Hello

Today ahead of a meeting in Copenhagen it was agreed 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?

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

Put simply Elliot, the air I breathe is not manufactured locally, the food I eat is not grown by air that is native and solely 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 isn't it absolutely pointless for several countries to cut their emissions while others are still polluting?

I don't 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 wouldn't 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

I kind of 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 .

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

Quote:

---

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

---

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 disastrous 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 .

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?

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 ?

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?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by phlanx

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?

---

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

Evening Clete

There is a fundamental difference between the two

Foreign aid is to help a crisis of somesort

This type of treaty helps to bring their industry into line with everyone else's

Yours, the americans, and the western world has very similar setups for manufacture, distribution etc, all because an Ipod to you is an iPod to me (as a brief example)

By combining efforts you also set off a trend of cooperation which the EU's Theory is based on - a common market

Agricultiural subsidies in essence are needed, you cannot be producing too much of a food, just to see the market value drop considerably - I know that this is happening in some cases and the subsidies need to be looked at properly, but the essence is a good thing - stability is the key to economic growth - as long as you don't include the banks :)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by phlanx

Evening Clete

There is a fundamental difference between the two

Foreign aid is to help a crisis of somesort

This type of treaty helps to bring their industry into line with everyone elses

Yours, the americans, and the western world has very similar setups for manufacture, distribution etc, all because an Ipod to you is an ipod to me (as a brief example)

By combining efforts you also set off a trend of cooperation which the EU's Theory is based on - a common market

Agricultiural subsidies in essence are needed, you cannot be producing too much of a food, just to see the market value drop considerably - I know that this is happening in some cases and the subsidies need to be looked at properly, but the essence is a good thing - stability is the key to economic growth - as long as you dont include the banks :)

---

Steve what I see here is very typical of the confused thinking of the EU. What was once a common market, soveriegn countries cooperating, is now a United States of Europe. Agricultural subsidies in the EU create glut conditions, very undesirable, and they prevent produce from poorer countries being sold in the EU. Now the EU wants to convert the rust belt of the former Soviet Union into a bustling industrial base, and tell me, does the world need another China? Except this one will be a high cost manufacturer. Yes the people of central Europe are poor, I suggest you put them to work building windmills, perhaps this is what they have in mind. Prosperity comes when people do something for themselves, not when someone gives them money, This is a lesson the EU is yet to learn.

I think you will find the setups of Australia, the US and the EU are different. We had to overcome the impacts of Britain joining the EU on our industries and the rise of China. Our manufacturing industries are a shadow of what they once were. No big brother there to help us convert the rust belt, but fortunately this place is not red without reason. We send timber to China and get it back as furniture, Iron ore and Gas and get it back as TV's and PC's, Rice and Wheat and Meat. Need I go on?

I used to sell weighing equipment so I have seen nearly every industry there is in this country, and all of it has gone downwards

Reduced in numbers through new product devolopment, cheaper labour markets, better processing systems and need I go on :)

All of which have been replaced by different industries, distribution, services, finance, and so on

The fundamentals are still there, mining farming, etc but in a diminished capacity

No longer is a car built in one factory, but many factories around the world

I think the VW Golf is made in 8 different countries

The theory is this provides an environment for jobs to be created and markets to be opened up

When you state the common market, I was talking what the EU was founded on - the EC. And the backbone was set in stone within two years of its formation, all of which I am going so far back I was wearing flares and rainbow tshirts :)

The farm subsidies are a shambles now and needs reorganisation, just as we need to protect our farms, we need to ensure european farms are working and then the third world - it is not an easy thing to do, but I think eventually every countries agriculture will be sustainable

As regards, "the rustbelt of europe" let me introduce you to some people I know, they would love you saying that :eek:

Tell me, do you guys have immigration concerns with illegals from parts of asia trying to get into oz for a better life

Of course you do every western country suffers the same

So how much is illegal immigration costing us, in increased resourses and services required, strain on public systems and so on

We have a lot of Polish, and Romania coming here, most of which are hard working people, (regardless of what is happening with recessions) the pattern of illegals is not going to change until one simple thing happens

"Their markets are selling a loaf of bread at the same cost as it is in this country"

What you say as "putting them to work" I say we are, by getting them to a standard where immigration is through freedom of choice and not financial necessity

What will that do for our taxes, our resources?

What we will pay in tax today we will save tomorrow

What we can't sell today, we will be able to sell to tomorrow

As usual the politicians take time, arguing over who gets what for lunch etc, but the essence of the social reform occurring in europe I think is a good one to support

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by phlanx

As usual the politicans take time, arguing over who gets what for lunch etc, but the essence of the social reform occuring in europe I think is a good one to support

---

Steve I think you miss understood I said the eastern european countries the new members of the EU are the rust belt of the Soviet Union. Industries that no longer exist, but economic migrants from those places are now internally displaced persons surely not illegal immigrants. That's what you bought into when you joined the EU. No, you have many Illegals I'm sure from outside the EU, and they come from the same places as our illegals, so by all means redistribute the wealth of Europe through investment but remember the more you do the more inviting it becomes to all those outside the fence.

Now Australia is a different kettle of fish. If all our illegals had to camp with the aboriginals for a few years (third world conditions we are told) they wouldn't want to come but it is about time we installed them in the central desert, only thing is the aboriginals don't want them either. I don't know why they come we have enough kabab shops already. They have no skills to do the jobs that are available, despite our million camels we have no jobs for camel drivers and unlike the americans we have no use for household servants

What ? You don't have any lawns that need mowing or lettuce to pick ? Lol Those jobs that Americans won't do except in times of recession ? I have to admit it .The stereotype about us is of our own making .
One can never have enough Mckababs.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tomder55

What ? You don't have any lawns that need mowing or lettuce to pick ? lol Those jobs that Americans won't do except in times of recession ? I have to admit it .The stereotype about us is of our own making .
One can never have enough Mckababs.

---

Tom our culture is very different to yours we have no history of having household servants.

No Tom we are no longer allowed to water our lawns so they only grow in spring and we have enough backpackers to pick the lettuce. Once we had manufacturing industries that could use these people as cannon fodder but those days are long gone. Our garment industry is now in China just like everything else and these illegal immigrants are no good at digging holes in the ground, we use Kiwi (New Zealanders) for that, but at least they can go home when they get laided off. As I said we don't need camel drivers and fish stocks are down so we don't need fishermen. We have hung out the help not wanted sign but as we speak only english the message isn't getting across and yes you can have too many kabab shops because these people just like maccas can't make a decent hamburger

Clete

I think you are missing the point of how immigration, emmigration and the movements of industry are working

We can't look backwards, all industries move forward and as such the need for industry and the type changes

What is ahppening in oz is happening in most western countries

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by phlanx

Clete



What is a hppening in oz is happening in most western countries

---

Steve not quite sure what you mean. Unlike most western countries Australia has understood immigration very well. Perhaps we were ahead of many in the impacts on our industries from the rise of Asia and the EU. We went through twenty years of reconstruction where we paid people to leave certain industries because they were no longer viable. These are the industries that used to employ the lesser skilled migrants but you can't get the ones that come now to go into the fields and harvest crops or populate our vast interior.

If you mean that there are illegals arriving in boats, yes we do experience that, there are many foolish people in the world and it seems a number want to come here, risking their lives in the open ocean, a little different to trying to sneak across the channel or a border. Only today we have a report of a boat sunk 700 km from nowhere. We have our own set of problems and we don't want these people here because they fill our cities, placing strain on the infurstructure, We are continually fishing them out of the sea and we have nothing to offer them. Just getting them to speak English is a major exercise let alone getting them to do anything useful.

Australia and to some extent Europe and America is like a fabled land to these people, a cornucopia, where there is peace and plenty and the streets are paved with Gold. We are victims of our own publicity.

Morning Clete

Typical ozzy, missing the point :)

You have all that land and yes I think most people in this country looks at yours and thinks you have the right way off handling immigration - a very tough stance

However, for whatever reason, these people are willing to risk their lives for what they see is a better life

Can you imagine anybody here willing to risk their lives crossing huge oceans and land masses without a airline ticket?

Regardless of whatever the legacy is about, the western world is at the forefront of social reform, fairness to all, social benefits etc etc

Until these countries that have mass migration sort themselves out or are sorted out this will not stop

At present due to the strengtening of the Euro and the weakness of the Pound, we have migration in reverse with hordes of Polish and Romannians going back to their countries

I only stated these two countries as an example of where EU policy and change is helping to stem the tide of immigration

If a home country becomes more attractive to stay then why would immigration be a problem?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by phlanx

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

---

Yes... one grants greater power to governments, including the power of foreign governments to dictate policy in your country.

The other is a free-market approach that limits the power of government and puts choice in the hands of the people.

Elliot