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?

ETWolverine

Do you really need me to answer this one?

If I don't believe that government should be taxing us to fix OUR social problems, why in the hell would I be in favor of taxing someone to fix the problems of OTHER COUNTRIES.

A better question, Phlanx, is how YOU feel about it. These are YOUR tax dollars we're talking about here, not ours. YOUR money is being taken from you to fund foreign countries to fix a non-existent problem. How does that make YOU feel?

Are you enough of a government-interventionist and "global citizen" to support this idea? Or does it go too far for you?

Elliot

phlanx

Put simply Elliot, the air I breathe is not manufactured locally, the food I eat is not grown by air that is native and soley situated in my back garden

Pollution is not good for anyone, and if I want to see clean air in the future, mostly for my kids, then I am more than happy to forgo a couple of pints (beers) and pay the tax

You see elliot I am more than happy to compromise when the argument is strong enough to suit the deduction from my wage

The countries that are effected would find it near on impossible to cut their emissions with what they have, so isnt it absolutly pointless for several countries to cut their emissions while others are still polluting?

I dont get when you say you have a young son, you would not want to work towards a clean, safe haven for him to grow up in

And please, companies are the ones who have polluted in the first place in response to market demand of their products, and if it was left up to them to sort out they wouldnt because of the bottom line

I am a capitlist on heart, but even I see the point in looking to tomorrow and safeguarding it today

tomder55

I kinda agree with British physicist and pioneer in quantum electrodynamics theory Freeman Dyson ;the Professor Emeritus, Institute for Advanced Study, Princeton .

He has stirred the pot lately by taking on the "consensus "thinkers of science that created linkage of human carbon emissions to global warming on the flimsiest of evidence. He predicts that carbon eating frankenplants will be genetically enginered soon that will mitigate the increase levels of atmospheric carbon ,even if the increased CO2 does contribute to warming .

But to your point ;in addition he says that international attempts like Kyoto and the upcoming Copenhagen "protocols" are ineffective and disproportionately hurt developing countries like China ,India, and new Europe ,where the potential to lift millions of people out of poverty now hinges on access to carbon-spewing industries.

The Question of Global Warming - The New York Review of Books

The link above is an essay he wrote last year .

phlanx

Salvo Tom

I am not here to agrue about global warming, purely pollution of any kind and the effects it is has on all of us, i.e smog

In your statement you refer to the damaging effect climate change regulations can have or have had on devoloping countries

This I am in agreement with and this is why the treaty has been forged with helping those countries that need the assistance

It seems pointless to me to wait for these countries to devolop their industry to a point where we are today, that would take a generation of GDP to achieve, so instead they must be given assistance to move forward quicker

In reference to your statement on carbon eating plants, of course that is possible, a friend of mine spends her day manupliating plant DNA, and she stated that would be the possible along time ago

However, I hate the idea of man meadling with nature, as it will produce a side effect we will not like - it always has and always will do so, so if I had a preference between gentically modifed crops and clean output from man, I know which one I would choose

tomder55

Clean emissions will come eventually because market conditions dictate it. Like yourself ,I don't wish to breath bad air .Our views are not mutually exclusive . We can have both . What would be disasterous and serve no purpose would be draconian unattainable mandates and schemes like cap and trade that only would succeed in making things more expensive and less attainable for everyone.

We are in agreement that technology transfers are on the table .

phlanx

Okay then, so the only difference then is how new measures are introduced into the market

As you say, if the market wanted clean products they would buy them

However, with all new technologies the product is expensive and change is hard to make

What I see governments doing is not interferring but assisting with this change over, by providing such things as carbon tax and green credits, they can make industry take up the cleaner options by making them econmically viable quicker than they would be if left to market demand

Can you see the difference intervention can have in this instance?

tomder55

I see cap and trade and green credits as a scam.
What I see developing is powerful people like Al Gore (I use him because he's the poster person for the cause)selling this scheme to his buddies at the highest levels of government while at the same time creating personal enterprises to exploit these new regulations once his buddies in positions of power enact them.
What is the difference between him and the greedy oil company lobbiest ?

phlanx

That is how most democracies work, that is how yours works well

But the simple difference between Al Gore as you say, of which he has little influence over here, is Gore is championing the cause of clean industry, the oil lot are championing dirty, fossil fuel that has there day

Money is at the root of everything, somebody needs to make money from clean energy in order for it to work

So my question still stands, can you see how pushing industry in one direction is just simply good for the future?

paraclete

Isn't this what has been done for many years as foreign aid, How is it different except that it has some sort of internal social responsibility tag attached to it. Well if they withdraw agricultural subsidies while they do this but undoubtedly this allows them to extend them