Well, the UN can want in one hand and shiat in the other and see which one gets full the quickest. There are still "rich" countries? Where? Go beg the Chinese.

/not submitter

The U.N. says rich countries need to increase their payments over the next 20 years to six times the funds available now, which is about $21 billion.

Ok, here's what I don't understand - we all know that most fortune 500 companies have switched or are in the process of switching manufacturing facilities to third world countries in part because those countries have lax to non-exisistent environmental legislation.

So how is this the fault of 'rich nations'? If 'rich nations' had any influence over the corporations doing this, do you really think they'd let these companies just haul ass out of the country with all those jobs in tow? I don't think so, and if you're honest with yourself you'd agree with me.

"The U.N. says rich countries need to increase their payments over the next 20 years to six times the funds available now, which is about $21 billion.

How about the U.N. can go suck shiat out of it's own ass? The only return we could expect from the nations we hand out money to, are a bunch of frothing-at-the-mouth retards screaming "Death to the USA".

Not to mention, the U.N. says the countries need $130 billion a year all the way until 2030.

What a farking suprise!
Give Al Gore a Nobel Prize and "they" think we owe "them" something.

OH, I hate to say this, *heads for the door as he hits Add*,
BUT, that Koyoto thingie. Thanks boss, you did do that right. Apparently you saw the money pit black hole to financial paraylsis that it really is.

Weaver95: The U.N. says rich countries need to increase their payments over the next 20 years to six times the funds available now, which is about $21 billion.

Ok, here's what I don't understand - we all know that most fortune 500 companies have switched or are in the process of switching manufacturing facilities to third world countries in part because those countries have lax to non-exisistent environmental legislation.

So how is this the fault of 'rich nations'? If 'rich nations' had any influence over the corporations doing this, do you really think they'd let these companies just haul ass out of the country with all those jobs in tow? I don't think so, and if you're honest with yourself you'd agree with me.

You're right about environmental and labor regulation leading to the industrialization of poor countries. Environmental regulation is simply NIMBYism, carried out with the knowledge that it will not hurt shareholders. Companies can simply move operations overseas and ruin somebody else's air and water, while shareholders can have their cake and eat it too--high profit margins and a clean environment.

Can't those people watch CNN? We're ALL 'poor countries' now!

Bu bu but we'll feel better if we do! And money will fix all problems too, this is just a win win!

Most likely the poor countries would spend most of it on weapons, so at least we'd get some of the money back.

The UN should just plead to congress about it. I've heard they are in a giving mood this time of year.

ne2d: Weaver95: The U.N. says rich countries need to increase their payments over the next 20 years to six times the funds available now, which is about $21 billion.

Ok, here's what I don't understand - we all know that most fortune 500 companies have switched or are in the process of switching manufacturing facilities to third world countries in part because those countries have lax to non-exisistent environmental legislation.

So how is this the fault of 'rich nations'? If 'rich nations' had any influence over the corporations doing this, do you really think they'd let these companies just haul ass out of the country with all those jobs in tow? I don't think so, and if you're honest with yourself you'd agree with me.

You're right about environmental and labor regulation leading to the industrialization of poor countries. Environmental regulation is simply NIMBYism, carried out with the knowledge that it will not hurt shareholders. Companies can simply move operations overseas and ruin somebody else's air and water, while shareholders can have their cake and eat it too--high profit margins and a clean environment.

So, to both of you: If this 130 billion a year succeeded in leveling that playing field...how much do you think that'd be worth in terms of jobs on the homefront?

ne2d: Environmental regulation is simply NIMBYism

We've gone far beyond NIMBYism. We are now into BANANA.
Build
Absolutely
Nothing
Anywhere
Near
Anyone

Who knew that the UN thinks it is Robin Hood?? This crap has gone on long enough, nobody can afford to shell that money out.

"It says less than $1 billion is earmarked to help them cope with the effects of climate change."

What effects????

What climate change????


Who in the UN made this decision to give the poor countries all that money??? I'm thinking the poor countries and the leaders will end up with new palaces that are air conditioned while the people get nothing.

The UN needs to be disbanded. It serves no purpose. How many wars has it stopped?? NONE. How well have they done at stopping genocide They have not even slowed it down.

YouPeopleAreCrazy,

Good call, throw in a 1 child per couple and we might survive the next 50 years.

I can't possibly imagine why nobody in the US takes the UN seriously.

Does this mean that the US is going to get money? As it is now, the US is so poor that we've had to borrow money to pay our bills for the past several decades. If borrowing money to pay ordinary recurring bills with no concrete plan to pay it back is not a sign of being poor, I don't know what is.

Aren't brown people funny ?

Mmmm... a UN bashing thread, is it just me or have we had a few of these recently?

Guys, its not their fault they can't do anything. They're basically damned if they do and damned if they don't, I don't envy their position. John Bolton was not the first to hate the UN, the US has been undermining its power since day one and it will continue to until the day there is significant reform of the Sec. Council. The UN does do a lot of good, most of it stuff that we take for granted, but on the difficult issues, the ones where states won't agree outside the UN, there's no way they'll agree within the UN either. The P5 are the P5 because they have an enforceable bottom line, and as long as their fear of losing sovereignty to their peers and the UN remains, the really difficult problems won't be properly addressed.

/yes, I'm conflicted on this topic, how can you tell?

In unrelated news, the number of poor countries in the UN is far greater than the number of rich countries.

Fine, As a stipulation The developing world will recieve your 150B In the form of 100,000 Tomahawk missiles targeting your centers of production.

Climate change solved.

Sure, if 130 billion dollars were given to the GOVERNMENTS of poor countries for any reason, we would have the right to be highly suspicious of the motives of those governments in accepting the money.

But if we did not give the money to governments, instead setting up and supporting thousands of microcredit loan operations that seeded small businesses, wealth would trickle up and strengthen the whole of their economies. No palaces would be built!

Imagine developing large numbers of economically secure and educated families in countries whose societies are now infested with radical jihadis and other such creatures. That is the kind of security expenditure I could happily live with.

///In any case, I don't think we would need that much money to help these people- Even one week's worth of military expenditure in Iraq would do quite a lot.

ne2d: You're right about environmental and labor regulation leading to the industrialization of poor countries. Environmental regulation is simply NIMBYism, carried out with the knowledge that it will not hurt shareholders. Companies can simply move operations overseas and ruin somebody else's air and water, while shareholders can have their cake and eat it too--high profit margins and a clean environment.

Where are the American labor unions in all this? US manufacturing used to be a widow making, toxic dump creating prospect, but the organized labor movement managed to get safer and cleaner working conditions for their constituents. Why does the UAW or AFL/CIO go international to help suffering foreign workers in dangerous conditions with minuscule wages improve their lot in life? The benefit of this to their paying members is that by increasing the cost of foreign labor, they make American labor look that much more economical. Take Mexico for instance: they have labor and environmental laws almost identical to the US, but enforcement is lax and rife with graft and corruption.

Seth'n'Spectrum: The UN does do a lot of good

Kyoto redux! Now with less discussion!

What? You thought Kyoto was something other than a mere money transfer?

Do you know the way to Mordor: Sure, if 130 billion dollars were given to the GOVERNMENTS of poor countries for any reason, we would have the right to be highly suspicious of the motives of those governments in accepting the money.

But if we did not give the money to governments, instead setting up and supporting thousands of microcredit loan operations that seeded small businesses, wealth would trickle up and strengthen the whole of their economies. No palaces would be built!

Imagine developing large numbers of economically secure and educated families in countries whose societies are now infested with radical jihadis and other such creatures. That is the kind of security expenditure I could happily live with.

///In any case, I don't think we would need that much money to help these people- Even one week's worth of military expenditure in Iraq would do quite a lot.

Why are you still here? Shouldn't you be headed to the Sudan? You just solved Africa!

We'll look back fondly and say "I knew him when" when the DYKTWTM meets the Janjaweed thread goes green complete with hero tag.

The IPCC is leading the global warming scam.

How about the bullshiat Kyoto Protocol? It's nothing but a global wealth redistribution scheme... all the rich countries must reduce their emissions, but the poor third-world shiatholes can pollute all they want... guess what happens? Companies move factories to shiat country A.

Do you know the way to Mordor:
///In any case, I don't think we would need that much money to help these people- Even one week's worth of military expenditure in Iraq would do quite a lot.

Yeah, it would fund one week's worth of military intervention in a new country. Which would be an absolute necessity if you actually wanted the aid to get to the population at large, instead of the local militia.

Yoyo: Where are the American labor unions in all this? US manufacturing used to be a widow making, toxic dump creating prospect, but the organized labor movement managed to get safer and cleaner working conditions for their constituents.

But then they solved all that, due in no small part to the basic decency of management in the US. The unions then got greedy, excessively greedy, greedy to a degree that would shame the mythical robber-barons of American Industry upon which these mafia-fed democrat-party-supported...

Oh wait, I'll trade you my own off-topic rant for yours...

Skwidd: Seth'n'Spectrum: The UN does do a lot of good

Sigh... I'm not going to the library at this time of night.

But a few examples: WHO, UNESCO, FAO all actually play a role, but get little coverage and no praise. The ICJ plays a very important role in international law, which even the US recognizes (don't get it confused with the ICC). The only UN function that has had a checkered record is the security one, and only because bipolarity has prevented its proper exercise for a long time. I think the UN-US relationship post-1991 is still being figured out, and although we have seen prominent failures, at least the incoming US administration hasn't given up hope in the UN yet. The elevation of the ambassadorship to cabinet level shows at minimum that Obama wants to give the impression that the US values the UN, which is a first step. So, as far as I'm concerned, optimism, however wary, prevails. The whole concept of a duty to intervene to protect human rights is new and must be given time to mature. The various transnational negotiations currently being held up by US intransigence, such as the Kyoto protocol, are probably better off under the UN umbrella than outside.

St_Francis_P: Most likely the poor countries would spend most of it on weapons, so at least we'd get some of the money back.

Only if they buy our weapons... which they often don't, because our stuffs expensive.
So no, we don't gain much.

Poor nations need lots of things. The money could be earmarked for more meaningful projects than global warming scare mongering, which they really cant do much about anyway.

Someone who's cooking their dinner with illegally farmed charcoal is probably not a prime contributor to our problem. Likewise their government is unlikely to help them or us find a solution for anything.

Spend money on research, spend it on education, spend it on infrastructure or specific goals, but don't just throw it out the window praying something good will happen.

The UN is a joke. Iran is heading the human rights committee? Lollercaust!

Remove all Republicans: godofusa.com: The UN is a joke. Iran is heading the human rights committee? Lollercaust!

No, it's not. Sudan is. That's why the UN is working so hard on Darfur.

That's an even better joke.

I wish we could withdraw from the UN and just take an isolationist approach. If they want to trade, sure, but GTFO NYC.

It's too bad Dems and Repubs are two sides of the same coin.

Quite apart from the issue of global warming, I'm always amazed at the mindset of some people and organizations.

For most people in the world, if they see someone who is in need, they think "Gee, I think I'll do something to help them" or "Shame I really am not in a position to help right now."

Then there's the UN and others who see someone in need and think "OMG! Those poor people. I demand YOU give them YOUR money!"

The UN is like a school where everyone gets a vote. The students keep wasting everyone's time with stupid proposals like "Let's have recess all day" and "Let's throw pies at the principal", and the principals and staff have to go around vetoing them, while not getting anything important done.

Much easier to get rid of the UN, and form a new organization for the grown-ups (democratically elected, freedom-providing countries).

JonEdangerousli

Who is John Galt?

Is a man not entitled to the sweat of his brow? 'No!' says the man in Washington, 'It belongs to the poor.' 'No!' says the man in the Vatican, 'It belongs to God.' 'No!' says the man in Moscow, 'It belongs to everyone.'

Don't let Pelosi and company get wind of this - - -

PacManDreaming: "The U.N. says rich countries need to increase their payments over the next 20 years to six times the funds available now, which is about $21 billion.

How about the U.N. can go suck shiat out of it's own ass? The only return we could expect from the nations we hand out money to, are a bunch of frothing-at-the-mouth retards screaming "Death to the USA".

Not to mention, the U.N. says the countries need $130 billion a year all the way until 2030.

You're not reading between the lines.

"Global warming prevention" means "Local Industrial Development Prevention".

Suppose you don't give the dictators in third world countries money. Then, they have no money to buy fancy weapons and they get overthrown and democracy comes. Then, the third worlders start their own companies and start competing with the US companies. Oh noez. They also won't let US companies exploit the shiat out of them.

Plus, the UN was formed after WW2 after the league of nations failed when Japan and Germany wouldn't listen to anyone and told everyone to eff off.

My point is, environmental protection is a big front to prevent industrialization of developing countries by themselves. All the money goes into bribing politicians to not let anything good happen in developing countries but turn a blind eye to the big corporations who want to establish sweat shops there.

I say No! It belongs to me.

The Grinch: JonEdangerousli

Who is John Galt?

Is a man not entitled to the sweat of his brow? 'No!' says the man in Washington, 'It belongs to the poor.' 'No!' says the man in the Vatican, 'It belongs to God.' 'No!' says the man in Moscow, 'It belongs to everyone.'

Me, on the other hand, would ask the sweaty man to get out of my house.

/Seriously, you're dripping all over the carpet.

Who are all these poor countries anyway? The article doesn't say.

How about we spend that money getting fresh water and electricity to the people of these shiatty ass countries whose leaders live in palaces while the people drink sewer water.

But that would mean less people dying and therefore more global warming, so we wouldn't want to do that.

Visigoths.

I actually support dumping money into poor, developing countries. On one condition: they're democracies with good human rights records. Otherwise, they can blow me.

This: I actually support dumping money into poor, developing countries. On one condition: they're democracies with good human rights records. Otherwise, they can blow me.

I support dumping money in poor, developing countries if it has an excellent ROI.

The Grinch:
Is a man not entitled to the sweat of his brow? 'No!' says the man in Washington, 'It belongs to the poor.' 'No!' says the man in the Vatican, 'It belongs to God.' 'No!' says the man in Moscow, 'It belongs to everyone.'


Would you kindly not post stuff like that? You'll be upsettin' the status quo, boyo!

Remove all Republicans: Who are you to say that democracy is the best system? I mean, how can the US demand human rights records when we still execute people in this country?

1) because it's our money to do with as we choose.
2) there is no 2.

Remove all Republicans: This: I actually support dumping money into poor, developing countries. On one condition: they're democracies with good human rights records. Otherwise, they can blow me.

Who are you to say that democracy is the best system? I mean, how can the US demand human rights records when we still execute people in this country?

executing convicted criminals is not a human rights violation. Genocide is.

Remove all Republicans: This: I actually support dumping money into poor, developing countries. On one condition: they're democracies with good human rights records. Otherwise, they can blow me.

Who are you to say that democracy is the best system? I mean, how can the US demand human rights records when we still execute people in this country?

According to the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, any type of government OTHER than some kind of representative democracy is a violation of human rights (see Article 21). As far as I know, that is the most widely accepted primer on human rights. And the execution of violent criminals is not, according to that document, explicitly or implicitly a violation of human rights. You can question the government's competency in convicting the proper criminals and you can personally be against the death penalty in principle, but you cannot apply your own arbitrary changes to the conventional idea of human rights.

Lispin'Liberal: Remove all Republicans: This: I actually support dumping money into poor, developing countries. On one condition: they're democracies with good human rights records. Otherwise, they can blow me.

Who are you to say that democracy is the best system? I mean, how can the US demand human rights records when we still execute people in this country?

According to the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, any type of government OTHER than some kind of representative democracy is a violation of human rights (see Article 21). As far as I know, that is the most widely accepted primer on human rights. And the execution of violent criminals is not, according to that document, explicitly or implicitly a violation of human rights. You can question the government's competency in convicting the proper criminals and you can personally be against the death penalty in principle, but you cannot apply your own arbitrary changes to the conventional idea of human rights.

new here?? That sort of crap goes on all the time. It has something to do with a failed education.

Remove all Republicans: This: I actually support dumping money into poor, developing countries. On one condition: they're democracies with good human rights records. Otherwise, they can blow me.

Who are you to say that democracy is the best system? I mean, how can the US demand human rights records when we still execute people in this country?

The only thing as bad as a screwed up ultra right conservative is a screwed up ultra left liberal.