|
Post by spaceman on Dec 28, 2009 0:30:14 GMT
I have mixed feelings about Copenhagen. On the one hand I think we have averted disaster by not reaching much of an agreement. I wonder if most of them thought this was so much smoke and mirrors. Then on the other, IF there was an issue that we had to agree and take action, I doubt we could do it.
|
|
|
Post by donmartin on Dec 28, 2009 19:51:23 GMT
Was Copenhagen about climate or international capital flows? I have just read a fascinating book: The Ascent of Money by Naill Ferguson, which I think is simply excellent. I may not have it right, but I think that prior to 1914 there was a greater globalization of finances and human activity than today. Currently, developing or non-developed countries receive 5% of the private capital flows which they received prior to 1914. Bretton woods, two world wars, nationalism, and isolationism, ended that. Most of the world countries must depend upon direct transfers of capital from government to government, much or all of which is wasted by recipient governments.
From my economic studies - long ago- I understand that increasing standards of living decreases population growth. Simply, when the future's(s) more secure, kids are traded for colour tv's.
So is it possible that the notion of climate change is a means whereby greater flows of capital may be made accessible to developing nations - and more importantly, individuals and corporations within those nations - not governments? This would hopefully result in greater overall prosperity and improving environments - and more efficient consumption of energy.
Just a thought.
|
|
|
Post by nautonnier on Dec 29, 2009 22:22:37 GMT
Was Copenhagen about climate or international capital flows? I have just read a fascinating book: The Ascent of Money by Naill Ferguson, which I think is simply excellent. I may not have it right, but I think that prior to 1914 there was a greater globalization of finances and human activity than today. Currently, developing or non-developed countries receive 5% of the private capital flows which they received prior to 1914. Bretton woods, two world wars, nationalism, and isolationism, ended that. Most of the world countries must depend upon direct transfers of capital from government to government, much or all of which is wasted by recipient governments. From my economic studies - long ago- I understand that increasing standards of living decreases population growth. Simply, when the future's(s) more secure, kids are traded for colour tv's. So is it possible that the notion of climate change is a means whereby greater flows of capital may be made accessible to developing nations - and more importantly, individuals and corporations within those nations - not governments? This would hopefully result in greater overall prosperity and improving environments - and more efficient consumption of energy. Just a thought. Unquestionably the entire purpose of Copenhagen was money. * Poor nations from Africa to the Maldives thought they had found a guaranteed method of sucking money out of the 'first world' countries. * The industrial nations India and China thought that they could move the first world countries into a carbon credit trading position where they could transfer industrial production from Europe and the US and have European and US taxpayers fund the transfer. (The chairman of the IPCC - is a director of Tata in India and was intending to close the UK Corus steel plants and move them to India - IPCC has a new type of ethics that you have to work in climatology to support) * The out to grass politicians who in their political days had funded the research only if it showed AGW to be a problem, and now have carbon trading companies set up to milk the taxpayers (e.g. Al Gore and Tony Blair) were hoping to seal their personal fortunes by setting up huge carbon trading schemes - and taking a salami slice of each trade made. * The Gordon Browns and Obamas of the first world are difficult to fathom - they seem to be desperate to give away money that they don't have to nations that don't deserve it and who will not adhere to any protocol or accord or treaty. There must be a reason that they are doing this - it is not altruism. So as with any politician one has to ask what is in it for them. Gordon Brown will be poisoning the well for his successor while perhaps getting some sympathy votes. I have no idea why Obama would behave in this way. So there is my take on it - Copenhagen certainly was not scientific and it wasn't green (The entire thing could have been a webcast)
|
|
|
Post by curiousgeorge on Dec 29, 2009 22:32:59 GMT
Was Copenhagen about climate or international capital flows? I have just read a fascinating book: The Ascent of Money by Naill Ferguson, which I think is simply excellent. I may not have it right, but I think that prior to 1914 there was a greater globalization of finances and human activity than today. Currently, developing or non-developed countries receive 5% of the private capital flows which they received prior to 1914. Bretton woods, two world wars, nationalism, and isolationism, ended that. Most of the world countries must depend upon direct transfers of capital from government to government, much or all of which is wasted by recipient governments. From my economic studies - long ago- I understand that increasing standards of living decreases population growth. Simply, when the future's(s) more secure, kids are traded for colour tv's. So is it possible that the notion of climate change is a means whereby greater flows of capital may be made accessible to developing nations - and more importantly, individuals and corporations within those nations - not governments? This would hopefully result in greater overall prosperity and improving environments - and more efficient consumption of energy. Just a thought. Unquestionably the entire purpose of Copenhagen was money. * Poor nations from Africa to the Maldives thought they had found a guaranteed method of sucking money out of the 'first world' countries. * The industrial nations India and China thought that they could move the first world countries into a carbon credit trading position where they could transfer industrial production from Europe and the US and have European and US taxpayers fund the transfer. (The chairman of the IPCC - is a director of Tata in India and was intending to close the UK Corus steel plants and move them to India - IPCC has a new type of ethics that you have to work in climatology to support) * The out to grass politicians who in their political days had funded the research only if it showed AGW to be a problem, and now have carbon trading companies set up to milk the taxpayers (e.g. Al Gore and Tony Blair) were hoping to seal their personal fortunes by setting up huge carbon trading schemes - and taking a salami slice of each trade made. * The Gordon Browns and Obamas of the first world are difficult to fathom - they seem to be desperate to give away money that they don't have to nations that don't deserve it and who will not adhere to any protocol or accord or treaty. There must be a reason that they are doing this - it is not altruism. So as with any politician one has to ask what is in it for them. Gordon Brown will be poisoning the well for his successor while perhaps getting some sympathy votes. I have no idea why Obama would behave in this way. So there is my take on it - Copenhagen certainly was not scientific and it wasn't green (The entire thing could have been a webcast) Ahh, if it were only just about the money. Unfortunately, money is only scorekeeping. Power is the goal. The power of life and death (not of individuals, but of entire culture's ) is the real motivation. Do not underestimate the ego's involved in this.
|
|
|
Post by donmartin on Dec 29, 2009 23:46:11 GMT
I just can't be entirely cynical when it comes to the motives of heads of states and leaders. I find it's not a good life policy for me. And as for President Obama, I think he's got the toughest job in the world, and what he believes probably doesn't matter a great deal. Just holding things together is an accomplishment.
But in re: Copenhagen, The transfer of capital under the guise of climate change is a non starter because of the essential dishonesty. However, that developing countries are seeking capital for private development purposes is perhaps a positive sign. The real question remains: how in the present day does an international, private individual investor secure repayment of capital and profits? Are the incidents of climate change as promoted by Kyoto and Copenhagen a modern replacement for bygone British and American imperialism which seemed to work quite well in its time - at least from a business perspective? And of course, is there a better way than spooky climate change?
|
|
|
Post by sentient on Dec 30, 2009 1:52:49 GMT
donmartin, I sense in your discourse that you perceive the quest for capital for development in 3rd world nations is a primary driver. Such is often the case in these countries, especially since the decline of traditional colonialism. Not that colonialism was particularly fair to the peoples of such colonies.
We have two fairly modern examples, just to mention two, in Zimbabwe and Venezuela. Both fairly rich in certain natural resources. Self-government in both has now evolved into benevolent dictatorships. Big Oil investing in Venezuela saw its investments seized and put not so much to the common good, but to what appears to be selective "good" of perhaps those in power. Something similar happened in Mexico if I remember correctly. Zimbabwe has become a world leader in inflation, and went from a net exporter of food and minerals to a basket case of poverty that has its neighbors resisting its reverse immigration and destitution.
It is difficult to see these "societies" remotely capable of responding in anything resembling a net positive fashion by infusion of public or private capital. It is even more difficult to fathom this happening under the guise of a climate change sham. A more poignant example of world governance is mostly forgotten now but one might remember the rather successful food for oil program for Iraq.
One does not need to be a cynic to recognize reality.
|
|
|
Post by donmartin on Dec 30, 2009 19:26:01 GMT
Sentient, I completely agree. My thoughts are that provision of capital to individual citizens/corporations from individual citizens/corporations (say "private capitalization"), and definitely not government to government capitalization, may be a resolution of issues concerning climate and prosperity, and by climate, I do not mean 'climate change' which is a politically cynical use of known phenomenon for the purpose of inculcating fear and obedience; much like eclipses in ancient times.
Copenhagen, convened on the eclipse principle, was being used by governments as a money grab, the latter conduct being unwittingly abetted by altruistic, unlearned, and mislead Westerners.
Perhaps we should be insisting that our governmental representatives provide the means for secure private capitalization. Were there to then be a consequent and substantial increase in worldwide prosperity, matters such as the effect of both greenhouse gases, just for argument only, and toxic governance by malfeasance might be readily negated. Also terrorism.
Apart from the United Kingdom, terrorists most frequently hale from countries with unemployment at a rate of 80% among its male population. The resultant anger and theocratized despair becomes an international problem which I do not believe can be solved by armaments, and certainly not by Copenhagens, and their flawed precepts.
|
|