|
Post by donmartin on Oct 22, 2009 6:36:43 GMT
Is it not correct that were a global accounting to occur, it would be determined that the per capita national debt of developing countries would be significantly less than the per capita national debt of developed countries, so were an international transfer of wealth to take place between developing and developed nations, would not the subsidization be from the former to the latter? Were it otherwise, would not any subsidization be simply a confiscation of private property of citizens of developed nations? For example, India, with a population of say 900m has a national debt of 2.28 trillion dollars, whereas comparatively, the U.S., with 1/3 of that population, has a national debt approaching 10 trillion dollars.
Perhaps the people of the United States, by investing heavily in international peace and prosperity for the benefit of every one, have done quite enough financially.
|
|
|
Post by kiwistonewall on Oct 22, 2009 8:32:58 GMT
donmartin, I think they are talking CARBON debt, not financial. Countries with more CO2 use/capita will need to pay those countries with low CO2 use.
Thus the amount of actual monetary debt isn't relevant.
As the German WWI reparations resulted in massive inflation & the destruction of the German economy, (and then the rise of Hitler) so will CO2 reparations result in even further inflation in the West, and the likely fall of our traditional democracy. I am sure that the "people" will still have a "vote" for what it's worth after this all pans out.
|
|
|
Post by stevenotsteve on Oct 22, 2009 12:30:34 GMT
Kiwistonewall I don't think a revolt in modern America would succeed. However, after a few dozen years, things may be a bit different, but there will have to be a bit of suffering to wake people up.
I think all the 'city dwellers' in the US will be as locked in as the city dwellers in the UK. It does make me wonder how the US government will control thousands of angry gun toting rednecks. A bit of civil disobedience can create havoc.
All we can do is hope at this point in time.
|
|
|
Post by magellan on Oct 22, 2009 12:37:10 GMT
donmartin, I think they are talking CARBON debt, not financial. Countries with more CO2 use/capita will need to pay those countries with low CO2 use. Thus the amount of actual monetary debt isn't relevant. As the German WWI reparations resulted in massive inflation & the destruction of the German economy, (and then the rise of Hitler) so will CO2 reparations result in even further inflation in the West, and the likely fall of our traditional democracy. I am sure that the "people" will still have a "vote" for what it's worth after this all pans out. You are correct on all counts, and also that we (the "rich") must finance the infrastructure of other countries to prevent them from committing [carbon] "sin", and also to assure "human rights" as defined by the government body are (the list is long and includes monetary compensation) addressed. In effect, this is just what Monckton said; a World Communist government.
|
|
|
Post by astrodragon on Oct 22, 2009 13:51:04 GMT
The idea that a revolution needs an armed populace to succeed is not really correct. It seems to be based on the revolutionary groups in africa and asia over the last 50 years, which arent popular revolts at all, but rather just a different mimority oppression group replacing the one in power.
History gives a quite different picture. Because, when it comes down to it, the armed forces are also members of the population...
Look at the French Revolution, or the earlier Glorious Revolution in the UK. Or even the sort of thing that hapenned in Russia in the 90's. When the population really wants the change, its going to happen.
|
|
|
Post by donmartin on Oct 22, 2009 16:13:52 GMT
But Kiwi, is not carbon debt simply a facade under which monetary payments are made?
|
|
|
Post by trbixler on Oct 22, 2009 18:21:30 GMT
www.reuters.com/article/vcCandidateFeed1/idUSLM629247"A dispute about sharing out the burden of curbs on greenhouse gases between rich and poor nations is one of the main stumbling blocks. De Boer said a "balanced agreement" was needed to overcome "mistrust and suspicion"." No interest on reality only interest on who or whom should pay what to who. What if there was no global warming. What if Briffa and Mann hadn't done there tricky math and hadn't been discovered. But no just send the money.
|
|
|
Post by donmartin on Oct 22, 2009 18:41:13 GMT
Could not governments radically reduce energy consumption by slashing all taxes thus reducing the need to produce and consume excessive energy in order to support any given standard of living. It is my understanding that in excess of 70% of all income/production is consumed by taxation. The reduction of governance in all its forms would accordingly reduce consumption of energy which causes green house gases. Do we really need a United Nations, for example? That, and cutting speed limits in half should do the trick.
|
|
|
Post by stranger on Oct 22, 2009 19:55:05 GMT
On the rare occasions when you can get an AGW enthusiast drunk enough to tell the truth, it comes out that a carbon tax is a transfer the wealth scheme. The theory is that the Developed countries (whites, essentially) have looted the resources of Undeveloped (largely brown) countries, creating a debt that must be paid.
But even a casual chat with people from the U world will reveal they want the same thing the D's have. The easy transportation, the good roads, the ready access to food and clothing, the electrical slaves to do their bidding, etc.. If you have a number of Cameroonians, Cambodians, and natives of other less developed countries on your friends list you will find they, and their people, would use more energy than the Developed world does on a per capita basis very quickly. So on that basis transferring wealth the the U's can only exacerbate any climate changes resulting from energy use.
So the real bottom line for "climate change" proponents is a massive flow of funds, from which great riches can be siphoned. A get rich quick scheme that would make Ponzi blush.
Stranger
|
|
|
Post by donmartin on Oct 23, 2009 4:49:20 GMT
With the greatest respect, brown, white, red, yellow, or green, has absolutely no bearing in any manner whatsoever in relation to the debate concerning global warning, carbon taxes, or carbon credits and carbon credit trading.
|
|
|
Post by icefisher on Oct 23, 2009 8:04:42 GMT
Kiwistonewall I don't think a revolt in modern America would succeed. However, after a few dozen years, things may be a bit different, but there will have to be a bit of suffering to wake people up. I think all the 'city dwellers' in the US will be as locked in as the city dwellers in the UK. It does make me wonder how the US government will control thousands of angry gun toting rednecks. A bit of civil disobedience can create havoc. All we can do is hope at this point in time. I don't think its gotten that bad. . . .yet. Sure there is a lot sloganeering liberalism going on these days; but one thing is for sure. . . .it usually changes quickly once the non-working population figures out they will have to share all that wealth they are interested in with the population of the rest of the world. Kind of like finding out you got a nice inheritance. . . .then finding out you have 20 brothers and sisters you didn't know about.
|
|
utahpaw
New Member
The only thing that keeps us from learning is what we already know.
Posts: 15
|
Post by utahpaw on Oct 23, 2009 16:59:31 GMT
donmartin, Also with respect, stranger implied the "off-color" viewpoint was that of the average drunk AGW enthusiast. It would be without any evidence of foundation to impute it to his own.
|
|
|
Post by trbixler on Oct 27, 2009 13:45:04 GMT
|
|
|
Post by magellan on Oct 27, 2009 16:36:12 GMT
Many warmers whose stated goal in life is to save the planet say skeptics are conspiracy nuts that have misplaced fears about an attempt to bring us under one world government control thereby surrendering our liberty, freedom and national sovereignty. The video from Monckton and subsequent reading of the actual language pretty much puts it all into perspective. Now there is this: www.nytimes.com/2009/10/26/opinion/26iht-edban.html?_r=1A deal must include an equitable global governance structure. All countries must have a voice in how resources are deployed and managed. That is how trust will be built. Any questions?
|
|
|
Post by sigurdur on Oct 27, 2009 22:46:30 GMT
Many warmers whose stated goal in life is to save the planet say skeptics are conspiracy nuts that have misplaced fears about an attempt to bring us under one world government control thereby surrendering our liberty, freedom and national sovereignty. The video from Monckton and subsequent reading of the actual language pretty much puts it all into perspective. Now there is this: www.nytimes.com/2009/10/26/opinion/26iht-edban.html?_r=1A deal must include an equitable global governance structure. All countries must have a voice in how resources are deployed and managed. That is how trust will be built. Any questions? Let's see.....The meat of the matter will be all gone, the United States of America will become.....a state of the states of the world.....somehow......I don't care for that ring. I do understand Britian likeing that idea tho. They couldn't think their way out of a wet paper bag without someone holding their hand.
|
|