[paraclete]

You don't often get to see the other side of the argument
Australia headed for disaster: Monckton
And ex this is the other side of the coin to your throwing garbage into the air argument which of course is garbage

[paraclete]

Here's some more on the other side of the argument, The University of East Anglia you remember those of climategate fame has agreed to realise its data
UK watchdog: University must share climate data
This of course is not without some coaxing

[speechlesstx]

The UN has completed its study of what it will take for the entire world to go green - $76 trillion, or $1.9 trillion per year for 40 years.

Two years ago, U.N. researchers were claiming that it would cost “as much as $600 billion a year over the next decade” to go green. Now, a new U.N. report has more than tripled that number to $1.9 trillion per year for 40 years.

So let's do the math: That works out to a grand total of $76 trillion, over 40 years -- or more than five times the entire Gross Domestic Product of the United States ($14.66 trillion a year). It’s all part of a “technological overhaul” “on the scale of the first industrial revolution” called for in the annual report. Except that the U.N. will apparently control this next industrial revolution.

The new 251-page report with the benign sounding name of the “World Economic and Social Survey 2011” is rife with goodies calling for “a radically new economic strategy” and “global governance.”

Throw in possible national energy use caps and a massive redistribution of wealth and the survey is trying to remake the entire globe. The report has the imprimatur of the U.N. with the preface signed by U.N. Secretary-General Ban Ki-Moon – all part of the “goal of full decarbonization of the global energy system by 2050.”

Make no mistake, much of this has nothing to do with climate.

The press release for the report discusses the need “to achieve a decent living standard for people in developing countries, especially the 1.4 billion still living in extreme poverty, and the additional 2 billion people expected worldwide by 2050.” That sounds more like global redistribution of wealth than worrying about the earth’s thermostat.

Ok, have at it.

[NeedKarma]

Make no mistake, much of this has nothing to do with climate.

Actually that's correct, it has mostly to do with an expanding population growth and energy demands that are not sustainable. I urge people to read the actual PDF instead of taking Fox News' version of it.

[cdad]

Actually that's correct, it has mostly to do with an expanding population growth and energy demands that are not sustainable. I urge people to read the actual PDF instead of taking Fox News' version of it.

From what I had read. There is no problem sustaining nor keeping up with the growth. The outline is that it would as currently applied increase green house gases as the result of increased production.


What did you read ?

Ref:

Summary
The recent food crises have revealed deep structural problems I � n the global food system and
The need to increase resources and foster innovation in agriculture so as to accelerate food
Production. Food production will have to increase between 70 and 100 per cent by 2050 to feed
A growing population. With current agricultural technology, practices and land-use patterns, this
Cannot be achieved without further contributing to greenhouse gas emissions, water pollution
And land degradation. The consequent environmental damage will undermine food productivity
Growth.

[speechlesstx]

Actually that's correct, it has mostly to do with an expanding population growth and energy demands that are not sustainable. I urge people to read the actual PDF instead of taking Fox News' version of it.

The link which I provided.

So who is going to pay this $1.9 trillion per year and to whom?

[NeedKarma]

No one has to follow their research recommendations, you know that, it's a choice.

[speechlesstx]

No one has to follow their research recommendations, you know that, it's a choice.

I fail to see how that answered the question.

[excon]

So who is going to pay this $1.9 trillion per year?

Hello again, Steve:

Those dumb enough to follow the UN plan... But, those who follow the excon plan'll MAKE money.

excon

[NeedKarma]

I fail to see how that answered the question.

Well that that's your failure.

[talaniman]

That sounds more like global redistribution of wealth than worrying about the earth’s thermostat.

Spreading resources and ideas and solving problems isn't redistibution of wealth, its working for the common good.

It's a complex problem. Spending trillions to benefit everyone, is a drop in the bucket as compared to fighting over dwindling resources with an ever expanding population.

[speechlesstx]

Tal, spreading resources and ideas is fine, we've been doing that for quite some time and it's done little to change circumstances for poor countries but maintain power and lifestyle for the ruling class. Then we send UN peacekeepers into these troubled countries who rape and abuse the populace. I'm sure this UN plan will be just as useful as everything else they do, with the added benefit of throwing the rest of us back to the stone age.

[NeedKarma]

I'm sure this UN plan will be just as useful as everything else they do, with the added benefit of throwing the rest of us back to the stone age.

Exactly how does it throw the rest of us back to the stone age?

[excon]

I'm sure this UN plan will be just as useful as everything else they do, with the added benefit of throwing the rest of us back to the stone age.

Hello again, Steve:

And, THAT'S the reason why we MUST continue to throw our trash into the air..

Uhhh... By the way, you either think the UN is inept, or you think they can "throw us back to the stone age".. I didn't know you was afraid of them..

excon

[speechlesstx]

And, THAT'S the reason why we MUST continue to throw our trash into the air..

Aren't you tired of that straw man? We've knocked it down over and over and yet you keep propping it back up.

Uhhh... By the way, you either think the UN is inept, or you think they can "throw us back to the stone age".. I didn't know you was afraid of them..

Never said I was afraid of the UN, but wasn't it you that said something about "those dumb enough to follow" them?

[NeedKarma]

Aren't you tired of that straw man? We've knocked it down over and over and yet you keep propping it back up.

How about explaining your "stone age" straw man?

[speechlesstx]

How about explaining your "stone age" straw man?

Must I engage the sarcasm font for you, too?

[NeedKarma]

Must I engage the sarcasm font for you, too?

I guess excon will have to do for you as well. :rolleyes: By the way it's not sarcasm what you did there, it's called hyperbole and does not lend well to civilised discussion.

[speechlesstx]

Do you have anything better to do than police the boards?

[NeedKarma]

Do you have anything better to do than police the boards?

Quit whining. Geez...