Anchorage - Another meeting, shaken hands, lots of lies.

This week we saw a summit take place in Anchorage Alaska, where not only Obama and Kerry showed up but also some foreign minister from various countries. The talks were of course the changing climate and how we can "save the world" and all that.

But one can't help sitting here with a bitter taste in his mouth after not only seeing Kristian Jensen of Denmark sign that treaty and at the same time offer Obama the oportunity to come see Greenland and the melting ice caps.

The irony arises because Kristian Jensen was only just put officiall in office a little over a month ago, as was his boss in the PM chair Lars Løkke Rasmussen.

During the election campaign which ended mid june, (couldn't quite rival that of an American campaign but was still womit inducing in its nature), Lars Løkke Rasmussen quite clearly with a simple "yes" answered the question wether they would be spending more money on climate if they were elected in office. This was broadcasted on national tv for all to see and hear.

Now.... in just under two months, amongst a lot of other, contradictary to his campaign, decisions, Lars Løkke Rasmussen has decided that while it's fine Kristian Jensen can go around and preach "save the climate!", back home in Denmark, he and his cabinet would be spending LESS money on stopping the climate from changing.

A total of 50 million dollars (quite a large sum by Danish standards) is to be cut from the green initiatives.

Initiatives that not only would be used to inform the public how to make the right decissions but also initiatives that would help enfore ecological development, more sustainable energy, and less reliance on fossil fuels.

I am incredibly embarresed on behalf of my governments lack of climate interest but what can one do?

The public in Denmark is very slow at waking from the illusion that they could possbily have put the x in the wrong spot during the election.

I leave you here with a couple of links... I'm sorry I couldn't find a way to translate the news paper link.
The video link is Lars Løkke Rasmussen in a campaign interview by national tv. The reporter litteraly asks:

"Should there be allocated more money to curb climate change?"
".....Yes."

www.information.dk...

Video link

Tossing money in or taking it out doesnt seem to be anything but political it seems.

Changing climate change will take massive global culture change. Something, in my opinion, that will only happen when the people feel it's wrath.

On a different angle, a friend of mine on Kodiak Island tells me the fishing has been amazing this summer. A little irony to the future doom.

a reply to: flice

We have a freeze warning tonight in Anchorage. The record low for Anchorage on September 1st hit in 1924 at 32 degrees exactly... we are forecast to be colder than that. One thing that never changes about the weather is the fact that it is constantly changing. It always has and it always will, and there's nothing man can do or has done that will affect that cycle in any way.

If world leaders in the Arctic communities wanted to discuss something of actual merit, how about they discuss issues like Fukushima's festering sore oozing death into the Pacific, or the chronic commercial overfishing that's destroying our Halibut and Salmon populations in the Pacific, or the amount of plastic and absolute garbage that's presently floating throughout the Pacific and washing up on our shores in Alaska.

a reply to: burdman30ott6

you know burdman...if you continue in your line of reasoning...you might lose the moderator status. You constantly keep banging against the established dogma.

a reply to: burdman30ott6

Just to touch on the Salmon part, for the most part, arent the Alaskan Salmon hatcheries supporting the Salmon fishing industry in Alaska? Thats what I understand their primary purpose is. To make sure the populations are not depleted?

a reply to: burdman30ott6

I don't think anything can be done. The world is still in the infancy of growth. Huge swaths of the world are just getting their act together. The planet is going to change, we need to deal with that. Change is not bad its just different. People may have to move around, new land will open up. Maybe we need to Terra Form the planet to get some of the land back that is lost to ice. makes perfect sense to me. Will people be affected? Sure. We need more room for all these people. I think that's where the science breaks down, all the calamities that will befall a warmer world. I don't think they have a clue about that. In the long run it could easily mean more food and more space for people. Short run its gonna suck for some people. When has any big change ever not done that in the past?


V

originally posted by: MarioOnTheFly
a reply to: burdman30ott6

you know burdman...if you continue in your line of reasoning...you might lose the moderator status. You constantly keep banging against the established dogma.

My kind of banging…

He's right. Climate change is some far off problem we might have to contend with, whilst environmental pollution is right now, on all fronts; air, water and land.

originally posted by: flice
A total of 50 million dollars (quite a large sum by Danish standards) is to be cut from the green initiatives.

I only wish the U.S. government would do something like this, but on a much more dramatic scale. Total amount of money is not what pushes a government agenda as much as the proper use of said funds. Maybe they noticed in the last few months that there is a lot of waste happening, and that they can achieve their goals with less money.

Wouldn't that be a worthy thing to do?

Even though I think "fighting climate change" is a pointless endeavor (psst...it's dramatically more naturally occurring than human-induced), saving tax dollars is always an appropriate thing to do, and I can't argue with cutting money from a budget that exists only to save face on a global scale. I mean, seriously, what occurs in Denmark that is dramatically adding to anything that is melting glaciers? From the research I've done, it's not much.

originally posted by: smirkley
a reply to: burdman30ott6

Just to touch on the Salmon part, for the most part, arent the Alaskan Salmon hatcheries supporting the Salmon fishing industry in Alaska? Thats what I understand their primary purpose is. To make sure the populations are not depleted?

Yes, and no. We have hatchery supported King and Silver runs, but we also have many wild runs. The Reds (Sockeye to folks from outside), pinks, and chums are vast majority wild runs.

The real problem isn't targeted salmon fishing, at least not in regards to the viability and survival of the runs. (Although I must admit I have some MAJOR gripes against the board of fisheries and their bending over backwards to placate all the commercial guys purely at the expense of personal use and sport fishermen.) The real disgrace is the pollock trawler bycatches of halibut and salmon. Folks need their cheap ass fish sticks and fillet O fish sandwiches, though, so the Asian trawler fleet is allowed to rape the hell out of Alaskan waters and then they merely toss the now dead salmon and halibut overboard when they get tangled up in the drag nets.

ETA: Here's a solid explanation of the problem which political pandering and palm greasing is preventing from getting solved logically and fairly: www.mcclatchydc.com...

a reply to: intrptr

let's not get on the banging wagon

or if we must...I call caboose