questionmark Posted October 19, 2009 #1 Share Posted October 19, 2009 The prospects of a global deal to tackle climate change diminished tonight after a senior US official played down the chances of President Obama attending December’s UN summit in Copenhagen .Todd Stern, US Special Envoy for Climate Change, said that President Obama would go to Copenhagen only if sufficient progress was being made in the negotiations. Read more... Oops...all conspiracy theories in vain? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
acidhead Posted October 19, 2009 #2 Share Posted October 19, 2009 (edited) ..This is what the media world calls........................ "spin''...Nobel winner Obama will be in Copenhagen.... guaranteed. Todd Stern and the article ONLY implies that Obama MAY or MAY NOT attend... unless a deal is agreed first in America....... ITS PURE SPIN. The article implies 'Obama May Not Attend'... ALTHOUGH the caption below Obama's photo revaels 'hope' that he does attend... SPIN Whoa..! whoa..!... since I began writing this the Timesonline has removed Obama's photo/caption from the article.... too predictable.... BUT I SAVED IT...! Have a look: *************** The UN Climate change conference is scheduled for December 7-18 2009. 1. Cap and trade is not getting out of the Senate in any meaningful form. EPA will announce its own emissions reduction timetable (without a specific mechanism). The purpose is to give Obama something to take to Copenhagen. 2. The lack of a specific mechanism is required to stave off immediate litigation, which would impact Obama’s credibility. 3. Obama will descend upon a “deadlocked” Copenhagen, and 4. Some type of “agreement” will miraculously appear, in which China and India announce some “intent” to reduce future emissions on a schedule that lags that agreed to by the EU–which will impose restrictions upon itself slightly more intensive than what EPA announces. 5. All will declare victory. Obama will be the savior. 6. And the western-whiplashed- abused taxpayer will be left saying, "What the HELL just happened". **************** Edited October 19, 2009 by acidhead Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wickian Posted October 19, 2009 #3 Share Posted October 19, 2009 I would prefer him not to go anyway. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stevewinn Posted October 19, 2009 #4 Share Posted October 19, 2009 why wouldn't Obama attend, his superman suit in the wash? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
acidhead Posted October 19, 2009 #5 Share Posted October 19, 2009 why wouldn't Obama attend, his superman suit in the wash? He will be there... guaranteed. The whole article is media 'spin' to generate interest in AGW in general and to hype Obama as the lord's messenger. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Silver Thong Posted October 19, 2009 #6 Share Posted October 19, 2009 dito...... He will be there forsure. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Startraveler Posted October 20, 2009 #7 Share Posted October 20, 2009 (edited) There's an interesting article on the Foreign Policy website from a political scientist with a predilection for game theory and rational choice theory that predicts Copenhagen is a Recipe for Failure. Worth reading. Edited October 20, 2009 by Startraveler Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
acidhead Posted October 20, 2009 #8 Share Posted October 20, 2009 There's an interesting article on the Foreign Policy website from a political scientist with a predilection for game theory and rational choice theory that predicts Copenhagen is a Recipe for Failure. Worth reading. Thank you startraveler... i'll be sure to check it out. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Silver Thong Posted October 20, 2009 #9 Share Posted October 20, 2009 There's an interesting article on the Foreign Policy website from a political scientist with a predilection for game theory and rational choice theory that predicts Copenhagen is a Recipe for Failure. Worth reading. I think we can all see it will be a failure as there is no answer. Giving money doesn't solve anything except for a few Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WoIverine Posted October 20, 2009 #10 Share Posted October 20, 2009 (edited) Hmmm, I'm not seeing how Obama could be hailed as a saviour when word gets out that he enabled a foreign body to tax the citizens of the United States. Look at the opposition the US Govt. is encountering in regard to the healthcare option. If he signs away our sovreignty(sp?), not to quote a Lucas film, but, "I have a bad feeling about this." Edited October 20, 2009 by SpiderCyde Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Silver Thong Posted October 20, 2009 #11 Share Posted October 20, 2009 I wouldn't worry to much Opps maybe Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pseudo Intellectual Posted October 20, 2009 #12 Share Posted October 20, 2009 Even if AGW was real, these type of agreements (cap and trade, etc) don't solve the problem. Instead of reducing emissions, they tax them. In other words, "we'll let you kill the planet... if you pay us." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Startraveler Posted October 20, 2009 #13 Share Posted October 20, 2009 Even if AGW was real, these type of agreements (cap and trade, etc) don't solve the problem. Instead of reducing emissions, they tax them. In other words, "we'll let you kill the planet... if you pay us." Carbon taxes and explicit caps (lowered with time by statute) do indeed reduce emissions. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michelle Posted October 20, 2009 #14 Share Posted October 20, 2009 Carbon taxes and explicit caps (lowered with time by statute) do indeed reduce emissions. Unless they sell or trade their carbon credits. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Startraveler Posted October 20, 2009 #15 Share Posted October 20, 2009 No, the number of credits is set by the cap. You put some amount of credits into circulation and let people buy/sell them as they see fit. No credit, no associated volume of emission. Lowering the cap means removing credits from circulation over time. And thus lowering the total amount of emissions. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
questionmark Posted October 20, 2009 Author #16 Share Posted October 20, 2009 Carbon taxes and explicit caps (lowered with time by statute) do indeed reduce emissions. In fact, in at least one country where such a scheme is already implemented (Germany) they are already below Kyoto allowed levels, something all critics called impossible. And I don't see them at the verge of bankruptcy (point given last year they were still the biggest exporter in the world). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
acidhead Posted October 20, 2009 #17 Share Posted October 20, 2009 No, the number of credits is set by the cap. You put some amount of credits into circulation and let people buy/sell them as they see fit. No credit, no associated volume of emission. Lowering the cap means removing credits from circulation over time. And thus lowering the total amount of emissions. Cap and Trade may appear like a good route to go to incrementally decrease fossil fuels' carbon footprint but its whole design is a recipe for failure, corporate greed and manipulation. In essence, the cap and trade scheme creates YET ANOTHER wallstreet orientated financial fiasco full of scams and unethical economic practices. In short another financial 'derivative' market of trading, shorting, beefing(going-long), and betting that got the recent economic recession started in the first place. But will the white-shoed wallstreet boys running the WH tell you or me this...? Just after they stole billions and gave it to their bankster buddies..? Don't be fooled... numbers never change.... everything else does in life but numbers and economics stay the same.... just as scams do. ************** Cap-and-Trade http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emissions_trading A central authority (usually a governmental body) sets a limit or cap on the amount of a pollutant that can be emitted. Companies or other groups are issued emission permits and are required to hold an equivalent number of allowances (or credits) which represent the right to emit a specific amount. The total amount of allowances and credits cannot exceed the cap, limiting total emissions to that level. Companies that need to increase their emission allowance must buy credits from those who pollute less. The transfer of allowances is referred to as a trade. In effect, the buyer is paying a charge for polluting, while the seller is being rewarded for having reduced emissions by more than was needed. Thus, in theory, those who can easily reduce emissions most cheaply will do so, achieving the pollution reduction at the lowest possible cost to society.[2] ************** Measuring, reporting, verification (MRV) and enforcement http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emissions_trading#Measuring.2C_reporting.2C_verification_.28MRV.29_and_enforcement Another critical part is enforcement.[77] Without effective MRV and enforcement the value of allowances are diminished. Enforcement can be done using several means, including fines or sanctioning those that have exceeded their allowances. Concerns include the cost of MRV and enforcement and the risk that facilities may be tempted to mislead rather than make real reductions or make up their shortfall by purchasing allowances or offsets from another entity. The net effect of a corrupt reporting system or poorly managed or financed regulator may be a discount on emission costs, and a (hidden) increase in actual emissions. ************** Criticism http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emissions_trading#Criticism Critics argue that emissions trading does little to solve pollution problems overall, since groups that do not pollute sell their conservation to the highest bidder. Overall reductions would need to come from a sufficient reduction of allowances available in the system. Regulatory agencies run the risk of issuing too many emission credits, diluting the effectiveness of regulation, and practically removing the cap. In this case, instead of a net reduction in carbon dioxide emissions, beneficiaries of emissions trading simply pollute more. The Financial Times published an article about cap-and-trade systems which argued that "Carbon markets create a muddle" and "...leave much room for unverifiable manipulation". http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/4b80ee18-f393-11db-9845-000b5df10621.html?nclick_check=1 The cap and share scheme states that cap and trade or cap and tax schemes inherently impact the poor and those in rural areas, who have less choice in energy consumption options. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pseudo Intellectual Posted October 20, 2009 #18 Share Posted October 20, 2009 In fact, in at least one country where such a scheme is already implemented (Germany) they are already below Kyoto allowed levels, something all critics called impossible. And I don't see them at the verge of bankruptcy (point given last year they were still the biggest exporter in the world). http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2009/06/kyoto_schmyoto_ii.html Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
questionmark Posted October 20, 2009 Author #19 Share Posted October 20, 2009 http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2009/06/kyoto_schmyoto_ii.html Looks good, so why all the circus that was organized not signing? I know, the usual "world government crap" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michelle Posted October 20, 2009 #20 Share Posted October 20, 2009 acidhead and Pseudo... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pseudo Intellectual Posted October 20, 2009 #21 Share Posted October 20, 2009 Looks good, so why all the circus that was organized not signing? I'm sorry, what? I don't understand. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
questionmark Posted October 20, 2009 Author #22 Share Posted October 20, 2009 I'm sorry, what? I don't understand. The US is the only country that was part of the Kyoto agreement but never ratified it. The last two Congresses refused...besides Dubya did not want a ratification either. The signing was done by the Clinton administration. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pseudo Intellectual Posted October 20, 2009 #23 Share Posted October 20, 2009 My point is, Kyoto failed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
questionmark Posted October 20, 2009 Author #24 Share Posted October 20, 2009 My point is, Kyoto failed. Oh? then why does everybody want part II? And why are you so proud of the fact that the US is so well into it? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pseudo Intellectual Posted October 20, 2009 #25 Share Posted October 20, 2009 Are you kidding me? The article I linked to shows that Kyoto-countries' CO2 emissions skyrocketed. You call that a success? And how does wanting something mean it's a good thing? Every child wants to eat a whole house of chocolate; does that mean it's good for him? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now