Thank goodness it's not the fault of the Racine [WI] Kringle!
Posted on 12/08/2009 12:56:27 PM PST by wolfcreek
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.
(Excerpt) Read more at guardian.co.uk ...
Leaks aren’t always disgruntled employees. One has to accept that it may have been the IPCC doing the leaking. Can’t think why. Of course I haven’t read the document and don’t know the internal squabbles between the various factions and the authors of the doc. But from this vantage point, I think it’s out of control.
“The whole idea of “allowing” countries to emit this much or that much per person is preposterous and offensive.”
I wonder how Thai businesses are going to like being told they have to start cutting back on developing their businesses. Or China.
Maybe it’s the Chinese. Wouldn’t surprise me.
“The whole idea of “allowing” countries to emit this much or that much per person is preposterous and offensive.”
But that’s been the plan all along. First, the set an allowable amount of world wide emissions. Then, every country gets a fair an equal amount of those emissions based upon population. Then, if you want to emit more than some other person, you have to buy part of his allocated emissions. That creates the perfect scheme for redistribution wealth from the developed to the undeveloped world. (Of course, the scheme must be administered by the UN where the third world countries can outvote the developed countries.)
This redistribution of world wealth has been the third world dream since at least the 60’s. After all, the only reason the developed countries are so wealthy is they ‘stole’ the wealth of the third world.
Whoever posted this article is correct....its front page news in Europe and Australia...not a whiff of it in the US media.
Why couldn't the camera crews save the kids? I'm sure they have no answer for that one...
Yes...surely one of them could have stopped and gotten the little girl out of the tree, Maybe Obama will when he gets there.
I remember probably 10 yrs ago when a photographer in Boston took pictures of a man burning to death - the man’s car had crashed, he was soaked in gasoline, he ran away but the fire followed the gasoline trail, and the photographer who happened by did nothing but take pictures as the man died. Didn’t try to put out the fire, didn’t do anything.
That was when I suddenly realized that publicity was all, and the human being - either the victim or the spectator - was no longer important in any way. It was the ultimate media culture, and it’s only gotten worse.
a U.N. outfit called the Global Environment Facility, or GEF. The GEF, spawned by the 1992 Rio conference (which [Maurice] Strong chaired) is a joint effort of UNEP (which Strong founded) and the World Bank (where Strong was appointed in 1995 as a senior adviser to the president) and the UNDP (run from 1999-2005 by Strong’s former World Bank colleague, Mark Malloch Brown, and from 2005 to the present by another of Strong’s former World Bank colleagues, Kemal Dervis)....-——————At the United Nations, the Curious Career of Maurice Strong , FOX NEWS
“I wonder how they’re going to come up with acceptable exhalation limits for people and animals?”
Calling Mr. Hitler, Mr. Adolf Hitler, please pick up the nearest courtesy phone.
Purely irony that the CSU and Copenhagen both get chop blocked by “leaks”./sarc
There may still be some ethical scientists out there...
Well said. That's exactly what they are, and they just got exposed.
2005 : (U PEACE UNDERWRITES ENERGY REPORT UNDER THE SUPERVISION OF MAURICE STRONG— SEE WILLIAM MARTIN) In 2004, with a seed donation of about $330,000 from the Canadian International Development Agency (of which Strong was the founding president from 1968-1970), U Peace set up a trust fund dedicated to North Korean projects, called the DPRK Trust Fund. That same year, 2004, Strong hosted a conference in Vevey, Switzerland, on North Korean “energy scenarios.” That conference served as a basis for a 2005 report supervised by Strong, and underwritten by U Peace. Along with Canadian money, U.S. government records show that the funding for the report also included a $25,000 grant from the U.S. Department of Energy. A former Energy Department assistant secretary, William Martin, worked on the 2005 report, and recently took over from Strong as head of the U Peace governing council.
Among the contributors to the U Peace energy report, described in it as acting “in a personal capacity,” is a former head of UNDP’s regional bureau for Asia and the Pacific, Nay Htun, who spends part of his time working in the New York office of U Peace, according to the head of that office, Narinder Kakar. (Nay Htun, an engineer, unsuccessfully ran last year to become head of the World Health Organization, as a candidate sponsored by Burma.)
At this point the cross ties grow at a blinding pace between U Peace and other U.N. ventures in which Strong played a leading role.
The U Peace report concludes, for example, with proposals for a $1.4 million energy project for North Korea, one third of that supported in cash and in-kind by the government of North Korea, and the rest to be funded by $150,000 from the UNDP and $750,000 from a U.N. outfit called the Global Environment Facility, or GEF. The GEF, spawned by the 1992 Rio conference (which Strong chaired) is a joint effort of UNEP (which Strong founded) and the World Bank (where Strong was appointed in 1995 as a senior adviser to the president) and the UNDP (run from 1999-2005 by Strong’s former World Bank colleague, Mark Malloch Brown, and from 2005 to the present by another of Strong’s former World Bank colleagues, Kemal Dervis).
The report prescribes that the follow-up on its energy project be implemented by North Korea’s “National Coordinating Committee for the Environment” and “the DPRK Academy of Sciences” – an outfit that quite likely includes North Korean officials involved in the country’s missile and nuclear bomb programs.
—At the United Nations, the Curious Career of Maurice Strong , FOX NEWS
JUNE 2006 : (THE WORLD BANK ANNOUNCES THAT IT HAS JOINED CCX — See CARBON OFFSETS/CAP AND TRADE SCAM, COSTA RICA) In June 2006, the World Bank announced that it, too, had joined CCX, saying that it intended to offset its greenhouse gas emissions by purchasing emission credits through CCX. The bank says its credits would contribute to restoring 4,600 hectares of degraded pastureland in Costa Rica. Somehow, CCX has figured out that this is an amount equivalent to 22,000 metric tons of emission that the bank calculates are created by its activities.
A World Bank blog called the Private Sector Development Blog regularly features items touting Al Gore and the concept of carbon credits. Its articles typically announce corporate “green” initiatives in which carbon credits are said to cancel out “bad” CO2 emissions released by a company’s activities.
In fact, the World Bank now operates a Carbon Finance Unit that conducts research on how to develop and trade carbon credits. The bank works with Italy, the Netherlands, Denmark and Spain to set up carbon-credit funds in each country to purchase emission credits from firms for use in developing countries. In addition, it runs the Carbon Fund for Europe helping countries meet their Kyoto Protocol requirements. These funds are traded on the ECX (half of which is owned by CCX, itself a creature of Al Gore’s firm, Generation Investment Management).
———— “The Money and Connections Behind Al Gore’s Carbon Crusade ,” Human Events, 10/03/2007 BYDeborah Corey Barnes Posted on Saturday, October 13, 2007 7:35:26 PM by calcowgirl
Thank goodness it's not the fault of the Racine [WI] Kringle!
All your carbon are belong to us
Yep.
______________________________
. 
.
I know there are but they have been given the Christopher Columbus pre 1491 treatment by the press, public and peers.
Excerpt from his dissenting opinion:
"Not only is EPA's interpretation reasonable, it is far more plausible than the Court's alternative. As the Court correctly points out, 'all airborne compounds of whatever stripe,' ante, at 26, would qualify as 'physical, chemical, ... substance[s] or matter which [are] emitted into or otherwise ente[r] the ambient air,' 42 U.S.C. § 7602(g). It follows that everything airborne, from Frisbees to flatulence, qualifies as an 'air pollutant.' This reading of the statute defies common sense."
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.