COP 15 treaty and our economy?
Real Estate Investor · Arvada, CO · Member since 2009 · 68 posts · 5 votes
I have just found the draft texts of the COP15 treaty. Section 3 states the we will have to reduce our emissions by 50-95% within the next 40 years. There is even a selection of 95% or more in 40 years. Wouldn’t this wreck our economy?
Section 37 states that developed countries (the USA) will pay for developing countries to meet the standards.
Now if this treaty is voted on by our senate and it passes. We are forever bound to it.
How do you think this will affect our economy?
Source:
http://unfccc.int/2860.php
We could do this capitalistically by easing restrictions on safe nuclear power. No problem.
Note: I forgot to add in it is 95% down from the 1990s levels.
If we only needed to worry about power that would be one thing but To many of our products are made from oil, gas and coal. Like plastics they have to go through a carbon producing process. And many fertilizers are petroleum based. If we remove fertilizers and plastics from our economy we don’t have much left. No food, no toys, no keyboards, no plastic car parts.
These cuts would take us back to the 1900s.
I am not saying that we should do nothing. Being able to drive for 500 miles on a gallon of gas would rock. My problem is the destroyed economy that we could have, and the binding agreement that the people have little say over. This program in my eyes and many others is no more than a way to tax the people more. The people already want hybrids, the people are already using more reusable bags, and the people are going green. Adding taxes will do nothing but hurt the people.
Yes!!!...Lets pay for the rest of the world to reduce their emissions. And foot the bill for our own as well.
That way we can all link arms and sing kumbaya as we toil away in the fields of our calorie based economy (that means that food will be in major shortage) in the next 20 years. This is insane.
I confess that I am not the most educated writer on the topic, but we are already not able to compete with the low labor costs of competing nations labor pools due to lower standards of living. Lets heap on regulations so that we cant compete in the near to medium term.
That way our standard of living can move down to equilibrium with the competition and all can compete on an even playing field. They work 12 hour days for 10 cents an hour, and are happy to do so. Anthing less is labelled "lazy". Yes I am in total favor of paying for their factories to pollute the environment less so that they can continue to take jobs away from our economy.
Please forgive the sarcasm, but I am just a bit fed up. I hate enviromental damage and believe we should avoid it, but come on. Unless we ALL do it (globally) and foot the bill for it on our own, this will cause major economic problems.
Sorry Uwe, but I have to respectively disagree. I have seen too many end of the world statements in my short lifetime which have not materialized because they are either grossly overstated, or an outright lie.
It started with the nuclear disarment group who used fallout as an example of how not only people, but things could not exist for hundreds if not thousands of years after a fallout event of a magnitute less than that of the Japanese bombs, yet those two cities are thriving today, after less time than half of the least time scenario given by those proponents.
Then they attacked the nuclear power plants and we did have almost the same example they feared in what was Russia and the area is thriving today.
Now I see they are saying the same kinds of things about other kinds of emissions. And I must conclude that their data is outright lies or made up (see recent email revelations) or just enormously overstated.
The worst case scenario will not be the end of the world, but the destruction, by man, of mans ability to live on the world. Mother nature is too powerful for man to destroy. She will fix herself and those of us that respect nature will survive because of that respect.
In my opinion doomsday theories are doomed to fail and mankind will survive until God says TIME IS UP.
If you want to make a claim about the ability of this US or other countries to survive to the standards they are used to, then this is possible to discuss, but the discussion of the earth's existance is out of our control.
Please do not be a CHICKEN LITTLE.
It is not our fault the American experiment has worked so well. I feel very blessed to live in the Land of the Free and Home of the Brave. As an entrepreneur I would like to see our systems that have worked so well for us copied by other countries, which have been less fortunate. So they can prosper under their own muscle rather than ours. It is just another socialist well fair program just at a global level. We are not evil for prospering as a country.
Being a Christian I believe in God’s promise to never flood the earth again.
There is a lot of money to be made by being “green.†Company A that produces little CO2 can sell their offsets to company B that produces lots of CO2. Thus both companies A and B are “green�? Then there are all the taxes.
Personally I just don’t feel that the ideas that are being presented are in the best interest of the people of the world.
Where is the coming ice age [that was the big scare in the 70s] when you need it?
I AM!!! Why should we do something to fix a problem that DOES NOT EXIST? If this were really about CO2, we would simply move to nuclear power like France. If this were really about CO2, we would be building wind turbines off Cape Cod! If this were really about CO2, we would be building wind power plants in the desert (along with the tranmission lines to use that electricity). This is NOT about CO2 any more than health care reform is about health care! These issues are about CONTROL - plain and simple.
Pretty everything our government does is about control, and most people don't even realize it...
It's very sad.
Mike, this really doesn't make sense. Control of what and who is to benefit (Financially or otherwise) from it and how?
I guess you think you're more knowledgeable and logical on the subject than Bruce Schneier:
http://www.schneier.com/blog/archives/2006/03/airport_passeng.html
Perhaps you should try to be more logical....
This says it better than I can:
http://politics.theatlantic.com/2009/12/why_obamas_golfing.php
Again, you should try to be more logical...
And I think those who don't believe it, just don't want to believe it...
Yes, Eddie, it does make sense. The entire global warming scam is about making the American People believe that a crisis is looming so that they will permit the government to take their money through cap and trade. This entire scam is about money (TRILLIONS OF DOLLARS) that will be transferred from the middle class to the controlling class. Furthermore, the scam is also being used to promote global governance (global socialism).
Funny, unlike Bush, Obama didn't feel the need to get his entire cabinet on national TV the minute after the attempted attack, and wave his c*ck around screaming, "How dare they mess with us...we'll destroy them all!"
THAT'S COMPLETELY RIDICULOUS! There is no comparison between a successful attack on the United States which killed nearly 3,000 Americans and the panty bomber who couldn't even successfully detonate his britches!
Benjamin Franklin once said “those who sacrifice freedom for temporary security deserve neither.†This goes for a good job with “job security†rather than financial and time freedom, the temporary security of safe travel rather than the freedom to have ones possessions private. Or, the security of a clean earth rather than the freedom to breathe and have run a successful business.
We are giving up our freedoms at a rapid pace so we can have security? But are we going to be secure when we have no freedoms to speak out or travel freely?
The global warming scare is similar to the tactics Hitler used concerning the evil Jews that were going to destroy the world and the Arian race. Uniting the people against a common enemy has been used many times to control socialites. It is well illustrated in the book 1984. The people we united against the Urasians. Then later in the book the Urasians were good guys? Obama used this tactic against Bush and the republicans. People are more appt to become emotional and join together if there is a common enemy. It is even used in team sports when they go against the rival teams like the Broncos and Raiders or the Red Sox and Yankees.
As to the recent terrorist attempt that has been mentioned on this thread, I heard one report last night that said the terrorist did not have a passport. Anyone that has traveled overseas knows you need a passport to get your ticket and get on the plain. Now if this rule would have been in forced properly this guy would have never gotten on the plain. We don’t need more restrictions we need to in force the current restrictions.