Hello

Today ahead of a meeting in Copenhagen it was agred that the EU will fund the improvement of the newer states to help them bring into line their emissons

News Sniffer - Revisionista 'EU strikes climate funding deal' diff viewer (2/3)

The essence is the EU will offer some 100bn euros to fund the gap between what was the old eastern blocks of europe and the western

As I have read quite a few thoughts from America on the idea that paying tax to help health care and other social programs is seen by many as a bad thing, I would be intrigued to read what America thinks about taxes being paid to fund industrial improvements in a different country?

phlanx

Elliot

If you do not understand cultural influence is greater than political power, then I suggest you take a good look around - you will find influences from other countries everywhere, covering your entire life

On this issue, the reduction in pollution should be one that you should support, and if you can see the dangers in leaving for another generation or two while the market decides then you are being disrespectful to your children and your childrens children

The power that any givernment has is purely financial - they are not forcing policy rather providing economic incentives to push what everybody sees as a fundaemental issue

tomder55

Investors.com - China, India Cancel Out Copenhagen...

phlanx

WHat I really love is when people think we shouldnt try to do something because it may be too hard to do

It always interests me when people point out that the effects you are trying to do wil be cancelled out by another

May I sugest where do we try to sort the pollution out if people are going to be defeatist from the outset

tomder55

and what I love is politicians who create crisis for the sole purpose of profiting from it.
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/11/03/bu...nt/03gore.html

The US has anti-pollution regulations up the kazoo . Our air quality hasn't been this clean in decades . And as new technology enters the markets it gets cleaner still .
We don't need artifical guidelines dictated to us by people who's dual goal is environment and also a large dose of knocking down the US economy.

phlanx

Why wouldnt a politician profit from something that is wrong with the world!

Isnt better to have a businessman in office than a unionist?

Where on earth Tom have you got the idea the climate agreement is designed or has anything to do with the US??

ETWolverine

You make the typical argument that I hear over and over again from those on the left. The argument is essentially the same for all issues:

"If you don't support the leftist way of making change, you must be for the status quo."

Just because I don't support a GOVERNMENT-RUN or GOVERNMENT-ENFORCED reform doesn't mean that we want things to remain the same.

We are not saying that we shouldn't try to clean up the environment. We are just saying that 1) global warming isn't the reason to do it, and 2) government regulation isn't the method to do it.

As we have argued before, there are plenty of GOOD reasons to protect up the environment... if only so that my kids have the opportunity to hunt, fish and hike as I had the opportunity to do, and also to keep loggers in business as well. But don't give me this BS about global warming, a non-existant problem that was made up for POLITICAL purposes.

And as we have argued before, the best way to reform environmental consciousness is to create products that people are willing to use on their own, without having the government FORCE them to use it.

Let's face it... excon is right about the power of lobbyists in the USA. EXXON-MOBILE and the other oil companies are going to do everything they can to make sure that government never mandates electric cars and hybrid vehicles. And they have the power to make sure that the government never does it. Which means that government regulation will never happen in any meaningful way anyway, even if I were to support it (which I don't). Ditto for the coal industry and every other form of "dirty" fossil fuels.

So if government can't force the issue, then the only possible solution is a free market solution. If the auto makers can make good, affordable hybrid and electric cars that people want to drive, people will buy them. If someone can come up with a cheap, clean alternative fuel source, people will use it. And no government mandate will be necessary.

If government really does have the power to mandate such things, it is a power that they should not have, and that I do not favor them using. If they LACK that power due to lobbyist influence, then they can't do it anyway. Either way, the solution is not bigger government. The solution is a free market solution.

Elliot

phlanx

Elliot

There are outside the US more than two choices available to political views, I am neither a republican or democrat

Since when did I argue that cleaning pollution has anything to do with global warming, I am not convinced that global warming is man made, I do however think pollution is unecessary

Note of interest : In todays high court in the UK it has been made law that climate change and the reasons is now officially recognised as a philosophy

Do you read into things or do you read what is in front of you!?!

You really contradict yourself, you want clean environment for your son to grow up in, which is happening now, and yet you wish to allow the market to take a generation to change over, by which time your son will be all grown up and the fish gone (a little extreme but you get my idea)

Regarding cars, lets forget the practical idea of electric cars at the moment, but if sales of electric cars continue, at some point they will surpass the petrol versions and at that point the oil companies can sing and dance all they like, they will be in a weak position - this is market pressure you agree with, and I do, and as long as the government can assist with speeding up the dleivery of electric cars to the market then what on earth is the problem

Your idea that any given government does not have a say in how or why certain issues should be handled is laughable - since the dawn of time, the man in charge has always had a say, just as his subjects have had an equal say back

ETWolverine

Given the hidden agendas of so many people who argue politics, I tend to read between the lines. It has served me well in the past, as my reading tends to be rather acurate.


You assume that this will take a generation. Why? I think it can happen rather quickly. It didn't take all that long for the Blackberry to become popular. Or the Ipod. It doesn't take a generation for a new product do go into production and become popular. It just takes developing a good product and some good advertising.

It's not the government's job to "assist" with anything in industry. It has no legal authority to do so here. And if the government "assists" in anything, then it is violating its requirement and responsibility to maintain a fair business environment.

Actually, from the dawn of time, goverrnments had the right to dictate, and the people had no right to argue whatsoever. If they did, they were either punished harshly or executed outright.

Then we came along, and we made (in part) this declaration:

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.

Within the Declaration of Independence is the justification for the limiting of the power of government... a "new Guard" for the future and security of the rights of the people.

Simply put, the government HAS NO RIGHT OR AUTHORITY to make such laws. And if they do, it is OUR responsibility as citizens to either reverse their course by voting them out of office and putting in others who will put right what was wronged, or else to eliminate that government and begin anew. That's the principal that lead to the Revolution and the pricipal that created the United States of American in the first place. And that is the principal by which we SHOULD be operating today... the principal that a government that has too much power is a danger the the G-d-given rights of man, and must therefore be LIMITED in its power.

By arguing for greater power for the government, you are in essence, rejecting the very basis on which the USA was created in the first place. And while there are many who would agree with you, I am not one of them.

The government does indeed have a say in how certain issues are to be handled. Those issues, however, are spelled out in the Constitution. The government has no other powers than those listed in the Constitution, and the reason for that is the basis of our genesis as an independent nation. Any call to increase the power of government beyond the responsibilities listed in the Constitution is in essence a rejection of the reason we became a nation in the first place.

I don't expect you, as a Brit, to follow that principal. Your genesis is very different from ours for all that it was our revolt against your king that caused our creation. The principals that guided the creation and formation of the United States are different from those that created the UK. But these ARE our principals. And while it might be OK for you and your countrymen to create a government that has increased and increasing power, that is for YOU, not for us.

So while you may think that the idea that the government should have limited power is laughable, it is, in fact, the very basis on which this nation was created. I don't find the concept laughable at all. I find it to be the only true path to liberty and freedom of choice. Anything else is an abrogation or subjegation of liberty and freedom of choice.

Elliot

phlanx

HAHAHAHAHHA

Well if you mean by reading between the lines you think you can twist an argument to your liking is petty!

It didnt take a generation for the blackberry - but it took a generation for mobiles (cell) to become popular - or has the concept missed you by

So the government cant assist with business - now thats a concept! So the US government has put stimulas packages together - as just one of a million examples of where businesses benefit from the government domestically, and as for foreign assistance, dont the US government assist there either - I think they do - I would list some here but google found millions!

So you think you invented democracy - sorry you are about 2200 years behind Greece on that issue, and as for all men equal, that took another hundred years before it came true, or has slavery just passed you by? Notg to mention the Magna Carta 500 years before your time, and list goes on! Your democracy is different to all others that is all, and as nobody has a perfect system yet, it is not clear which democracy is best

As regards your revolution ideas - again, that is how every rebellion or revolt is created - the surpressed attack the surpressors

AGAIN Stop reading between the lines - where the hell did I say greater government power?????

I am stating that on some issues it is the repsonsibilities of a Government to assist with the introduction of a new product that will not only devolop new jobs, but provide a cleaner future for all the worlds citizens and not just the handful in america

It is still laughable that you think government assistance in certain areas in their attemot to grab power

I dont know if you have noticed this or not, but they already control you!

I presume you pay taxes, and are generally law abiding - so you are following their carrot mate - and one thing we in the UK hold dear is we dont need to carry photo ID if we wish not to!

I really think you have totally missed the point of democracy - or infact any form of government - The People Always have the power!!!!

Again you are trying to put words in my mouth - if you cant read english Elliot, may I suggest you make a trip to England to learn!

I have no problem in accepting that your form of democracy is based on different ideals, but please do not hesitate for one second think you have the answer to it all because nobody does

I do suggest that you take a good look at what the governments do, because it is those in office that can dictate policy and influence markets, industry also has this power, and it is and will always be a combination of the two that works best for all men - ALL MEN Elliot, not just the ones that fit into a certain criteria

tomder55

I prefer citizen statesmen myself. What I despise is someone like the Goracle doing chicken-little imitation pretending to be a concerned citizen of the world when in truth his aim is to exploit the hysteria he creates to build a lucrative business for himself. A little disclosure here please ? Was this whole charade designed for your personal profit Gore ?Here's how it worked .

Step 1. Lobby the world, the country, and the government that it must do something big and soon to save the planet. In Gore's case, we have his book, his movie, his franchised PowerPoint brief, his Nobel Peace Prize, his Oscar, etc.

step 2. Specifically lobby your government to spend big money on projects to save the planet. Better yet, make sure that money goes to very specific contractors. In this case, we have "smart grids", which the government is now spending $3.4 billion on. And specifically, a little company called "Silver Spring Networks" got $560 million from the government for it.

Step 3. Invest in those very specific contractors. In Al Gore's case, he has a company for this investing kind of thing: Kleiner Perkins Caufield & Byers. His company, by coincidence I'm sure, had invested $75 million in Silver Spring.

Step 4. Collect big money from those investments. In Al Gore's case, he is also a "corporate adviser" to Silver Spring.

Al Gore defends all this as putting his money where his mouth is and investing in what he believes. That would almost make sense, were it not for the fact that money is made in this "industry" only because the government is sending dump-trucks full of money to these companies.