P
pixelsmith
Guest
read my last link and lets start a rational discussion.
-
NEW! LOWEST RATES EVER -- SUPPORT THE SHOW AND ENJOY THE VERY BEST PREMIUM PARACAST EXPERIENCE! Welcome to The Paracast+, eight years young! For a low subscription fee, you can download the ad-free version of The Paracast and the exclusive, member-only, After The Paracast bonus podcast, featuring color commentary, exclusive interviews, the continuation of interviews that began on the main episode of The Paracast. We also offer lifetime memberships! Flash! Take advantage of our lowest rates ever! Act now! It's easier than ever to susbcribe! You can sign up right here!
Free versions of recent episodes:
read my last link and lets start a rational discussion.
T
Tommy Allison
Guest
http://unfccc.int/res...
"It proposes a green fund to be run by a board but the big risk is that it will run by the World Bank and the Global Environment Facility [a partnership of 10 agencies including the World Bank and the UN Environment Programme] and not the UN.
This means that Goldman Sachs will run the world energy system as well as the banks.
The UN Copenhagen climate talks are in disarray today after developing countries reacted furiously to leaked documents that show world leaders will next week be asked to sign an agreement that hands more power to rich countries and sidelines the UN's role in all future climate change negotiations.
The document is also being interpreted by developing countries as setting unequal limits on per capita carbon emissions for developed and developing countries in 2050; meaning that people in rich countries would be permitted to emit nearly twice as much under the proposals.
The so-called Danish text, a secret draft agreement worked on by a group of individuals known as "the circle of commitment" – but understood to include the UK, US and Denmark – has only been shown to a handful of countries since it was finalised this week.
The agreement, leaked to the Guardian, is a departure from the Kyoto protocol's principle that rich nations, which have emitted the bulk of the CO2, should take on firm and binding commitments to reduce greenhouse gases, while poorer nations were not compelled to act. The draft hands effective control of climate change finance to the World Bank; would abandon the Kyoto protocol – the only legally binding treaty that the world has on emissions reductions; and would make any money to help poor countries adapt to climate change dependent on them taking a range of actions.
The document was described last night by one senior diplomat as "a very dangerous document for developing countries. It is a fundamental reworking of the UN balance of obligations. It is to be superimposed without discussion on the talks".
A confidential analysis of the text by developing countries also seen by the Guardian shows deep unease over details of the text. In particular, it is understood to:
• Force developing countries to agree to specific emission cuts and measures that were not part of the original UN agreement;
• Divide poor countries further by creating a new category of developing countries called "the most vulnerable";
• Weaken the UN's role in handling climate finance;
• Not allow poor countries to emit more than 1.44 tonnes of carbon per person by 2050, while allowing rich countries to emit 2.67 tonnes.
Developing countries that have seen the text are understood to be furious that it is being promoted by rich countries without their knowledge and without discussion in the negotiations.
"It is being done in secret. Clearly the intention is to get [Barack] Obama and the leaders of other rich countries to muscle it through when they arrive next week. It effectively is the end of the UN process," said one diplomat, who asked to remain nameless.
Antonio Hill, climate policy adviser for Oxfam International, said: "This is only a draft but it highlights the risk that when the big countries come together, the small ones get hurting. On every count the emission cuts need to be scaled up. It allows too many loopholes and does not suggest anything like the 40% cuts that science is saying is needed."
Hill continued: "It proposes a green fund to be run by a board but the big risk is that it will run by the World Bank and the Global Environment Facility [a partnership of 10 agencies including the World Bank and the UN Environment Programme] and not the UN. That would be a step backwards, and it tries to put constraints on developing countries when none were negotiated in earlier UN climate talks."
The text was intended by Denmark and rich countries to be a working framework, which would be adapted by countries over the next week. It is particularly inflammatory because it sidelines the UN negotiating process and suggests that rich countries are desperate for world leaders to have a text to work from when they arrive next week.
Few numbers or figures are included in the text because these would be filled in later by world leaders. However, it seeks to hold temperature rises to 2C and mentions the sum of $10bn a year to help poor countries adapt to climate change from 2012-15.
"It proposes a green fund to be run by a board but the big risk is that it will run by the World Bank and the Global Environment Facility [a partnership of 10 agencies including the World Bank and the UN Environment Programme] and not the UN.
This means that Goldman Sachs will run the world energy system as well as the banks.
The UN Copenhagen climate talks are in disarray today after developing countries reacted furiously to leaked documents that show world leaders will next week be asked to sign an agreement that hands more power to rich countries and sidelines the UN's role in all future climate change negotiations.
The document is also being interpreted by developing countries as setting unequal limits on per capita carbon emissions for developed and developing countries in 2050; meaning that people in rich countries would be permitted to emit nearly twice as much under the proposals.
The so-called Danish text, a secret draft agreement worked on by a group of individuals known as "the circle of commitment" – but understood to include the UK, US and Denmark – has only been shown to a handful of countries since it was finalised this week.
The agreement, leaked to the Guardian, is a departure from the Kyoto protocol's principle that rich nations, which have emitted the bulk of the CO2, should take on firm and binding commitments to reduce greenhouse gases, while poorer nations were not compelled to act. The draft hands effective control of climate change finance to the World Bank; would abandon the Kyoto protocol – the only legally binding treaty that the world has on emissions reductions; and would make any money to help poor countries adapt to climate change dependent on them taking a range of actions.
The document was described last night by one senior diplomat as "a very dangerous document for developing countries. It is a fundamental reworking of the UN balance of obligations. It is to be superimposed without discussion on the talks".
A confidential analysis of the text by developing countries also seen by the Guardian shows deep unease over details of the text. In particular, it is understood to:
• Force developing countries to agree to specific emission cuts and measures that were not part of the original UN agreement;
• Divide poor countries further by creating a new category of developing countries called "the most vulnerable";
• Weaken the UN's role in handling climate finance;
• Not allow poor countries to emit more than 1.44 tonnes of carbon per person by 2050, while allowing rich countries to emit 2.67 tonnes.
Developing countries that have seen the text are understood to be furious that it is being promoted by rich countries without their knowledge and without discussion in the negotiations.
"It is being done in secret. Clearly the intention is to get [Barack] Obama and the leaders of other rich countries to muscle it through when they arrive next week. It effectively is the end of the UN process," said one diplomat, who asked to remain nameless.
Antonio Hill, climate policy adviser for Oxfam International, said: "This is only a draft but it highlights the risk that when the big countries come together, the small ones get hurting. On every count the emission cuts need to be scaled up. It allows too many loopholes and does not suggest anything like the 40% cuts that science is saying is needed."
Hill continued: "It proposes a green fund to be run by a board but the big risk is that it will run by the World Bank and the Global Environment Facility [a partnership of 10 agencies including the World Bank and the UN Environment Programme] and not the UN. That would be a step backwards, and it tries to put constraints on developing countries when none were negotiated in earlier UN climate talks."
The text was intended by Denmark and rich countries to be a working framework, which would be adapted by countries over the next week. It is particularly inflammatory because it sidelines the UN negotiating process and suggests that rich countries are desperate for world leaders to have a text to work from when they arrive next week.
Few numbers or figures are included in the text because these would be filled in later by world leaders. However, it seeks to hold temperature rises to 2C and mentions the sum of $10bn a year to help poor countries adapt to climate change from 2012-15.
T
Tommy Allison
Guest
The big risk is that it will run by the World Bank and the Global Environment Facility [a partnership of 10 agencies including the World Bank and the UN Environment Programme] and not the UN. That would be a step backwards, and it tries to put constraints on developing countries when none were negotiated in earlier UN climate talks."
Robert B Zoellick is the President World Bank and a former Goldman Sachs employee.
Dominique Strauss-Kahn is Managing Director of the International Monetary and a former Goldman Sachs employee.
Mario Draghi is Chairman of the Financial Stability Board and a former Goldman Sachs employee.
Adam Storch is the COO od the SEC and a former Goldman Sachs employee.
Gary Gensler is Chairman of the Commodity Futures Trading Commission and a former Goldman Sachs employee.
Both Timothy Geithner the current Treasury Secretary and former Clinton Treasery Secretary Larry Summers were proteges of Robert Rubin the former CEO of Goldman Sachs who was a Clinton Treasery Secretary.
Hank Paulson and Robert Rubin were both CEOs of Goldman Sachs who became Treasury Secretary.
Robert B Zoellick is the President World Bank and a former Goldman Sachs employee.
Dominique Strauss-Kahn is Managing Director of the International Monetary and a former Goldman Sachs employee.
Mario Draghi is Chairman of the Financial Stability Board and a former Goldman Sachs employee.
Adam Storch is the COO od the SEC and a former Goldman Sachs employee.
Gary Gensler is Chairman of the Commodity Futures Trading Commission and a former Goldman Sachs employee.
Both Timothy Geithner the current Treasury Secretary and former Clinton Treasery Secretary Larry Summers were proteges of Robert Rubin the former CEO of Goldman Sachs who was a Clinton Treasery Secretary.
Hank Paulson and Robert Rubin were both CEOs of Goldman Sachs who became Treasury Secretary.
T
Tommy Allison
Guest
URL Source: http://www.newswithvi...
Published: Dec 8, 2009
Author: Cliff Kincaid
SOCIALISTS DEMAND TRILLIONS IN "CLIMATE DEBT"
By Cliff Kincaid
December 8, 2009
NewsWithViews.com
You don’t need to attend the United Nations climate change conference to know what’s really going on.
Ignoring the fallacies behind the “science” of man-made global warming, a new U.N. report on “climate justice” says the U.S. and other countries owe $24 trillion in “climate debt” to the rest of the world. The report, “Climate Justice for a Changing Planet,” argues that the United States is “historically the largest global emitter” of greenhouse gas emissions and therefore has the biggest “debt” to pay.
But another U.N. report puts the figure at $45 trillion.
President Obama seems prepared to accept this bogus claim by attending the United Nations conference on December 18.
The U.S. failure to pay, argues leftist Canadian writer Naomi Klein, has already produced “climate rage” and a “global movement for climate justice” led by Bolivia’s socialist President Evo Morales. The implication is that if the U.S. doesn’t pay up, protests and even violence could break out.
In a statement, the Morales regime declared that “What we call for is full payment of the debt owed to us by developed countries for threatening the integrity of the Earth’s climate system, for over-consuming a shared resource that belongs fairly and equally to all people, and for maintaining lifestyles that continue to threaten the lives and livelihoods of the poor majority of the planet’s population.”
In other words, Americans are supposed to feel guilty over having a successful industrial economy. It is a system that has produced more wealth for more people than any in human history.
A detailed proposal from Bolivia says “a wealthy minority,” presumably in the U.S. and other “rich” nations, “has already over-consumed a considerable amount of environmental space,” thus “denying it to the poorer majority who needs it in the course of their development.”
Naomi Klein describes the proposed payments as “reparations.”
But as startling as the figure of $24 trillion sounds, a separate report from the U.N. Environmental Program says the cost could be as high as $45 trillion. It is estimated that “a package to address climate change and energy development needs at the global level may require US $45 trillion up to 2025,” it says.
The March 2009 “Global Green New Deal” report says that the global financial crisis is an opportunity to usher in a new international socialist order. “The rules of financial architecture and of global environmental governance are being simultaneously re-written in 2009,” the report explains. “We believe that there is a unique historical opportunity now to create the basis of a new Green Economy that is able to allocate natural capital and financial capital in a far more effective and efficient manner into the foreseeable future. We must not miss this chance to fundamentally shift the trajectory of human civilization.”
The author of this report was Professor Edward B. Barbier of the University of Wyoming. His “Global Green New Deal” report was prepared in consultation with the U.S. Presidential Climate Action Project, a little-known entity launched by the University of Colorado whose advisory board includes ousted White House communist “Green Jobs Czar” Van Jones. World Net Daily highlighted Jones’ role in the group in a November 30 story by Aaron Klein.
Co-authored by Barbara Adams and Gretchen Luchsinger, the most recent United Nations report on “climate justice” says “because the world’s richest countries have contributed most to the problem, they have a greater obligation to take action and to do so more quickly.” Paying a “climate debt” is the way to make sure that “extreme imbalances in development are evened out.”
“China now produces the largest amount of overall national emissions, topping the United States,” the report says. “But this figure must be qualified by the fact that China’s population is four times as large as that of the United States, making its per capita emissions rate roughly 75 percent less.”
Hence, the U.S. is still the chief culprit and should pay the most.
The report was launched in conjunction with the U.N. climate change conference now taking place in Copenhagen and is designed for the consideration of policy makers and non-governmental organizations. It is being distributed by the United Nations Non-Governmental Liaison Service.
“Given the escalating pace of global warming,” the report argues, the world “now has to act with far greater urgency…” But change is possible only with “major economic and political rearrangements around the core principles of equity and sustainable development.”
These are euphemisms for destroying private property rights and the free enterprise system and creating a global socialist superstate.
Under a heading about the need to “transform the systems and institutions that have created climate change,” the authors say that “tinkering around the edges” will not suffice and that “Governance and development models should be built around notions of justice and equity, with the objective of working for the planet and people as a whole, and evening out imbalances that are not sustainable. It is not enough to talk about low-carbon pathways through technology, for example, without also rethinking current models of production, global trade and consumption patterns.”
Proposals for “climate change financing” include a Comprehensive World Climate Change Fund, into which payments could be made, and a global carbon tax.
The ATTAC movement says, “Change the system, not the climate!” ATTAC, which stands for the Association for the Taxation of Financial Transactions for the Aid of Citizens, favors global taxes on currency transactions.
A more detailed article on “climate justice” explains that “It isn’t simply a matter of asking the rich world to pay for the devastation climate change is causing in the developing world. As a report recently launched by World Development Movement and Jubilee Debt Campaign points out, ‘climate debt’ questions a global free market system which has pushed many developing countries into high carbon pathways that they now need to find a way out of.”
This is about as clear as it gets—free markets will give way to a worldwide socialist state, created under the guise of solving a climate crisis that does not really exist.
The authors, Nick Dearden and Tim Jones, attempt to throw cold water on Lord Christopher Monckton’s contention that this amounts to a blueprint for “world communist government.” However, they acknowledge that the proposal does imply “fundamental changes in the global economy” and the “radical redistribution of the world’s resources.”
Do you think we can count on the major media attending the conference to report on the real agenda behind the event?
© 2009 Cliff Kincaid - All Rights Reserved
Published: Dec 8, 2009
Author: Cliff Kincaid
SOCIALISTS DEMAND TRILLIONS IN "CLIMATE DEBT"
By Cliff Kincaid
December 8, 2009
NewsWithViews.com
You don’t need to attend the United Nations climate change conference to know what’s really going on.
Ignoring the fallacies behind the “science” of man-made global warming, a new U.N. report on “climate justice” says the U.S. and other countries owe $24 trillion in “climate debt” to the rest of the world. The report, “Climate Justice for a Changing Planet,” argues that the United States is “historically the largest global emitter” of greenhouse gas emissions and therefore has the biggest “debt” to pay.
But another U.N. report puts the figure at $45 trillion.
President Obama seems prepared to accept this bogus claim by attending the United Nations conference on December 18.
The U.S. failure to pay, argues leftist Canadian writer Naomi Klein, has already produced “climate rage” and a “global movement for climate justice” led by Bolivia’s socialist President Evo Morales. The implication is that if the U.S. doesn’t pay up, protests and even violence could break out.
In a statement, the Morales regime declared that “What we call for is full payment of the debt owed to us by developed countries for threatening the integrity of the Earth’s climate system, for over-consuming a shared resource that belongs fairly and equally to all people, and for maintaining lifestyles that continue to threaten the lives and livelihoods of the poor majority of the planet’s population.”
In other words, Americans are supposed to feel guilty over having a successful industrial economy. It is a system that has produced more wealth for more people than any in human history.
A detailed proposal from Bolivia says “a wealthy minority,” presumably in the U.S. and other “rich” nations, “has already over-consumed a considerable amount of environmental space,” thus “denying it to the poorer majority who needs it in the course of their development.”
Naomi Klein describes the proposed payments as “reparations.”
But as startling as the figure of $24 trillion sounds, a separate report from the U.N. Environmental Program says the cost could be as high as $45 trillion. It is estimated that “a package to address climate change and energy development needs at the global level may require US $45 trillion up to 2025,” it says.
The March 2009 “Global Green New Deal” report says that the global financial crisis is an opportunity to usher in a new international socialist order. “The rules of financial architecture and of global environmental governance are being simultaneously re-written in 2009,” the report explains. “We believe that there is a unique historical opportunity now to create the basis of a new Green Economy that is able to allocate natural capital and financial capital in a far more effective and efficient manner into the foreseeable future. We must not miss this chance to fundamentally shift the trajectory of human civilization.”
The author of this report was Professor Edward B. Barbier of the University of Wyoming. His “Global Green New Deal” report was prepared in consultation with the U.S. Presidential Climate Action Project, a little-known entity launched by the University of Colorado whose advisory board includes ousted White House communist “Green Jobs Czar” Van Jones. World Net Daily highlighted Jones’ role in the group in a November 30 story by Aaron Klein.
Co-authored by Barbara Adams and Gretchen Luchsinger, the most recent United Nations report on “climate justice” says “because the world’s richest countries have contributed most to the problem, they have a greater obligation to take action and to do so more quickly.” Paying a “climate debt” is the way to make sure that “extreme imbalances in development are evened out.”
“China now produces the largest amount of overall national emissions, topping the United States,” the report says. “But this figure must be qualified by the fact that China’s population is four times as large as that of the United States, making its per capita emissions rate roughly 75 percent less.”
Hence, the U.S. is still the chief culprit and should pay the most.
The report was launched in conjunction with the U.N. climate change conference now taking place in Copenhagen and is designed for the consideration of policy makers and non-governmental organizations. It is being distributed by the United Nations Non-Governmental Liaison Service.
“Given the escalating pace of global warming,” the report argues, the world “now has to act with far greater urgency…” But change is possible only with “major economic and political rearrangements around the core principles of equity and sustainable development.”
These are euphemisms for destroying private property rights and the free enterprise system and creating a global socialist superstate.
Under a heading about the need to “transform the systems and institutions that have created climate change,” the authors say that “tinkering around the edges” will not suffice and that “Governance and development models should be built around notions of justice and equity, with the objective of working for the planet and people as a whole, and evening out imbalances that are not sustainable. It is not enough to talk about low-carbon pathways through technology, for example, without also rethinking current models of production, global trade and consumption patterns.”
Proposals for “climate change financing” include a Comprehensive World Climate Change Fund, into which payments could be made, and a global carbon tax.
The ATTAC movement says, “Change the system, not the climate!” ATTAC, which stands for the Association for the Taxation of Financial Transactions for the Aid of Citizens, favors global taxes on currency transactions.
A more detailed article on “climate justice” explains that “It isn’t simply a matter of asking the rich world to pay for the devastation climate change is causing in the developing world. As a report recently launched by World Development Movement and Jubilee Debt Campaign points out, ‘climate debt’ questions a global free market system which has pushed many developing countries into high carbon pathways that they now need to find a way out of.”
This is about as clear as it gets—free markets will give way to a worldwide socialist state, created under the guise of solving a climate crisis that does not really exist.
The authors, Nick Dearden and Tim Jones, attempt to throw cold water on Lord Christopher Monckton’s contention that this amounts to a blueprint for “world communist government.” However, they acknowledge that the proposal does imply “fundamental changes in the global economy” and the “radical redistribution of the world’s resources.”
Do you think we can count on the major media attending the conference to report on the real agenda behind the event?
© 2009 Cliff Kincaid - All Rights Reserved
T
Tommy Allison
Guest
The green movement was co-opted by the uber elites long ago. They own it. They profit from it. The lie of Climate Change will line their pockets with wealth and all of you who believe the lie might as well just give them what you have, because you're not smart enough to keep it.
There is no man made global warming. If there were, then we need to disclose the human settlements on Mars, and Jupiter, because they too have seen their climates go up in a cyclical fashion just like Earth's has.
On Jupiter you can actually see the second storm swirling around in the atmosphere, and with Mars, you can see their polar icecaps shift.
A volcanic eruption under the ocean can belch out more Carbon Dioxide than all of humanity can combined. Yet nobody is willing to discuss that bit of truth, or the fact that there are volcanoes under the polar ice cap which is why they're being melted. After all volcanoes are hot and all that.
The best thing that can be done in the name of real freedom, is for everyone with common sense, to look at who benefits most from the lie of global warming, and react accordingly. I've posted who is going to benefit.
None other than Goldman And Sachs. So all you greenies and enviro-wackos can realize that the only green you're saving, is the green that's going into the vaults of the very pricks who have caused oh so much pollution, disease, war, famine and other attrocities in the name of wealth.
There is no man made global warming. If there were, then we need to disclose the human settlements on Mars, and Jupiter, because they too have seen their climates go up in a cyclical fashion just like Earth's has.
On Jupiter you can actually see the second storm swirling around in the atmosphere, and with Mars, you can see their polar icecaps shift.
A volcanic eruption under the ocean can belch out more Carbon Dioxide than all of humanity can combined. Yet nobody is willing to discuss that bit of truth, or the fact that there are volcanoes under the polar ice cap which is why they're being melted. After all volcanoes are hot and all that.
The best thing that can be done in the name of real freedom, is for everyone with common sense, to look at who benefits most from the lie of global warming, and react accordingly. I've posted who is going to benefit.
None other than Goldman And Sachs. So all you greenies and enviro-wackos can realize that the only green you're saving, is the green that's going into the vaults of the very pricks who have caused oh so much pollution, disease, war, famine and other attrocities in the name of wealth.
jkoci
Watcher of the Skies
Thanks for the link. Just like Gore there may be a credibility issue and another agenda here.
Here is some information on Marjorie Mazel Hecht and 21st Century.
About 21st Century Science and Technology
Wikimedia Error