If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Slate)   At the UN climate negotiations, poor countries will reduce their emissions if rich countries pay for it. And we're talking poor countries such as Singapore and Kuwait. Wait, what?   (slate.com) divider line 108
    More: Interesting  
•       •       •

2377 clicks; posted to Main » on 11 Dec 2008 at 1:51 PM (5 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



108 Comments   (+0 »)
   

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | » | Last | Show all
 
2008-12-11 12:37:20 PM
Of course they will. That's why the whole ridiculous concept of "climate change" was invented in the first place, yet another means by which to redistribute wealth from the first world to the third. Why should they pay for U.N. mandates now when they never have in the past?

Global warming is a crock, just like the U.N. it sprang from.
 
2008-12-11 12:42:30 PM
Darconix: Of course they will. That's why the whole ridiculous concept of "climate change" was invented in the first place, yet another means by which to redistribute wealth from the first world to the third. Why should they pay for U.N. mandates now when they never have in the past?

Global warming is a crock, just like the U.N. it sprang from.


You really are a pathetic, paranoid moron, aren't you?
 
2008-12-11 12:46:59 PM
Darconix: Of course they will. That's why the whole ridiculous concept of "climate change" was invented in the first place, yet another means by which to redistribute wealth from the first world to the third. Why should they pay for U.N. mandates now when they never have in the past?

I'd rather trust the overwhelming majority of climate scientists who say that global warming exists, and it does make sense.

But global warming is like terrorism. Sure, terrorists exist, but the potential harm has been blown ridiculously out of proportion by authoritarian Republicans and a fear-seeking media in order to justify every part of the conservative agenda. And now, global warming is being hyped up (look at CNN's front page) by authoritarian Democrats and the fear-seeking media in order to justify increasing taxes, regulating corporations, controlling what people can eat, drive, and do and (internationally) a socialist agenda where the rich Western countries give loads of money to corrupt imbeciles for palaces and weapons infrastructure.
 
2008-12-11 12:49:59 PM
smooshie: I'd rather trust the overwhelming majority of climate scientists who say that global warming exists, and it does make sense.

Send me $1,000 and I'll walk to work and stop building fires in my fireplace on cold nights.
 
2008-12-11 01:14:50 PM
Darconix: Of course they will. That's why the whole ridiculous concept of "climate change" was invented in the first place, yet another means by which to redistribute wealth from the first world to the third.

Wait, what? From the First World to the Third?

What global economy have you been looking at?
 
2008-12-11 01:16:35 PM
Dancin_In_Anson: smooshie: I'd rather trust the overwhelming majority of climate scientists who say that global warming exists, and it does make sense.

Send me $1,000 and I'll walk to work and stop building fires in my fireplace on cold nights.


Walking to work isn't environmentally friendly. The more exercise you do, the more food you need, which needs both petroleum-fueled tractors and petroleum-based fertilizer to raise, and trucks to transport.

It's better to do as little exercise as possible.
 
2008-12-11 01:20:44 PM
It's better to do as little exercise as possible.

we should all lie around and breath shallowly until we eventually die. it could be a new environmental movement. or, rather, a new non-movement
 
2008-12-11 01:46:25 PM
Snarfangel: Walking to work isn't environmentally friendly. The more exercise you do, the more food you need, which needs both petroleum-fueled tractors and petroleum-based fertilizer to raise, and trucks to transport.

You throw in a coupla grand and I'll do a full vegetable garden by hand. Make it 10 and I'll dig a nice pond where I can raise my own fish, get a momma cow and a bull to keep me in fresh beef (I'll watch what I feed to reduce their climate changing farts) a few of chickens and maybe some swine...

Who else wants to donate to making me completely green?
 
2008-12-11 01:54:37 PM
So? doesn't the USA count as a poor country now?
 
2008-12-11 01:56:24 PM
Just another example that the UN can screw up anything and that everything they do is based upon politics, not the truth.
 
2008-12-11 01:56:37 PM
Emissions will not be solved from a top down "cure" to pollutants. We need to be putting that money into efficient means of production that will cut waste. And we should need to bribe other nations to use those technologies. We need to invent technologies that are so good other countries want to pay US for them.
 
2008-12-11 01:57:00 PM
Sure, they're rich - the average income looks great on paper when the top 1% are making billions off of the masses.
 
2008-12-11 01:57:43 PM
The UN using an issue to work out personal agendas, wacky socioeconomic schemes, make themselves rich, and get laid?!?!? Never!
 
2008-12-11 01:58:15 PM
Philip J. Fry: Emissions will not be solved from a top down "cure" to pollutants. We need to be putting that money into efficient means of production that will cut waste. And we should need to bribe other nations to use those technologies. We need to invent technologies that are so good other countries want to pay US for them.

Wow wow wow wow. Delete that post if possible please. It made sense in my head.


Emissions will not be solved from a top down mandated "cure" to pollutants. We need to be putting money into research of efficient means of production that will cut waste. And we should not need to bribe other nations to use those technologies. We need to invent technologies that are so good other countries want to pay US for them.
 
2008-12-11 01:59:33 PM
Dancin_In_Anson: You throw in a coupla grand and I'll do a full vegetable garden by hand. Make it 10 and I'll dig a nice pond where I can raise my own fish, get a momma cow and a bull to keep me in fresh beef (I'll watch what I feed to reduce their climate changing farts) a few of chickens and maybe some swine...

Who else wants to donate to making me completely green?


That would probably be the most cost-efficient method of reducing CO2 emissions. Unfortunately, you almost certainly won't actually do it, which is why it's unworkable.
 
2008-12-11 02:00:14 PM
www2089.ssldomain.com
 
2008-12-11 02:00:17 PM
Philip J. Fry: Philip J. Fry: Emissions will not be solved from a top down "cure" to pollutants. We need to be putting that money into efficient means of production that will cut waste. And we should need to bribe other nations to use those technologies. We need to invent technologies that are so good other countries want to pay US for them.

Wow wow wow wow. Delete that post if possible please. It made sense in my head.


Emissions will not be solved from a top down mandated "cure" to pollutants. We need to be putting money into research of efficient means of production that will cut waste. And we should not need to bribe other nations to use those technologies. We need to invent technologies that are so good other countries want to pay US for them.


good idea, the world is already beating a path to our door to buy...... Hold that thought, I'll get back to you.
 
2008-12-11 02:02:48 PM
sojourner: That would probably be the most cost-efficient method of reducing CO2 emissions. Unfortunately, you almost certainly won't actually do it,

You fund it, I'll do it.
 
2008-12-11 02:04:05 PM
Dancin_In_Anson: sojourner: That would probably be the most cost-efficient method of reducing CO2 emissions. Unfortunately, you almost certainly won't actually do it,

You fund it, I'll do it.



i.e. someone else take responsibility, and I'll do it.
 
2008-12-11 02:04:44 PM
sojourner: Dancin_In_Anson: You throw in a coupla grand and I'll do a full vegetable garden by hand. Make it 10 and I'll dig a nice pond where I can raise my own fish, get a momma cow and a bull to keep me in fresh beef (I'll watch what I feed to reduce their climate changing farts) a few of chickens and maybe some swine...

Who else wants to donate to making me completely green?

That would probably be the most cost-efficient method of reducing CO2 emissions. Unfortunately, you almost certainly won't actually do it, which is why it's unworkable.


I would. Someone buy me a farm and I would become so green Gore would be embarrassed.

/I will stop eating endangered species too.
//as green as I am now, Gore should be embarrassed.
 
2008-12-11 02:05:49 PM
Damnhippyfreak: Dancin_In_Anson: sojourner: That would probably be the most cost-efficient method of reducing CO2 emissions. Unfortunately, you almost certainly won't actually do it,

You fund it, I'll do it.


i.e. someone else take responsibility, and I'll do it.


Yea, the liberal way.
 
2008-12-11 02:06:42 PM
Yeah, because you know Kuwait and Singapore are such legendary polluters that their reductions will make a big difference.
 
2008-12-11 02:06:49 PM
Phew, for a second there i thought we had something to worry about.
 
2008-12-11 02:08:20 PM
Dancin_In_Anson: You throw in a coupla grand and I'll do a full vegetable garden by hand. Make it 10 and I'll dig a nice pond where I can raise my own fish, get a momma cow and a bull to keep me in fresh beef (I'll watch what I feed to reduce their climate changing farts) a few of chickens and maybe some swine...

2 grand huh? typical republican has no idea of the cost of things...
 
2008-12-11 02:08:25 PM
Dancin_In_Anson: smooshie: I'd rather trust the overwhelming majority of climate scientists who say that global warming exists, and it does make sense.

Send me $1,000 and I'll walk to work and stop building fires in my fireplace on cold nights.


That really isn't an answer, but I didn't really expect any less from you.
 
2008-12-11 02:08:28 PM
people only sneer at the u.n. because it's so richly merited.
 
2008-12-11 02:09:23 PM
tchamber: Darconix: Of course they will. That's why the whole ridiculous concept of "climate change" was invented in the first place, yet another means by which to redistribute wealth from the first world to the third. Why should they pay for U.N. mandates now when they never have in the past?

Global warming is a crock, just like the U.N. it sprang from.

You really are a pathetic, paranoid moron, aren't you?


I think that you're referring to yourself.

/UN Sucks
//Global Warming isn't from people... maybe cows
///Kick the UN out of NY.
 
2008-12-11 02:11:21 PM
salvia: Kick the UN out of NY.

Yup. Put it in a neutral country, not in Henhouse Central...
 
2008-12-11 02:12:12 PM
I can't comment, I have Algoreaphobia
 
2008-12-11 02:12:54 PM
Prattle Assassin: Yeah, because you know Kuwait and Singapore are such legendary polluters that their reductions will make a big difference.

A swing and a miss.
 
2008-12-11 02:13:31 PM
smooshie: Darconix: Of course they will. That's why the whole ridiculous concept of "climate change" was invented in the first place, yet another means by which to redistribute wealth from the first world to the third. Why should they pay for U.N. mandates now when they never have in the past?

I'd rather trust the overwhelming majority of climate scientists who say that global warming exists, and it does make sense.


You mean the people whose livelihood and careers depend on there being global warming? Who'd find their funding cut and undergo instant pariah-hood if they ever questioned it? Those scientists?
 
2008-12-11 02:14:03 PM
The problem is China, and to a lesser degree India. You can't have 2.3 billion people not held to an international agreement. China's were so poor, let us build dirty coal plants by the week. You can have agreements all day long, but if Russia, EU, USA, India, Brazil and China don't play ball it won't make a difference.

What we should be doing is have Canada, USA, and Europe develop clean energy technology, and then screw the shiat out of Russia and Opec by making them pay multi-trillion dollar deals for said technology.
 
2008-12-11 02:14:54 PM
jjorsett: You mean the people whose livelihood and careers depend on there being global warming? Who'd find their funding cut and undergo instant pariah-hood if they ever questioned it? Those scientists

Prove any one of those contentions and I'll let you live the rest of your life in peace.
 
2008-12-11 02:15:03 PM
smooshie: Darconix: Of course they will. That's why the whole ridiculous concept of "climate change" was invented in the first place, yet another means by which to redistribute wealth from the first world to the third. Why should they pay for U.N. mandates now when they never have in the past?

I'd rather trust the overwhelming majority of climate scientists who say that global warming exists, and it does make sense.

But global warming is like terrorism. Sure, terrorists exist, but the potential harm has been blown ridiculously out of proportion by authoritarian Republicans and a fear-seeking media in order to justify every part of the conservative agenda. And now, global warming is being hyped up (look at CNN's front page) by authoritarian Democrats and the fear-seeking media in order to justify increasing taxes, regulating corporations, controlling what people can eat, drive, and do and (internationally) a socialist agenda where the rich Western countries give loads of money to corrupt imbeciles for palaces and weapons infrastructure.


This.

Though Bush was in office for both, I also equate this large bail out as the economic Patriot Act of the left. Everyone panicked and signed away much of what it means to be Americans for protection of an unseen, yet potential threat.
 
2008-12-11 02:15:16 PM
Damnhippyfreak: i.e. someone else take responsibility, and I'll do it.

Exactly the way it's supposed to be done!

Headso: 2 grand huh? typical republican has no idea of the cost of things...

I can stretch the 2 grand pretty thin. Like I said, 10 would get me the stock pond* and a couple head of cattle. Don't forget, I'm already in the sticks and have the land, all I need is someone with more money than me to give it to me so that I can do it.

whidbey: That really isn't an answer

Don't tell me...tell the UN.


*To properly do the pond, I would require the use of a dozer. I hope that is ok.
 
2008-12-11 02:15:20 PM
yea kuwait is broke. not a penny.
 
2008-12-11 02:15:52 PM
salvia:

//Global Warming isn't from people... maybe cows


The guy in the next office is certainly contributing.
 
2008-12-11 02:15:54 PM
Awe look at poor Kuwait (new window) ...being one of the wealthiest countries overall.
 
2008-12-11 02:16:08 PM
Silovik: What we should be doing is have Canada, USA, and Europe develop clean energy technology, and then screw the shiat out of Russia and Opec by making them pay multi-trillion dollar deals for said technology.

Kinda hard to do when the star player (that'd be US) refuses to get in the game.
 
2008-12-11 02:16:12 PM
Dancin_In_Anson: smooshie: I'd rather trust the overwhelming majority of climate scientists who say that global warming exists, and it does make sense.

Send me $1,000 and I'll walk to work and stop building fires in my fireplace on cold nights.


Kill yourself. You'll get the $1000.
 
2008-12-11 02:16:40 PM
Philip J. Fry: And we should need to bribe other nations to use those technologies.

Here's a "not". Use it wisely.
 
2008-12-11 02:16:49 PM
Nemo's Brother: Though Bush was in office for both, I also equate this large bail out as the economic Patriot Act of the left.

Uh, no.
 
2008-12-11 02:17:26 PM
Yes, global warming is a scheme where the poorest countries in the world are extorting money from the richest countries.

Again, the weakest countries in the world are strong-arming the most powerful countries in the world into giving them money.

/Kashyyyk
 
2008-12-11 02:18:53 PM
http://newsbusters.org/blogs/noel-sheppard/2008/04/20/gore-wont-ask-wealthy-holl ywoodans-alter-lifestyle-save-planet

Globally, it is opposite of what the Greenies expect in our own country on a national scale. Al Gore will not go after his wealthy friends in Hollywood about their excesses. His crew will all fly separate private jets across the globe to discuss things they could on the phone.

Ultimately in the eyes of the UN, everything wrong in the world can be blamed on the US and the Joos.
 
2008-12-11 02:19:03 PM
img100.imageshack.us
 
2008-12-11 02:19:31 PM
salvia: Global Warming isn't from people... maybe cows

That really does seem more plausible. Blaming humans for climate change because we have a minor effect on a minor greenhouse gas seems unreasonable. And I like the kind of environmentalism that leads to more steak and burgers.
 
2008-12-11 02:19:58 PM
Dancin_In_Anson: whidbey: That really isn't an answer

Don't tell me...tell the UN.


No, you first. Drop all the stubborn "I don't believe in AGW" crap and you'll get your first gold star to send you on your way.

Then we'll deal with the UN.
 
2008-12-11 02:20:16 PM
albo: we should all lie around and breath shallowly until we eventually die. it could be a new environmental movement. or, rather, a new non-movement

Of course it is. The more breathing that mammals do, the more deadly CO2 gas gets expelled into the air.

/no end to liberal lunacy
 
2008-12-11 02:21:00 PM
Which is why we don't listen to the UN.
 
2008-12-11 02:21:26 PM
Nemo's Brother: Globally, it is opposite of what the Greenies expect in our own country on a national scale. Al Gore will not go after his wealthy friends in Hollywood about their excesses. His crew will all fly separate private jets across the globe to discuss things they could on the phone.

Al Gore is not the spokesman for the global warming crisis.

Ultimately in the eyes of the UN, everything wrong in the world can be blamed on the US and the Joos.

Now you're just being stupid.
 
Displayed 50 of 108 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | » | Last | Show all



This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report