It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Should the Copenhagen deal fail?

page: 1
2
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 10 2009 @ 02:45 PM
link   
What I noticed is that both "believers" and "sceptics" of AGW have something in common. Yes, honestly. None of us want some sick b@$t@rd to tell us what we should and should not do, should and should not think. Am I wrong? let me know if I am, post your views.

I thought the poll could be a good idea. If mods think so, perhaps they can fit one in here, something along the lines

Should Copenhagen deal fail?
with options:
- I am AWG sceptic and I want the deal fail
- I am AWG sceptic but I want the deal go through
- I am AWG believer but I want the deal fail
- I am AWG believer and I want the deal go through

you see, despite of what we think about AWG, do we think, nonetheless, that the deal in Copenhagen is not the way to go? not with what "leaders" have in mind. And the leaked drafts, or rumours show us what they have in mind. The is such a thing as wrong solution for the problem (whether the problem is defined correctly or not).

So, what do you say? screw them, or no let them do it?




posted on Dec, 10 2009 @ 02:47 PM
link   
It's all just a way for the governments of the world to gain more power and tax us all. It should fail and it will fail



posted on Dec, 10 2009 @ 02:52 PM
link   

Originally posted by GrndLkNatv
It's all just a way for the governments of the world to gain more power and tax us all. It should fail and it will fail

So you don't have faith in the might of the elite to pull it off?



posted on Dec, 10 2009 @ 02:55 PM
link   
I am anti agw but i do want world government thing, but this stuff is only about keeping people rich. Its of no use to people, for me.

Tjhe rich just want to keep there power over others. But they do what they want with this stuff, we are all really screwed anyway, lol.



posted on Dec, 10 2009 @ 02:59 PM
link   

Originally posted by mushibrain

Originally posted by GrndLkNatv
It's all just a way for the governments of the world to gain more power and tax us all. It should fail and it will fail

So you don't have faith in the might of the elite to pull it off?


Absolutely not. Did the King of France pull it off or did the populace pull of his head? When people start starving the elite will be eaten.



posted on Dec, 10 2009 @ 03:26 PM
link   

Originally posted by GrndLkNatv

Originally posted by mushibrain

Originally posted by GrndLkNatv
It's all just a way for the governments of the world to gain more power and tax us all. It should fail and it will fail

So you don't have faith in the might of the elite to pull it off?


Absolutely not. Did the King of France pull it off or did the populace pull of his head? When people start starving the elite will be eaten.

Those royals never learn do they




Originally posted by andy1033
I am anti agw but i do want world government thing, but this stuff is only about keeping people rich. Its of no use to people, for me.

Tjhe rich just want to keep there power over others. But they do what they want with this stuff, we are all really screwed anyway, lol.

Hmm, an option I didn't think about, better update my original thread. So let me get this right you want global government?

I like global freedom and equality, where people can freely move and freely trade with each other, but this is not exactly what global government and free trade really is. Am I wrong?


[edit on 10-12-2009 by mushibrain]



posted on Dec, 11 2009 @ 03:34 PM
link   
There won't be a deal to fail at Copenhagen. Just the grounding for something in Mexico next year.

In general, yes, there should be a deal. I doubt it will be sufficient. But even reducing your speed to 30mph from 50mph might reduce the harm to the kid in your SUVs path.

[edit on 11-12-2009 by melatonin]



posted on Dec, 11 2009 @ 04:33 PM
link   
reply to post by melatonin
 


You know they're going to hang all kinds of pork on that deal? You think it is still worth it? No other way? I listen to Soros about that deal. They going to round up some money give it to IMF, IMF then is going to lend it to poor countries. You know what happens when IMF lends money to poor countries?

I fear that the result of that deal is going to be as follows:
- developed countries will give the money they don't have, normal people will be taxed to get that money plus the interest
- developing countries are going to "mismanage" this money, so their people will go in more debt. No renewable energy plants or anything like that is going to be built.



posted on Dec, 11 2009 @ 04:52 PM
link   

Originally posted by mushibrain
You know they're going to hang all kinds of pork on that deal? You think it is still worth it? No other way? I listen to Soros about that deal. They going to round up some money give it to IMF, IMF then is going to lend it to poor countries. You know what happens when IMF lends money to poor countries?


That's just one suggestion by one person.

Don't really worry about 'pork'. Seems to be an american bugbear. I have absolutely no idea what will eventually emerge from the discussions. And I'm sure you don't either.

Nothing will even be solidified until next year. Different states will have different approaches. Different people prefer different approaches.

What I would predict is that any political agreement will be insufficient to keep us below 2'C (might give the illusion of doing so). We've had 20 years to put something together, and we'll keep dragging our feet until the applied physics is blatently staring us in the face. Take a comfy seat, sit back, relax, and enjoy the ride.

Myopia[m] to the gases.

[edit on 11-12-2009 by melatonin]



posted on Dec, 11 2009 @ 06:29 PM
link   

Originally posted by melatonin
...
Nothing will even be solidified until next year. Different states will have different approaches. Different people prefer different approaches.
....

Thanks for your opinion, melatonin. Yes I don't know what agreements there will be or what undercurrents are there. But we all can speculate, that's what people do here


You made it clear that you have little faith in anything substantial happening at the meeting, but I am right in thinking that you'd rather they did agree on a lot and started to penalize all for chucking CO2 out, even to the point of raiding accounts, imprisonments and other heavy stuff.



posted on Dec, 11 2009 @ 07:44 PM
link   

Originally posted by mushibrain
Thanks for your opinion, melatonin. Yes I don't know what agreements there will be or what undercurrents are there. But we all can speculate, that's what people do here


Yeah, but no point going down the route of IMF scaremongering. It's barely a brainfart of Soros' at this point.


You made it clear that you have little faith in anything substantial happening at the meeting, but I am right in thinking that you'd rather they did agree on a lot and started to penalize all for chucking CO2 out, even to the point of raiding accounts, imprisonments and other heavy stuff.


I'm not sure what you mean by the latter part: I don't envision jack-booted thugs taking out people for using incandescent light bulbs. I don't recall anything like that happening for the SO2/NO2 C&T system that you've had running for years.

We need some action to mitigate our emissions. At this point, to me, C&T appears the best option. It has a cap that should enable constriction of emissions over time. It was proposed by market-lovers. Would have thought it would keep all happy. Not a tax. Others are going the tax route, however. It will have some cost, but the costs of rapid global warming will also be real. So emitting CO2 already has a cost: it's just being banked at the moment for the future.

The problem is that we don't have the balls to make the changes we need. We need to be moving to a focus like was found during WWII and the space-race. We should be focusing a lot of time and energy on this issue.

But, hey, we're too busy bailing idiot bankers out, funding wars and the military.



posted on Dec, 11 2009 @ 08:09 PM
link   
I am AWG sceptic and I want the deal fail.
Copenhagen is merely another opportunity for Obama to make the US subservient to the UN, and "spread our wealth" around to other countries.
This man is nothing more than a traitor, an imposter, and a fool. I guess I've made my position clear enough.


BTW, the same goes for Al Gore, Nancy "clueless" Pelosi, and Harry "the hammer" Reid.
I am not against controlling pollution, and attempting shift more of our energy to "green sources", but not by killing the companies that provide jobs. People complain about not having jobs, Obama talks about "creating or saving" job, and then he goes and attempts to tax the heck out of companies, which forces them to lay off people. Obama and the Dems couldn't pass an Economics 101 course, and OBVIOUSLY doesn't know how to BALANCE the nation's checkbook.



posted on Dec, 14 2009 @ 02:44 PM
link   
reply to post by melatonin
 



Originally posted by melatonin
...
Yeah, but no point going down the route of IMF scaremongering. It's barely a brainfart of Soros' at this point.

Soros' fart seemed pretty powerful when he and Jim Rogers crashed pound sterling as quantum fund partners in September 16, 1992. I am not saying that whatever he says happens, but man’s talk can give an idea of man’s mind, and minds of others like him.


Originally posted by melatonin
... I don't envision jack-booted thugs taking out people for using incandescent light bulbs. I don't recall anything like that happening for the SO2/NO2 C&T system that you've had running for years.

Good point. People just will roll over for the new tax. Besides, in the UK they practically give the fluorescent mercury bulbs away. Yesterday I got yet another free pack of 5 from my electricity supplier. When I say free I mean collected from taxes of course, which probably cost us more than the market price. But what if people refuse to pay the tax or use incandescent bulbs for sentimental reasons? According to article from greenwise :

Any individual found breaking the new rules and importing traditional 100W incandescent bulbs after September 1 faces a fine of £5,000, with potentially unlimited fines for breaches by large companies.

As you know tax gang can be quite scary, these are not your usual police



Originally posted by melatonin
We need some action to mitigate our emissions. At this point, to me, C&T appears the best option. It has a cap that should enable constriction of emissions over time...

Sure. The only thing that confuses me (well one of many) is that this initiative looks like "bring your pans to melt into guns" initiative in the UK during the war. As it appeared later, most of those pans were not the right metal anyways, but it boosted moral. Was the loss of property an acceptable price to pay then? Perhaps. Is the price acceptable now? Perhaps. Isn't what we have now with AWG a moral boosting exercise on one hand and using legitimate concern to progress sinister agenda on the other? Say we drop CO2 production completely, apart from breathing and farting
what will the reduction of CO2 be in percentages of current amount of gas in the atmosphere? Do we have that data?


Originally posted by melatonin
The problem is that we don't have the balls to make the changes we need. We need to be moving to a focus like was found during WWII and the space-race. We should be focusing a lot of time and energy on this issue.

Yes, I think I see what you mean. Like in China. They showed what can be done by central control during the Olympic Games. Cheap labour for the higher cause or simply out of fear. We'd certainly achieve much more and probably be flying outside the solar system by now, providing the central control is a smart bunch of guys. Not sure it's the right approach though, humans are hard to tame. Common enemy idea definitely worked in the past as you pointed out. What do you think will be next common enemy if AGW will not work (whether it's real or not is not the point here). Alien invasion
sorry couldn't resist.



posted on Dec, 15 2009 @ 01:11 PM
link   

Originally posted by ProfEmeritus
I am AWG sceptic and I want the deal fail.
...

Do you think it would be good to encourage new ways to power our homes, cars and gadgets? Will this deal at least open an opportunity to new technologies and potential remove our dependency on oil, which could be very political. One of the reasons behind middle east wars is arguably because of oil. Or perhaps the oil is not the issue, but energy itself whatever it is, so if we switch to solar, or geothermal, we will get the same issues. Can anything good vome out of that deal?



posted on Dec, 16 2009 @ 01:22 PM
link   
reply to post by mushibrain
 





Do you think it would be good to encourage new ways to power our homes, cars and gadgets? Will this deal at least open an opportunity to new technologies and potential remove our dependency on oil, which could be very political.


Actually, I have a solution, which I had sent to my senators. No response, as expected:

"Dear Senator *****,
-Solar electricity costs about $10 to $12 a watt installed, though you may be eligible for state incentives. Check your utility bill to see your monthly usage.-
The above quotes were received by me for solar panels on a home. For the average consumer, this works out to about $10,000 installed. Given the cost of "Cap and Trade" to the average person, wouldn't is just be cheaper to eliminate all of these bills, that are driving up our deficit by trillions of dollars, and give each private home $10,000 to install solar panels? The total cost for the estimated 100,000,000 homes would be ONE trillion dollars. This would allow us to all use "Green, clean" technology for our homes, and eliminate much need for foreign oil.
I eagerly await your response."



posted on Dec, 16 2009 @ 01:39 PM
link   
well i agree with our leaders we might need some sort of regulation on certain things pertaining to the climate, but we NEED the hard scientific facts and data so we can make a logical treaty. but right now there is just tooo much speculation in the world regarding climate change..

It's just necessary that the people be informed with this data before moving on to a worldwide treaty and yes, i kinda worry how the elite will build upon global governance based on this treaty



posted on Dec, 16 2009 @ 04:03 PM
link   
reply to post by melatonin
 


Isn't that what they said last year? ...and the year before? In Kyoto? Seems the sheep aren't quite as asleep as they seem?

Copenhagen never had a chance in hell of working. Too many of the poorer countries going "gimmie, gimmie...", and the richer countries replying "no, no, not by the hair of our chinnie, chin chins..." or words to that effect.

It doesn't help their cause that slipshod science is being used to push a strictly political, money grubbing agenda... People aren't quite so blind as once we were...

Too bad, so sad...



posted on Dec, 17 2009 @ 06:35 AM
link   

Originally posted by ProfEmeritus
Actually, I have a solution, which I had sent to my senators. No response, as expected:

"Dear Senator *****,
-Solar electricity costs about $10 to $12 a watt installed, though you may be eligible for state incentives. Check your utility bill to see your monthly usage.-

....


Sounds good to me. But they don't want your solution to the problem. They want their solution. That's why they created the problem in the first place


When I calculated how soon a small wind turbine (bought in a local DYI shop in the UK) would pay for itself based on current energy prices, it worked out about 5 years. I think it's not bad at all. it's strange that politicians cannot perform a simple math. they screwed up with bailouts (paying for all mortgages would cost less and solved many issues), with cash for clunkers and many other things.



posted on Dec, 17 2009 @ 07:12 AM
link   
reply to post by seagull
 


Everyone should know that gw is not real. The poorer countries know this, and can ask for what they want. The poorer countries are being used, so why not get what they can.

There is no way of getting nwo, until they bankrupt usa, and there idea on gw has failed for me.



posted on Dec, 17 2009 @ 07:19 AM
link   
Hate to disappoint, but the G77 have got what they wanted - end to the rush Danish draft - and all have returned to the table.

COP15 agree on procedure http://(link tracking not allowed)/7ynUIK #cop15 #climate #copenhagen 1 minute ago from (link tracking not allowed)



new topics

top topics



 
2
<<   2 >>

log in

join