Copenhagen climate summit: 1,200 limos, 140 private planes and caviar wedges

Originally posted by star in a jar
Anyone who thinks that Cap and trade will benefit people is mistaken.

Instead of forcing wealthy companies to research and implement clean technologies with enforced timelines or to clean up their pollution they want to tax companies instead, which is a step in the wrong direction.

I didn't know how the cap & trade thing went (not from the US) but I took a quick read. So it boils down to this:
www.businessweek.com...

The bill sets a cap on emissions of greenhouse gases. By 2020, emissions must be reduced 17% over 2005 levels. By 2050, emissions must be reduced 80% or more. Staying under these caps is done with a system of permits or allowances. Companies must have an allowance for every ton of greenhouse gas they emit. They are allowed to buy and sell those allowances, but gradually the total number of allowances will be reduced, thus reducing overall emissions.

You don't think it drives innovation? Not even a little? You think all those companies will just keep on buying allowances perfectly aware that one day they'll end? IMO that would be an awful strategy. There's money to be made & saved if you come up with something good, and this kind of research isn't really all that expensive. I'm sure boards are thinking what if scenarios. What if our competitor comes up with something good? Well then we just might be f*cked! While I'm sure people could come up with better plans for emission cuts, I don't find this one to be that bad either.

[edit on 7-12-2009 by rhinoceros]

reply to post by rhinoceros

What I don't like about Cap and Trade is that I don't trust where the money goes... That's all really I should have mentioned. I'm not really against it, I'm just against where this money is going. I don't trust the government, or corporations with money. With all the heartbreak over false promises, I'm just highly suspicious of anything put foward and supported with such fevour by the powers that be and their official outlets.

There have been many supressions regarding replacement energies by Fossil fuel (Even that's BS- Oil is not proven to come from fossilized organisms, but rather deep-earth sources) burning companies. They are against anything able to use less gasoline, like efficient engines, something the energy companies are against- why would they support a technology that they would lose money over since people would buy less gasoline.

I don't want to provide links but there is much dispute (I can't find that word, starts with co...) about the nature of the surpression, even some deaths, concerning alternative energy technologies.

It's much more environmentally friendly to buy an used car rather than buying a hybrid but you never hear that mentioned in the MSM.

This whole thing just smells.

reply to post by star in a jar

How much money are we talking anyways? I'm sure there are many 0's. If somebody could convert it to "weeks in Iraq" it would be well appreciated. Doesn't it say in the bill where the money goes? Your bills are always like 10000 pages long (why the hell?) so I'm not going to find it out myself. Here's an idea. Why not fund your incoming universal healthcare with this money?

Help spread the word about climategate and its significance for the future of our planet in this new contest from The Corbett Report. Contest details can be found here:

www.youtube.com...

[edit on 7-12-2009 by way I man]

Hopefully someone will just nuke wherever this glamorous party is taking place. I've always thought that if the people who create the problem didn't exist that maybe the problem wouldn't exist either. Oh well, I hope they all die anyways.

reply to post by bigyin


Hi, bigyin, I'm not going to be mean, but have you ever heard of the Snowy River Project? It's in Australia, where the govt redirected the entire flow of the snowy river from emptying into the ocean to emptying into the interior of aust. It is the largest project of it's kind in the world, not one drop of the river hits the ocean, it's incredible but I believe that this project is one of the main reasons that the Great Barrier Reef is dying, no fresh water/nutrients getting to the corals/fishes etc.

www.cultureandrecreation.gov.au...

en.wikipedia.org...

The second article (wiki) says that there is only 1% of the previous flow still makes it to the ocean!

I live in San Diego and the Colorado River (52nd longest in length(world) 4th in America.) Today, barely a trickle reaches the Sea of Cortez/Gulf of California, Where unbelievable amounts of fish/whales other critters used to live/breed, today it's a stinking (It really does smell horrible in the delta area) cesspool where virtually NOTHING lives/breeds. It used to be the Worlds Largest Natural Fish Hatchery, now even the whales stay near the tip of Baja Ca. cause they can't survive in the fetid waters towards the Delta.

en.wikipedia.org...

www.udel.edu...

This is just 2 Rivers, there are hundreds that no longer reach the oceans!

That is what I'm talking about, Great Britain may not have this problem (Damming), But I've read a number of articles about the tremendous levels of estrogen in your rivers that make the fishes gender unbalance to the female side, and that this is why the British men are so effeminant.

www.planetark.org...

Originally posted by sr_robert1
Hopefully someone will just nuke wherever this glamorous party is taking place. I've always thought that if the people who create the problem didn't exist that maybe the problem wouldn't exist either. Oh well, I hope they all die anyways.

That is extraordinarily freaking awful. Especially considering, as I stated, I have numerous intelligent friends who are at the conference right now. People concerned about the planet and it's problems, irregardless of the cause.

Someone has to be, because you clearly aren't.

Slightly off subject here but isn 't the climate summit the perfect opportunity for the World leaders including Obama to finally hold up their hands and say "WE HAVE GOT FREE ENERGY DEVICES"?

Even if they say that they have recently developed them, missing out on the UFO reverse engineering part completely.

At least then nobody will freak out and we can stop using all this 100 years out of date oil and coal. We could also not spend billions of pounds building new nuclear power stations here in the UK which are planned soon.

Lets get out of the dark ages and as they say, this is the last possible big opportunity for the World Leaders to finally sort things out.

After all, we can't be taxed any more for their dishonesty, it's just not fair!

Your thoughts please ....!!!

Do they ever talk about how much pollution they produce at the summit? That alone should be a major concern.

I started a thread on this last night.

www.abovetopsecret.com...


It has gone surprisingly mostly unnoticed. Oh well maybe someone can add some more insight to my thread as well.


I find it ludicrous the hypocrisy these eco-Nazis have. They want to push their agenda on us while they do something very different. It must be nice to be a do as I say and not as I do person making millions on the agenda you push.

Let’s hope a few of them walk away with an incurable STD when they get their free prostitute services over there.

I look at it like this. If they want to change the world they can start with their own lives and then tell us how they think it should be. But when they pump out a bigger carbon footprint in a few days than a country does in a year they can kiss my rear.

Raist

reply to post by seethelight


The Daily Mail, among Britain's least respected newspapers, with many half-truths and false accusations. On the ITV news I think, one of the scientists admitted sending some of the e-mails and they have been suspended and are being investigated.

www.mailwatch.co.uk...
Read above site for more on the Mail

OK - at the count of ten everybody stick it to the man by breathing.

Originally posted by factbeforefiction
OK - at the count of ten everybody stick it to the man by breathing.

Heh, good one! I also suggest that we tax bigger people, the ones who have larger lungs. Damn those polluters! And place cap and trade constraints upon athletes. The professional ones suck in way too much oxygen and spew out way too much evil carbon while they make big bucks. They need to pay for their crimes against humanity, and the whales!! The whales can't run 100 meters or do a running broad jump. It's not fair!

Okay, sarcasm mode is ended. Really, this is a most serious issue that plagues the earth. And the attendees at the Copenhagen summit, surely are not setting good examples for the rest of us, concerning this issue that could possibly result in the end of humanity, nay, Earth itself.

Oh, hell. I can't resist.

Originally posted by rhinoceros

Originally posted by bigyin
According to the scientific BS we have been fed the past 2 or 3 decades many of us should be under several feet of water by now.

As far as I remember they didn't tell us about global warming in the elementary school (they might have, I don't really remember too much from that time). I think in the late 90's in high school global warming was first mentioned but I really didn't care at the time

. I don't recall hearing thou that sea levels would rise that fast. They were talking centimetres in decades, metre(s) only relatively much later (like in the year 2100 or whatever). Enter present day. Now I suppose I know more about this than 99,9 percent of humans (like I'm in the top 1 000 000) as it's relative close to my field of study. Well anyways I'm also interested in the social history of this debate and stuff so could you perhaps support your above claim with some sources? When did scientists claim that sea levels would rise that fast in such a short time? It doesn't sound very academic. If it's true thou I'm then for sure going to include it as some obscure factoid in whatever my next presentation will be, or perhaps in my thesis haha

Great news from the US: news.bbc.co.uk...

Honestly that piece of news makes me smile a little. Like just maybe us humans will make something good for a change. If this treaty succeeds it'll later be seen as one of the defining moments of this century and kids will read about it in schools still in the year 2500 (unless of course we f*ck up later and go thru 10 more world wars until there's nobody left).

[edit on 7-12-2009 by rhinoceros]

Regarding rising sea levels.. I will have to hunt about for evidence from back then. My immediate thought was the Thames Barrier built between 1974 and 1982. In this link the Environment agency admits that back in the 70's the scientists told us sea level would rise by 8mm per year. But that has since been revised down.

So in 1970 we would be told that by 2010 there would be 40 x 8mm = 320mm thats over a foot. I'm sure there will be even more exagerated examples if I can find them.


ps I found this piece quite amusing

[edit on 8-12-2009 by bigyin]

reply to post by Keymaster1


No I have not heard about those projects. But I hear what you are saying.

Thanks for info.

Please everyone watch the video in this link
www.abovetopsecret.com...

they've tried pulling this before
history repeats itself

[edit on 8-12-2009 by ModernAcademia]

I suspect this conference could end up in a political bun fight! The whole
concept underlying the motives are based on unproven scientific basis.

Thank you Al Gore! Scientifically, and I have a degree by the way, climate
change when it comes is subject to many variables, and not driven by
human activity. All beyond human control, but we will have to adapt as we
may and most probably are entering a cooling period even mini ice age, and that will be more hazardous to human kind everywhere than if the global
temps go up a few degrees.

However, as this globe has to grow food for starters to feed us, generate electricity and transport, with a growing population, we can not afford to ignore certain environmental issues that can devastate our ability to survive.

But this conference is turning into a political '(it's your fault etc) affair, even China had the cheek to suggest Canada and Australia were fudging their Carbon emissions quoting drought and bush fires. Hang on? What about uncontrollable coal surface fires in China, Indonesia and India. They contribute and ARE human made from faulty mining exploration to equalize all the car and truck carbon emissions from the USA. Bush fires and drought
can not be avoided, and if the Chinese or other countries think they can they
better study Australia's pre colonial eco history. Some of Australian and shrubs or trees were fire adapted ie.Eucalypi before humans (Australian Aborigines) ever set foot here!

However, of course Denmark can teach smaller regions a lot about wind
generated electricity. They are the biggest manufacturer in the world why
not capitalize on it. However, they even though a small country, still depend
on coal fired plants to supplement this wind generated supply when the wind
stops. However, this is putting the carte before the horse. After all Canada
has solved using coal fired electricity plants preferring oil, natural gas and nuclear supplies. Less carbon emissions.

And Denmark is one of the biggest oil suppliers in the world with Russia
also????

I would like to see more intense studies on the effect urban development
and land clearance has on micro climates. It has been proven that in
the Amazon, large clearance of rain forests, does cause the cloud base to
go higher and precipitation levels shift or decrease. Prince Charles has
a theory that countries outside South America should invest in the maintenance of rain forests. However, I agree that he also with my whole hearted agreement suggest that agriculturalists as they have in UK be subsided by governments to switch to more sustainable agricultural methodology. By education and also subsidised for supplying organic
humus and fertilisers to their pastures. It works. But takes years to establish.

By increasing the soil humus reducing the use of pesticides, herbicides and
damaging chemical fertilizers the soil microbiology will increase. And without good soil microbes our plants can't grow properly. Soils have the capacity to hold 60% of the globes carbon sink. Pasture lands for animal
fodder will improve, soil water conservation will improve, and the health
of animals will improve. This is particularly important in countries like
Australia that have very unpredictable rain fall. Droughts followed by floods,
etc., is quite normal in most places 50 miles from the coastal fringes.

From what I have read so far, it would seem that the so called developed
capitalist democratic countries are being told Climate change it is all their fault! Well it isn't.

Atoll based islands have always been subject to sea encroachment. Even
in Cairns in Northern Australia, king tides run along into the gutters of the
ocean front. But one island wants Australia to take them and train them
to become Australian's as their island (because of Australia and other countries) is subject to Climate change - caused by us? Come on folks!

Just to add to my last post.... When Bermuda gets inundated by sea levels,
then we do have to worry. I lived there and it was subject to droughts
and depended on rain water as the island's sole water supply. Very low set
coral island.

I lived there in 1969 and lived on Blue Hole Hill one of the highest points
on Bermuda. We looked over the causeway to St.George Island, and the rain missed us, not unusual as it has a small narrow land base. Luckily we had three under ground rain water tanks, but unlike lots of other homes (ours dated back to the 19th Century) needed only one 1000 gallon supply of tanked water during our stay of 10 months there. Large hotels reticulated their water, and ships brought in fresh water also.

CO2 emissions have been blamed for climate change. From my studies
all they do is enhance natural C02 emissions. But this subject now is
being plagued by misinformation and also political manipulation. We did
have TV ads, telling people to give up eating meat as methane gas emissions from sheep and cattle were contributing to climate change??????
No mention their natural manure helps the soil eventually become more healthy and carbon sequestration increases from the microbiology it generates. The government and the Greens party were suggesting agriculture was taxed $10 per head of cattle and $7.00 per head for sheep PA to compensate for these poor animals natural methane production. But no compensation for the carbon sequestration credits given for forests or open pastures that these animals lived in.

This was generated by Vegans and the Greens party. Now everyone has
a choice to not eat meat or flesh. For health or moral reasons to suit themselves. But to blame climate change on those who do is morally wrong I feel. It is extremist and almost some Green philosophy in my opinion is similar to some fundamental religious groups!

This climate change conference could cause more problems that it hopes to solve. I await Prince Charles who although labeled a nut once for talking
to his plants, I believe will set a level of commonsense to the conference.

And is a hands on advocate for sustainable or organic agriculture. I hope
by installing a rainwater tank to offset my use of mains water supply. And
luckily I live in an enlightened country, where nearly the full cost of my
tank and supply to plumbing will be covered by the Australian State and
Federal governments. If I had the money available I would switch to solar
also. I would get some rebates but just haven't the money to out lay firstly.

The Western world has a lot to answer for with undeveloped countries.
Mostano with their GM crops and licenses etc., however, India for one is
getting smart and reverting to organic and biodionamic agriculture methodology using natural methods rather than depending on chemical
harmful fertilisers. It's a mind set. The Green revolution, when chemical
fertilisers use in India was seen as a great thing, only to be found it was not
and more harmful than it professed originally.

I hope we can find a happy medium to suit all cultures and not be politically
manipulated and one day share a common philosophy. We belong to the
earth, we don't own it!

reply to post by Keymaster1




[edit on 12/17/09 by Keymaster1]

Gordon Brown gave a speech today at Copenhagen.

In it he states that sea levels will rise to the point that "whole nations will disappear"

Unable to link to actual video, it's on Sky News UK site

I just ask how he can justify that statement. Sea levels have not risen at all anywhere in past 50 years. What nations is he referring to ?

It's all nonsence.