Obama's 'climate czar' tied to socialism

Obama is putting together his team of socialists. They are greasing the wheels for the demise of America.

The Washington Times is reporting that president-elect Obama's climate czar has ties to an international organization that promotes "global governance."

According to the report, as recently as last week Carol M. Browner was listed as one of "14 leaders of a socialist group's Commission for a Sustainable World Society." The group, one of many under the umbrella group Socialist International, calls for rich countries to shrink their economies in order to combat climate change.

www.onenewsnow.com...

So, rich countries should "shrink their economies in order to combat climate change".

Well, Obama has already said that he will bankrupt the coal companies, so this woman should fit right in with his socialist philosophy.

With advisors like her, passing a 'carbon tax' on all of us should be a piece of cake.:shk:

This is what I think:

I think USA is the best country in the world...

Communism is evil.

Atheists should not be considered to be citizens here.

Muslims should be monitored.

We have the strongest army in the world and all the other nations would die without us.

And finally (back on topic): Socialism SUCKS and therefore Obama does too...

This message brought to you by AATA (American Association of True Americans).

Viva la McCain, the little man who tried to reach the world, but his arms were too short

[edit on 13-1-2009 by 5thElement]

No seriously Jsobecky, thanks for once again referencing your information or "evidence" so to say from pro-rightwing sites. Everytime you folks discuss anything negative about Obama, you always source it from these rightwing propaganda websites... I mean theres no objective left in you folks now is there? Have the spin to look both sides of the story for once, eh?

Originally posted by jsobecky
So, rich countries should "shrink their economies in order to combat climate change".

I clicked on the report and this article doesnt seem to take me to it, can you please send another link to the report. I couldnt to be frank care whether a group of organizations supporting a something in the name of the global environment be rightwing or left wing, all I care about is the detail in the plan.

Im not going to push off every initiative to save the environment or to bring down poverty purely over partisan BS.

Well, Obama has already said that he will bankrupt the coal companies, so this woman should fit right in with his socialist philosophy.

"Socialist!" "Commie!" ... sorry are we in the 60s? are we fighting the USSR again? What are we hunting for commies? I thought we were over this? Why do you folks feel the need to play your commie hunting games in the new century? Get over it, we're over that era already.

With advisors like her, passing a 'carbon tax' on all of us should be a piece of cake.:shk:

Instead of giving candidates a chance Clinton, Kerry, Gore, Dukakis and Obama all passed off as the most liberal politicians, most social ideals and have all been passed off as having "commie" connections. I mean seriously this excuse from the right is pathetic.

Originally posted by 5thElement
This is what I think:

I think USA is the best country in the world...

Communism is evil.

Atheists should not be considered to be citizens here.

Muslims should be monitored.

We have the strongest army in the world and all the other nations would die without us.

And finally (back on topic): Socialism SUCKS and therefore Obama does too...

This message brought to you by AATA (American Association of True Americans).

So true...

Viva la McCain, the little man who tried to reach the world, but his arms were to short

;lol:

reply to post by southern_Guardian

Originally posted by southern_Guardian
No seriously Jsobecky, thanks for once again referencing your information or "evidence" so to say from pro-rightwing sites. Everytime you folks discuss anything negative about Obama, you always source it from these rightwing propaganda websites... I mean theres no objective left in you folks now is there? Have the spin to look both sides of the story for once, eh?

SG, attacking a source because it is right or left is pointless. Examine the content - that is what matters. Is it factual and true?

Originally posted by jsobecky
So, rich countries should "shrink their economies in order to combat climate change".

I clicked on the report and this article doesnt seem to take me to it, can you please send another link to the report.

Well, a quick google gave me 325,000 results. Here's one to start with:

www.socialistinternational.org...

Well, Obama has already said that he will bankrupt the coal companies, so this woman should fit right in with his socialist philosophy.

"Socialist!" "Commie!" ... sorry are we in the 60s? are we fighting the USSR again? What are we hunting for commies? I thought we were over this? Why do you folks feel the need to play your commie hunting games in the new century? Get over it, we're over that era already.

Be serious, SG. This is not a name-calling exercise. This is a matter of identifying his economic and social philosophies.

reply to post by jsobecky


Okay, I looked at the page you posted in your second reply and found nothing on the claim that this group is calling for shrinking economies. I also did a Google search and hove not found the information.

I was wondering if you had a clear link to said policies or ideas so I could review them. As you yourself said:

Examine the content - that is what matters. Is it factual and true?

reply to post by Animal



Here's a start for you. It's all out there - you just need to dig a little bit for it.

St Petersburg Climate Change Seminar of the SI Commission for a Sustainable World Society


The Seminar held by the Socialist International Commission for a Sustainable World Society in St Petersburg, hosted by the Just Russia Party for the first time as a member of the International, reaffirmed that the tasks of promoting equitable economic development, generating clean energy and protecting the Earth’s environment converge and are completely interconnected in humanity’s struggle to address the challenge of global warming and climate change.
:
How to achieve that goal, and how to get there in ways that promote economic expansion and opportunity in order to sustain growing populations without undermining economic growth, is crucial to ensuring a decent life for coming generations.
:
:
The Seminar reiterated that all people have a legitimate right to a clean environment irrespective of their place of residence, social status, income or origin. The defence and protection of the environment should cover not only the current generation, but also future generations. If we are responsible for the future of our planet, we should think of decreasing current consumption levels in developed countries and refraining from superfluous over-consumption. A fair approach to global warming and climate change must be centered on solidarity and aim to reduce the disparity between the developed and the developing countries.

www.socialistinternational.org...

You're welcome.

reply to post by jsobecky


Thanks very much for digging that up mate, I appreciate it.

In this last post of yours however I see a dramatic difference in what SI has written down in comparison to what your original post stated they said.

You see in the OP you say that SI states:

So, rich countries should "shrink their economies in order to combat climate change".

...your words.

The group, one of many under the umbrella group Socialist International, calls for rich countries to shrink their economies in order to combat climate change.

...the words of the article you cite.

Then in the SI page you link we see:

How to achieve that goal, and how to get there in ways that promote economic expansion and opportunity in order to sustain growing populations without undermining economic growth, is crucial to ensuring a decent life for coming generations.

The Commission believes that national and multilateral efforts to increase the production and use of solar, wind, geothermal and other alternative energy sources, as well as programmes to create and implement the necessary conversion technologies, can provide a strong economic stimulus and enhance the prospects for new job creation.

The article continues talking about protecting resources and promoting alternative energy but no where that I see does it refer to 'shrinking economies' to protect the environment. Quite the contrary, they seem to promote the idea of creating economic growth and opportunities.

Perhaps though I missed somehting and you could 'dig it up' for me.


[edit on 13-1-2009 by Animal]

reply to post by Animal


Certainly you read the part where they mentioned reducing consumption?

How to reconcile those two statements, don't ask me - ask them. The statements you cited are just words to grease the knife before they slide it in.

As for 'digging it up' for you...normally I tell people to do their own leg work. But this time I'll just say...

Bwahahahaha!

PS:

So, rich countries should "shrink their economies in order to combat climate change".
...your words.

No, not my words. The words in the OP link.

[edit on 13-1-2009 by jsobecky]

reply to post by jsobecky


Hmm, interesting, the concept of alternative energy and lower consumption in the same work?

Please the assertion that they are saying 'shrink the economy' has yet to be shown, in their words at least.

You can mock me all you like but the burden of proof is still on you mate.

They clearly talk about lowering consumption (resources) while expanding economic growth. It is not that hard of a concept to follow.

reply to post by Animal



Lower consumption means lower demand which means lower productivity which means fewer workers needed.

Not that difficult a concept to understand.

But the most outrageous thing is, they think they have the right to tell us how much to consume.

Btw, nothing I said was meant to mock you. Sorry if it seemed that way.

reply to post by jsobecky


Let me put one of my earlier quotes into context for you, maybe that will clear up this misunderstanding:

Nothing less than the habitability of the planet and global peace and stability are at stake, and the world has but a few years to reverse growing carbon emissions in order to avoid the most severe consequences of global warming.

How to achieve that goal, and how to get there in ways that promote economic expansion and opportunity in order to sustain growing populations without undermining economic growth, is crucial to ensuring a decent life for coming generations.

This will require far greater efforts than have been seen thus far to transform economies based on the combustion of fossil fuels to low-carbon and more energy efficient economies based on alternative and renewable sources of energy.

You see the issue they are working with is transforming our current 'carbon based economies' into "more energy efficient economies based on alternative and renewable sources of energy."

This is not a quest to reduce economic vitality or a push for decreasing economies all together. It is about exchanging 'this for that'. In particular alternative, renewable and sustainable energy forms for our current carbon based energy supply. Simply by replacing carbon energy with renewable energy we reduce consumption.

Its all right here in the LINK you provided.

So go ahead and call the new energy czar a socialist, or affiliated with socialist organizations, that much is hard to deny and I will not explain it away or apologize for it. Do not, however, make claims that this group wants to "shrink our economy' unless you have proof of it. Something I must say you still have yet to show.