the bottom of the economic ladder.
DB,
The Labour Party was founded on the “lump of labour” theory, under which wealth is not created, so must be spread around more fairly. Of course, the spreading needs to be directed by someone, and who could be better than Labour Party politicians and their trade union paymasters?
In Socialism Speak, “Power to the People!” means “Power to Me and My Mates!”
So the government rather than investors should own major industries and provide the people their needs for food, shelter, clothing and healthcare, the better to make them dependent and subservient subjects of the state rather than free citizens?
What could possibly go wrong with this arrangement of paradise?
The majority of English voters have already seen through this racket, but regrettably it still has buyers in Wales and a messianic following in Scotland, now ruled by a National Socialist Party.
GM,
I didn’t comment about government ownership of the means of production, but it’s part and parcel of the same anti-freedom mentality. When the gov’t owns something, the benefits are distributed according to this priority:
1. What benefits the bureaucracy, and
2. What benefits the most voters
When the gov’t owns the productive assets, the benefits (meaning, in the end, wealth) is never distributed with the good of the country in mind.
If wealth were distributed according to how it benefts the country, the most productive citizens would be rewarded, not the least productive.
A lot of British people who opposed socialism and despised trade unionists left the UK for countries where success is rewarded instead of punished.
DB,
I should add that with its selection of a raving lunatic hypocrite as its leader, the Labour Party has clearly shown that it has no interest in winning elections, but only in ideological purity. Which IMO is a good thing.
Britain can only be great again when Labour’s share of the national vote is on a par with the Greens. It’s headed for the dust bin of history. Thank God!
DB,
Well said.
The problem with the best of any man-made from of government or economic theory is that there are people involved.
As Linus once said in a Peanuts comic strip, “Mankind? I love Mankind! It’s People I can’t stand!”
Gunga
We all have heard the saying with great wealth comes great responsibility.
I don’t know if you are a scientist, but if you are perhaps a new saying is worth considering
With great knowledge comes the responsibility to accurately share ?
We’re all highly flawed people. I know a little more than others about a few things, but I’m constantly reminded that I am part of a genetic code that is a conflicted mess.
I’ve seen your posts. They are good.
Keep on keeping on.
Which is why all governments are evil. Some are worse and others the worst, but all are evil because people are sinful, the more so in groups.
Thank you, Knute.
I’m not a scientist. No field of “science’ would want to claim me if I said I was.
One of my favorite secular quotes is something Will Rogers said, “Everybody’s ignorant….only on different subjects.”
None of us knows it all. But we can and should “filter” what we hear and choose to believe.
And be humble enough to admit that sometimes we got it wrong.
dbstealey:
Sincere thanks for your post that provides your opinions and states how and why they are disagree with my own.
Stephen Richards also disagreed with me in a sensible post that is in this thread here.
I regret that the discussion in this thread has not been of the kinds you and Stephen Richards have provided.
Yesterday morning I switched on my computer to discover that a mob of right-wing extremists were using this thread as an excuse to spew their bile including a personal lie about me. I attempted to defend rationality, diversity, truth, compassion and justice against the mob, but the baying of the mob got worse.
This morning I have posted a summary of the behaviour of the mob and its effect.
My summary concludes saying
A good exchange of ideas, information and opinions could have happened here if people had made comments opposing socialism of the kinds provided by you and Stephen Richards. But that is no longer possible in this thread because the ‘well has been poisoned’ by the rabid mob. And such untrue baying continues ; e.g. this is in a response to your same post as I am replying
But there is no indication that the British Labour Party is headed for any dustbin: that assertion is falsehood aimed at misleading people. To obtain a government with an overall majority, the Labour Party only needs a 3% swing (from the Tories) of the share of the total vote Labour obtained in the election last May. And in the months since the election in May the Labour Party has tripled its Membership (yes, its Members have increased three-fold in the most recent seven months).
Richard
Richard
“A good exchange of ideas, information and opinions could have happened here if people had made comments opposing socialism of the kinds provided by you (DB) and Stephen Richards. But that is no longer possible in this thread because the ‘well has been poisoned’ by the rabid mob. And such untrue baying continues …. ”
I spend an awful lot of time reading CAGW/CO2 supporter webpages. I’m having a really hard time identifying one that does not trumpet the clarion for forced (taxed or by lawsuit) redistribution of wealth associated with the generation of fossil fuels. I’m kind of thankful that they are not calling for war as the rabble sounds eerily similar to past propaganda when the call to war is made. Urgency, demonization, us v. them … it’s nasty.
I go back because I am looking for the sweet spot in the bell jar of debate. I realize that there will be rabid defenders of the cause, but I’m looking for “the thing”, the morsel that triggers the reasonable reply. You know it when you see it. It’s like porn. The reasonable reply doesn’t pontificate about being all knowing, tries to stay above the ad hom , cherries and CnCs. Throws shade when they spout untruths irrespective of political affiliation. It’s rare to find it there.
WUWT has its bell curve including extremes. It’s like other websites that way. It too demonizes, us v them and a call to urgency. I’m sure some even worry about the eroding safety in their world. I also see that WUWT tends to attract Republican supporters more than Democrats … the two parties of the States. It’s a complicating factor in objectivity because once you chose a party its hard to be objective about that party. Politics is an emotional issue, much like religion. What makes the separation of politics and science so hard is that at least WUWT tries to do so, while the warmists’ sites poor fuel on the fire. It’s a tough nut to crack because it’s a bait used to devalue the debate on the science. They know it, don’t care and cant wait to hook you. Skeptics know the science is nonsense and know CAGW is all political and know when they are being baited. How can you get to the science, when they dont care about the science, know its political and cant wait to derail any serious discussion on the socio economic ramifications of CAGW. Advantage warmists.
Painful paralysis.
I think the public senses this and I think that’s why they dont support CAGW en mass.
The real conversation needs to be about what type of community do you want to live in, but that’s not the objective of WUWT.
What WUWT does offer is a discipline of sorts. If I’m looking for the bull’s eye of a scientific issue concerning CAGW, I’m much more likely to find it here. There is a rigor here. It doesn’t exist all the time, nor do I expect it to, but I do find it. What’s equally telling is how anti WUWTers proclaim how WUWT is a place of lies, divorced from the facts, devoid of anything other than political bluster.
It can be very exhausting to go back and forth but I don’t trust other people to think for me.
And yes, there is alot of unproductive banter about political stripes, but that’s human. I find many Americans like to get muddy, get to the heart of the matter. They are passionate about freedom and the right to fail. It’s kind of attractive and alluring. Seems to strike at the core of what most of the world seeks.
You seem like a fine person, interested in making the world a better place. A sense of integrity about you. It would be ashamed if you gave up on this place because you didn’t separate the wheat from the chaff. Be a fan of your preferred “ism”. It’s your right to freely choose.
Just one man’s perspective.
Hope that helps.
Knute:
Thankyou.
I have filed it for reference to remind me that when I am ducking thrown mud there are still people who seek truth .
Richard
Richard
Welcome. We ALL politicize and get emotional about it. At least at WUWT there is respect to agree to disagree, table the passion and move onto the issue.
That’s no small thing.
Glad you’ll be around.
Thanks
“At least at WUWT there is respect to agree to disagree, table the passion and move onto the issue. That’s no small thing.”
“Moving on to the issue,” all bolds original:
Bolivia Climate Proposal: We want to abolish Capitalism – so Give Us All Your Stuff
Eric Worrall / 3 days ago November 9, 2015
Bolivia, a country whose basket case centrally planned economy should be an example to us all, has boldly proposed that we solve the Climate crisis by giving them all our stuff.
According to Bolivia;
5. Elimination of patents on technologies and recognition of the human right to science and technology of life.
6. Effective implementation by governments of the human right to water.
7. Establishment of the International Court of Justice Climate and Mother Earth to enable countries to fulfill their international commitments to climate change in a context of respect for the rights of peoples and of Mother Earth.
8. Allocate the resources of the military machinery of the imperial powers and the war-mongers to finance the activities of the peoples against climate change.
Now the bolds, the subject of the article, and the abject failures of the centrally planned economy of Bolivia are the subject at hand. So if any one wishes to defend Bolivia’s demands and proposals, he should do so directly. Otherwise, he is essentially yelling at the people who are agreeing with the “subject at hand.”
United Nations is way out of line with their charter:
..
United Nations climate fund releases $183m to tackle global warming
http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2015/nov/06/uns-climate-fund-release-183m-to-tackle-global-warming?CMP=share_btn_tw
“The Green Climate Fund (GCF) is intended to be the major conduit for funding to flow from wealthy economies built on fossil fuels to those that will suffer most from climate change they did not cause.”
$6.2 – wetland resilience
$12.3m – early warning systems
$7.6m – restore salinized land
$40m – resilient infrastructure
$23.6m – water shortage*
$31m – improve water system
$25m – off-grid solar power**
$217m – energy efficiency bonds***
———
And at the same time:
——–
UNHCR launches appeal to aid refugees as winter hits Europe:
http://www.unhcr.org.uk/news-and-views/news-list/news-detail/article/unhcr-launches-appeal-to-aid-refugees-as-winter-hits-europe.html#_ga=1.87569816.1238870587.1445506641
“Harsh weather conditions are likely to exacerbate the suffering of the thousands of refugees and migrants landing in Greece and travelling through the Balkans, and may result in further loss of life if adequate measures are not taken urgently,” UNHCR spokesperson William Spindler said.
“the UN refugee agency is appealing to donors for US$96.15 million in additional support for Greece and affected countries in the Balkans.”
..
United Nations has failed to maintain peace and security in Syria. By misallocation of valuable resources United Nations is becoming a disgrace for modern civilization.
By its charter United Nations were supposed to:
– To maintain international peace and security…
– To develop friendly relations among nations based on respect for the principle of equal rights and self-determination of peoples …
– To achieve international co-operation in solving international problems of an economic, social, cultural, or humanitarian character,
– To be a centre for harmonizing the actions of nations in the attainment of these common ends.
United Nations – Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change has itself become an international problem of en economical and cultural character.
Science or fiction:
…tackle global warming
heh…
The level of stupidity by United Nation is unbelievable.
I freely donate to Bolivia all my share of the US national debt. The Bolivians can have my one million dollar share created by the Maoist Obama. Cash, please. No Checks.
“and destroys the…spiritual wealth of the people.”
Speaking of the spiritual wealth of South America, I have discovered an author from Argentina who had the grace, wit, and intelligence to oppose communism and national socialism, as well as the Peron dictatorship during his lifetime (1899-1986).
Jorge Luis Borges
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jorge_Luis_Borges#Anti-communism
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jorge_Luis_Borges#Anti-fascism
Having been exposed in my youth by boomers to authors like Pablo Neruda (a communist sympathizer), I am happy to have found a South American author that was on the right side of history. He wrote fiction and poetry, which I read less of these days, but I thought this would be a good title to start with.
http://www.amazon.com/dp/0140290117/ref=rdr_ext_tmb
Also this great Peruvian Nobel Laureate, and his son:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mario_Vargas_Llosa
IMO Neruda wasn’t a Communist sympathizer but a Communist.
Luckily for him he live in Chile rather than the USSR, where he would have at best found himself in the Gulag, but more likely with a bullet in the base of his skull in a dungeon of the Lubyanka.
Re Carbon Tax/Protected Classes/ CO2 Emissions
So I did some internet hunting. Pictures and all that good stuff. I picked the US because they officially regulate CO2, legislate protected classes (in this case I searched by race) and have the most developed class action industry. Take a look at the maps and see if you can tell where class action lawsuits are looking to set up shop first.
http://xahlee.org/Periodic_dosage_dir/_p2/race_mapti/ancestry_distribution.png
http://www.treehugger.com/clean-technology/great-new-google-earth-layer-maps-us-carbon-emissions.html
The racial distribution is from 2000 and the treehugger is 2009.
Those are the most recent I found with a quick search.
Interesting map of US ancestry.
When Americans say they are “Heinz 57,” that is just a figure of speech. It does not mean we are German.
http://www.thismomcancook.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/09/heinz-57-sauce.png
(: Heinz 57 is a sauce, which is excellent on beef.
German scholars see Germans everywhere, bless their hearts. They even classified other languages as “Germanic” based on German theory.
Tobasco is better IMO.
Tabasco is a must. One time my family had to put Tabasco on my clam chowder.
But the point is that this map is almost entirely powder blue, that is, German.
This would be a very unlikely outcome of any real study. Most Americans do not even have full-blooded grandparents. You may find a few full-blooded immigrants amongst great grandparents, but these then marry a nice hard-working Norwegian from the next county. And as we each have 8 great grandparents, we are talking about eighths and sixteenths and thirty-seconds in our lineage. Which comes out to Heinz 57.
Now obviously it was best to leave Europe by the late eighteen hundreds, since Europe was such a freak show, with its dratted little monarchs, popes and prelates, and Kaisers. But many of us have ancestors who were here by the time of the American Revolution and even to within 10 years of the Pilgrims. And England took the fist 13 colonies from the Dutch, the Spanish, and the French. And then the Americans took them from King George III.
So I don’t see how the Americans in the map are only down in the south (off yellow color).
Zeke
Map makers make maps to show things, much like chart makers choose variables to show things.
This is a map based on census questions. The social justice movement uses the census to locate where protected classes live. Protected classes are defined by the Civil Rights Act. Wiki actually does a good job describing which protected classes are covered by the Civil Rights Acts.
Now, if you take the map I posted and overlay it with carbon dioxide emissions from fossil fuels zones, (CO2EFFZ) you begin to create a sort of business model for class action lawsuits.
Sorry, I don’t have the overlay ability to do here.
I only did a quick search and I’m sure some snazzy law firm has done this already.
I looked on Google Maps for custom overlays that people did and couldn’t find one.
Latinos (Mexicans on the census map) are generally located in areas identified with CO2EFFZ.
I linked an article or two in other threads showing Latino support for CAGW/CO2. It discusses that they feel it is an opportunity to receive compensation for living in industrial areas.
Here’s a good link I just found on google showing how fossil fuels are being targeted concerning emissions.
http://environmentalintegrity.org/archives/8096
Once you add CO2 to the list, you accelerate the viability of a class action.
I’m just connecting a few dots. Moving away from the purely technical science debate and zeroing in on how lawyers would apply CO2 as a pollutant.
Obviously Greenland’s ice cores demonstrate that this isn’t about science and I’m sure many here see it that way as well, so I figured I’d do a little deeper homework myself.
Zeke,
I presume it goes by last name.
I’m probably typical of the majority of Americans outside perhaps of the Northeast and parts of the Midwest. I have an English last name, but at the great-grandparent generation, there are just three English surnames, two German and one each Swiss, Scottish and Scots-Irish, so 3/8 Germanic and 5/8 British. But farther back there is enough American Indian and African ancestry to be detectable by genetic analysis.
G. Maximus says, “I presume it goes by last name.”
You mean German names like Hessian?
http://www.vondonop.org/images/deserters.jpg
“The fate of the deserters and captured Hessians varied greatly. Some were paroled into American factories and farms, others were merely made to stand down …”
Alright, I have had my fun with the blue county map 😀
I live up in the north and also have traveled extensively in the 13 western states, as well as most of the states across the Mississippi River.
There are Americans in the Northwest, the Plains, the Southwest, and the Midwest, and New England — not just in the South.
That is a nutty map! I think Knute got a little trigger happy in his image search. (:
Zeke
Yup, the map means different things to different people.
Hopefully, my explanation above frames it better.
Max
Census data self identifies if I’m not mistaken.
You, for instance can self identify as a Native American and get protected class status if your percent was high enough.
It’s kooky to you, Zeke and folks like me but to whole industry of lawyers, political vote targeters and social justice folks it creates part of the basis for a strategic plan.
Ya know, ice cores and science and all that stuff is irrelevant at this point.
Knute,
You’re right. Self-ID to census takers.
Zeke/Max
Here, I found this one. Has a strategic plan.
Lots of refineries and oil production in the area so I googled combinations of NGOs, fossil fuels, BP, gulf coast, etc.
These folks are interconnected with the larger groups that are pushing the CAGW/CO2 theme.
http://www.gulfsouthrising.org/
I don’t see legal firm names, but I’m sure they aren’t too far behind the veil.
You may or may hot have noticed that every once and awhile you’ll read an article about the carbon footprint of meat eaters. It usually gets mocked pretty quickly but they float the balloon to measure its traction amongst da peoples. Someone has done a little nifty graphic to show the meat eaters what they owe the non meat eaters. Surreal strategic planning.
http://isabellew9873.files.wordpress.com/2013/12/carbonfoodprint.gif
Many years ago I came across a method of graphing one’s carbon footprint that many of my more envirotard acquaintances have found quite challenging.
Since CO2 is approaching 400 we will begin with a line 4 meters long. Since over time the annual increase between 2-3 which would be about an inch on our 4 meter line. Now, when I first started doing this schtick the U. S. was considered to be responsible for fully a quarter of that inflation, but China has supplanted us and we are now barely good for a fifth. The current U.S. population is approaching 325 million, which brings us to each individual US citizen’s carbon footprint = !/ 325,000,000 of 1/5 of an inch. Of course the 4 meters is is only the CO2 which is parts per million so that the entire graph is 10 kilometers long. There is also a qualifier that using just a straight average of 1/ 325,000,000 vastly overstates most people’s contribution because the average is distorted by the inclusion of Algore, Barry & Mooch, Billary, and all their celebutard sycophants who bring the average quite a bit
wealthometer.org
you could turn that into a website like this.
charge a donation to WUWT for its use.
I’ve thought over Bolivia’s proposal,,,, and NO we won’t be doing that any time soon. Thanks for your input.