Climate Change and the Socialist Legacy of Bali
[Guest post by DRJ]
The editors of Investors’ Business Daily believe the ultimate goal of climate change activists is the redistribution of wealth from developed countries to developing countries:
“The media obsession has been on the efforts of delegates at the U.N.’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change conference to craft an agreement for a climate treaty that would take effect after the Kyoto Treaty expires in 2011. Though it appeared the meeting would end with no deal, the delegates looked to be near a compromise late Friday. That treaty is likely to be as effective as the useless, symbolic Kyoto protocol with which no nation has yet complied.
A day earlier, however, a panel at the IPCC conference titled “A Global CO2 Tax” took a step that will have a more lasting impact than an empty agreement. It urged the U.N. to adopt taxes on carbon dioxide emissions that would be “legally binding to all nations.” And guess who would be hit the hardest? That’s right, the tax, if levied, would put an especially high burden on the U.S.
“Finally, someone will pay for these costs” related to global warming, Othmar Schwank, a global warming busybody from Switzerland, told Sen. James Inhofe’s office. We imagine Schwank, a panel participant, took great glee in saying the U.S. and other developed nations should “contribute significantly more to this global fund.”
Schwank estimates the CO2 tax would generate “at least” $10 billion to $40 billion a year in revenues; but anyone who believes that has not paid attention. Even in nations that have a legitimate and more-or-less-limited government, such as ours, bureaucratic programs and taxes always grow bigger than first expected. It’s a good bet that Schwank’s low estimate was done intentionally. If the public found out what he and others like him really want, the backlash would put the alarmists out of business.
The driving force of the environmental movement is not a cleaner planet — or a world that doesn’t get too hot, in the case of the global warming issue — but a leftist, egalitarian urge to redistribute wealth. A CO2 tax does this and more, choking economic growth in the U.S. and punishing Americans for being the voracious consumers that we are.
Eco-activists have been so successful in distracting the public from their real intentions that they’re becoming less guarded in discussing their ultimate goal.
“A climate change response must have at its heart a redistribution of wealth and resources,” Emma Brindal, a “climate justice campaign coordinator” for Friends of the Earth Australia, wrote Wednesday on the Climate Action Network’s blog.”
The author of this Christian Science Monitor article was also struck by what happened at Bali, characterizing the conference events as an unprecedented geopolitical shift in power from developed to developing countries: “Developing countries flexed their muscles in unprecedented ways at the climate talks, suggesting the old north-south power equation is changing.”
Reading these articles, it also seems the Bush Administration caved on climate change … proving once again that Bush may be tough on terrorism but he’s soft on domestic issues when they spend taxpayers’ money.
— DRJ
The more people realize that the environmental movement is the last bastion of the Marxist/Leninist the quicker a workable solution to pollution can be reached.
Wealth is the solution to pollution. The poor can’t bother with concerns of dirty water and air, they can only act on dinner tonight. Just as the welfare state took the incentive to donate away from many in society (see the private giving levels of Europeans vs Americans) if the government is charged with fixing all the worlds environmental ills (unburdened by elections as the UN is) there will be less individual involvement.
You can be certain that if the government is in charge the development of an acutual workable solution, such as a new invention that completely eliminates emissions in the producing of power, will be delayed if not halted.
Socialism denies human nature thus it is unworkable as a long term system.
LifeTrek (201637) — 12/16/2007 @ 5:32 pmDKK
What a nonsensical phrase. Almost all the developing is being done north of the equator. For example, China and India.
LTEC (858b88) — 12/16/2007 @ 5:48 pmLTEC,
I agree that was a weird way of phrasing things. The author could mean a *have/have not* comparison, e.g., countries above median GDP (“north”) vs countries below median GDP (“south”). Or it could refer to a geographical change because northern hemisphere countries are no longer dominant.
DRJ (09f144) — 12/16/2007 @ 6:26 pmOK, and just who collects this tax? Will the United Nations be granted some marvelous new authority to impose a tax on American citizens or American products that travel intranationally?
Can you imagine just what would happen to any
Dana (556f76) — 12/16/2007 @ 6:27 pmDemocratcongressman who voted to allow the UN taxing authority within the United States?I have been reading the IPCC documents, both the technical ones and the policy ones, since the early 90s, and it has ALWAYS been about the money. The science in the former has always been shaky, while the aim of the latter has always been clear–the transfer of wealth from rich nations to poor ones. If the world is in such dire peril as some now claim, talk about a CO2 tax makes little sense; the express goal should be the immediate elimination of CO2 production, or at least a very drastic reduction of it as quickly as possible, regardless of the economic disruption. By design, those who would control the gathering and distribution of the global CO2 tax receipts stand to gain enormous power and influence. It’s all about power, money, jealousy, and even revenge.
Iapetus (ea6f31) — 12/16/2007 @ 6:35 pmSwiss bankers are rejoicing. Most of this money will end up in their banks to pay for shopping trips in Paris.
Why does the USA even sent representatives to conferences were the predetermined answer is the USA must pay more?
Perfect Sense (b6ec8c) — 12/16/2007 @ 6:51 pmAnd democracy will be no obstacle.
“When the chips are down I think democracy is a less important goal than is the protection of the planet from the death of life, the end of life on it,” he says. “This has got to be imposed on people whether they like it or not.”
Fortunately, the sunspot cycle is heading for another minimum. Note the trend of the 11 year peaks.
MIke K (693378) — 12/16/2007 @ 7:13 pmGreat goal!
David Ehrenstein (5f9866) — 12/16/2007 @ 7:53 pmLets see now…
600 years of redistribution of the world’s wealth to European Empires: Slaves and materials from Africa, from South America, the Indian Subcontinent, The Pacific Rim, Australasia.
blah (fb88b3) — 12/16/2007 @ 8:14 pmHow many billions? Trillions? We account for 25% of the world’s energy consumption while having 5% of the population.
It’s always been about the money. Then and now.
blah – Wow! Everyone gives us that energy for free because we’re so nice? What a concept!
daleyrocks (906622) — 12/16/2007 @ 8:39 pmBlah, you forget a couple of stats in your post, like the US produces 23% of the worlds food and (if you include the green revolution) are responsible for more then 60% of the worlds food production.
LifeTrek (201637) — 12/16/2007 @ 8:42 pmDKK
Not to mention US economic and military assistance to the world.
DRJ (09f144) — 12/16/2007 @ 8:49 pmYou wouldn’t know it from the portion excerpted out of context above, but the italicized “this” refers to rationing. And you know what? In a representative democracy, one of the things the assembly has to do is impose taxes and rationing even if individually people would not like to participate. Do you have a problem with the imposition of WW2 rationing? People didn’t seem to be that happy about some of it. Was there a referendum before it was imposed?
No.
Andrew J. Lazarus (050f82) — 12/16/2007 @ 8:53 pmSo blah writes like Thyink Progress…it’s all about the narrative, and “neglect” to mention some Inconveinent Truths.
Paul (2ca51d) — 12/16/2007 @ 8:53 pm*Think*
Paul (2ca51d) — 12/16/2007 @ 8:54 pmThere’s a difference, Andrew…this time, it’s unnecessary.
Paul (2ca51d) — 12/16/2007 @ 8:55 pmThe UN bureaucracy has on several fronts been attempting for some years to find a topic on which it can obtain the power to tax globally and circumvent the need to persuade the United States to pay its bills.
SPQR (26be8b) — 12/16/2007 @ 9:02 pm“El AL” Blames US at Bali
Don’t you wish you were Al Gore? Just imagine-this week, Al has flown in his private jet to pick up his Nobel Peace Prize in Oslo, Norway, then on to Bali, Indonesia to enjoy the sunsets and trash his own country (a la Jimmy Carter) at a UN Convention on Climate Change.
Yesterday, Gore, holding his hand over his heart, solemnly told international delegates that it was the US, “my country”, that “is principally responsible for obstructing progress here in Bali.” (Applause) He then urged the distinguished delegates to come to an agreement even without the backing of his own country. (European delegates are threatening to boycott an up and coming conference in the US.)Never mind the fact that the US had a delegation at Bali working with the other delegations. What a slap in the face of those delegates. But who cares about them, anyway? Big Al’s in town. The Bali conference comes to a close today, thankfully. It is not known whether “El Al” is getting back on his private jet for some other exotic destination to save the world or whether he’ll stay over a few days to pick up some famous Balinese woodcarvings and paintings.
Meanwhile, back in the US, Gore’s 2.3 million dollar mansion in Tennessee has been hailed for becoming more energy efficient-you know, solar panels and special compact flourescent light-emitting diode bulbs (whatever those are). Nevertheless, the house still uses well above the average in electricity according to an AP article by Erik Schelzig, who otherwise gushed over Gore’s renovations. Gads! The place must like like some giant erector set by now.
By the way, did the Bali conference get any concessions from India and China to cut back on their emissions? I doubt it. Are the Europeans meeting any of their unrealistic goals to reduce their emissions? I doubt it.
I would suggest to Mr Gore that before we take the lead in drastically impacting our own economy, that we make sure we know what we are talking about when it comes to Global Warming. Gore tells us that the scientific facts are in and there is no more debate among the “experts”. That is a misstatement. There are plenty of scientists out there who dispute Gore’s opinions. They maintain that the increase of 1 degree over the last 100 is cyclical and normal. They remind us that 30 years ago, we were proclaiming the coming of a new ice age. Maybe Gore is right, but don’t tell me that the argument is settled. By the way, do you know which decade was the hottest of the 20th century? Answer-the 1930s. Hottest year? 1934.
Recently, Gore dodged a question on whether he might decide to run for president. I guess he is still taking a wait and see attitude-maybe as to whether Hillary’s numbers continue to slide. Meanwhile, life is good. Fly around on private jets, collect Emmys, Oscars,and Nobel Peace prizes. Bask in the adulation of the liberal elite. Hey! Who needs to be president when you can be a saint?
gary fouse
fouse, gary c (0598c8) — 12/16/2007 @ 9:15 pmfousesquawk
“You wouldn’t know it from the portion excerpted out of context above”
Andrew, do you know how to click a link ? I see no change in meaning. “Out of context” is used when the quote, as in Maureen Dowd’s column for example, uses quotes to reverse the meaning. An involuntary carbon rationing isto be imposed. The rest of that peice talks aboput transportation will be severely curtailed involuntarily. I don’t see the equivalence with world war, but of course you do. The public agreed to go to war. Global warming is an obsession with a small elitist minority.
Mike K (693378) — 12/16/2007 @ 9:21 pmSorry about the typos. This story suggests those Border Patrol agents would have been far better off as Chicago policemen.
Mike K (693378) — 12/16/2007 @ 9:23 pm“the US produces 23% of the worlds food ”
Excuse me?
So we give a lot of military support and we’re number one in arms sales.
That’s nice. And half of US food ends up in the dumpster.
blah (fb88b3) — 12/16/2007 @ 9:37 pmYou’ve heard the phrase “Banana Republic”? How about “Suez Crisis”? How about the Dutch East india Company? How about the “Raj”? FDR and the Saudis? And the Republic of Saudi Arabia is such a nice place to live.
blah (fb88b3) — 12/16/2007 @ 9:53 pmblah – Do you want us to give them back the energy we pay them for or something? Do you have a point? Do you have a suggestion? Are you just flinging links again?
Why not spend the money we would have spent on reducing mythical anthropogenicic global warming on fighting global hunger, blah? Check out Bjorn Lomborg.
daleyrocks (906622) — 12/16/2007 @ 9:56 pmSheesh, longer blah is just more irrelevant than shorter blah.
SPQR (26be8b) — 12/16/2007 @ 9:58 pmSPQR – Maybe blah could find peace living in a yurt in Mongolia if man’s inhumanity to man bother him so much.
daleyrocks (906622) — 12/16/2007 @ 10:02 pmBlah, your chart is not relative to the amount of total food produced. As a matter of fact if you check your chart it shows stats such as:
– The number one state for production on the list you provide is Tajikistan however they are #110 in total crop space. The US has 179,000 Thousand hectares versus 860 thousand hectares in Tajikistan.
– Tajikistan produces 57 thousand metric tons of cereal while the US produces 117 thousand metric tons.
– Tajikistan exports 4.37% (of total produced) but imports 10.21%.
– The US exports 6.85% but imports only 4.21%.
In addition the charts and graphs don’t even agree with the individual state charts. Not a very good resource.
However if you are going to use it as a resource, at least make sure your looking at the right info.
LifeTrek (201637) — 12/16/2007 @ 10:05 pmDKK
“Do you have a point?”
blah (fb88b3) — 12/16/2007 @ 10:15 pmNo none at all.
daleyrocks,
a few years ago, when I was teaching paralegal courses, I had a student from Mongolia.
A very nice lady, I would not wish blah on her.
SPQR (26be8b) — 12/16/2007 @ 10:18 pm“the US produces 23% of the worlds food ”
blah (fb88b3) — 12/16/2007 @ 10:22 pmThat’s your quote. Is it true or not?
Ot was it a joke?
Trudeau is to blame for the whole stupid “north-south” thing:
http://blogcritics.org/archives/2005/12/22/070444.php
LTEC (f56667) — 12/16/2007 @ 10:23 pmThe US also creates 27% of the worlds annual wealth (2006 world GDP figures). That is money spent worldwide that people earn to feed and clothe their families that they wouldn’t have if it wasn’t created here(and don’t even start the argument between the haves and the have-nots. Wealth is not a zero sum game where one looses when another wins.)
LifeTrek (201637) — 12/16/2007 @ 10:35 pmDKK
How about this for a theory that is every bit as valid as the CO2 excuse:
In 1900 there were about 1.7 billion people in the world. Today it is over 6 billion. That is 4.3 billion more, at 98.6 degrees….That is an additional heat input in the world of 423,980,000,000 – that’s 424 billion degrees. (A total for the 6 billion people of 591,000,000,000 degrees)
Seriously, ever had a party in the middle of winter where you had to open the windows because it got so hot in there (Thanksgiving)? (They can engineer buildings (to reduce energy use) that can determine how many people are in a room so they turn on cooling at the right time.) Proof of concept!
There’s your global warming. /sarcasm off
LifeTrek (201637) — 12/16/2007 @ 10:37 pmDKK
Hey blah…we didn’t steal those slaves from Africa, we bought them, from other Africans.
gahrie (5ae14f) — 12/16/2007 @ 11:14 pmLifeTrek, actually it is not even clear that those calculating global temperature have competently eliminated what is called the “Urban Heat Island effect”.
Notice that just a couple of months ago, it was shown that NASA’s calculation of temperature series, the GISS, had a gross code error that resulted in recent years being falsely calculated as higher than they were. An error that had been there so long because the “scientist” in charge refused to disclose the code, and critics had to reverse engineer it themselves.
SPQR (26be8b) — 12/16/2007 @ 11:19 pmSPQR, I know that is what gets me about the whole debate is over mentality. The GISS code, the hockey stick and I am sure you check the great job being done at Climate Audit. With the placement of some of the temperature units I am amazed we have any clue of the actual temperature.
That is what makes my (somewhat) sarcastic answer to the cause of global warming nearly as valid as the IPCC.
LifeTrek (201637) — 12/17/2007 @ 12:29 amDKK
Blah, your own resource pages linked above show that the US produces 16.7% of the worlds meat. The only one who beats us is China (with 1.5 billion people vs. our 310 million or so) and they are at 25.6% – but they have 1/4 of the worlds populations so they need to produce that much, and as you point out we only have 5% of the worlds population.
That doesn’t count the grains, for example, again from your reference pages, the US produces 49.5% of the worlds corn followed by China at 21/7%.
So you don’t believe the 23% number? Don’t you trust your own reference site? Did you even read your reference site?
LifeTrek (201637) — 12/17/2007 @ 1:33 amDKK
The us production of corn is going to make make fuel for your cars now. FARK feeding people, feeding cars is much more profitable!
Oh and not only will the farmers get something out of the deal, the aggregatator’s will gain oh so much more!
The Us still produces more of what the world wants and needs than any other nation on earth. As well it shares such with many others, and I’d bet too much of the time it’s without reimbursement either.
The results of Bali are of no surprise, not even that traitor AlGore’s comments. Such should be expected of the waste that he is by now. The UN s nothing but a proven source of BS and pay me more today for your sins of the past. The only thing they actually do is make sure THEY the acting members, not member nations just the folks on site, get rich doing nothing.
I really do not understand how an organization that is as ineffective as the UN is and continues to prove that it is that any media outlet would give them so much as a page 15 short mention. I don’t tink it’s possible to find a more worthless organization on the earth today.
I could be wrong as I stayed at a holiday inn express last night.
TC (1cf350) — 12/17/2007 @ 4:14 amInteresting how blah and the rest of the lefties think this blog is a dumping ground for manure. With manure come methane. Therefore blah and the rest of the lefties are polluters and must pay a tax to Patterico.
PCD (09d6a8) — 12/17/2007 @ 5:22 amThese enviromental wackos are watermellon enviromentalists GREEN ON THE OUTSIDE RED ON THE INSIDE and many are perscribing to socialism and all did in BALI was to come up with a big time tax to be laid on americans and AL GORE denouncing america proves why he is a all time jerk and hypotcrit
krazy kagu (5fcc3d) — 12/17/2007 @ 7:24 amhttp://www.fas.usda.gov/wap/current/toc.asp
better. I really don’t think the UAE was number one in production.
blah (fb88b3) — 12/17/2007 @ 7:26 am“It’s darker than the dark bottom
David Ehrenstein (5f9866) — 12/17/2007 @ 7:58 amIt rumbles more than the Rumba
If you think that the two-steps got ’em
Just take a look at this number
It’s got that certain swing
That makes you wanna sing
Don’t go left, but be polite
Move to the right
Doing the reactionary
Close your eyes to where you’re bound
And you’ll be found
Doing the reactionary
All the best dictators do it
Millionaires keep steppin’ to it
The Four Hundred love to sing it
Ford and Morgan swing it
Hands up high and shake your head
You’ll soon see red
Doing the reactionary
Don’t go left, but be polite
Move to the right
Doing the reactionary
Close your eyes to where you’re bound
And you’ll be found
Doing the reactionary
All the best dictators do it
Millionaires keep steppin’ to it
The Four Hundred love to sing it
Ford and Morgan swing it
Hands up high and shake your head
You’ll soon see red
Doing the reac-
Doing the reac-
Tionary
So get in it, begin it
It’s smart, oh, so very
To do the reactionary!”
I really hate when people post poetry and lyrics. They can never just post a link or a couple of lines. Oh, no, they have to post the entire boring thing.
tired (2e7c68) — 12/17/2007 @ 8:05 amGlobal Warming is a disease for rich people and movie stars. The poor normally have more important things to worry about, so Al Gore’s guys need the doomsday scare stories to pull people on board. In a sense, Global Warming itself is a doomsday scare story used to get people into the broader environmentalism.
Drive down litter drowned streets in the vast slum parts of town and laugh at the message : “pay no attention to the tons of trash right here, we need to pay to make China pollute less!”
Wesson (fd354d) — 12/17/2007 @ 8:12 amJustin Levine’s boss, Bill Handel, is now a GW believer, which is why I listen to Doug MacIntyre in the morning.
tired (2e7c68) — 12/17/2007 @ 8:22 am“Global Warming is a disease for rich people and movie stars.”
That’s what annoys me about Gore. He’s an easy target for people who want one. In fact of course its the poor who have to worry more than anyone.
blah (fb88b3) — 12/17/2007 @ 9:07 amThe rich don’t starve to death.
Blah – You really need to make a point.
You talk about a centuries long process of the redistribution of wealth to European countries. Is that a good thing? Ro you recommend reversing it?
You cite the U.S. as an unequal consumer of energy relative to its population but somehow imply that it does it for free, which is not true. What is your point? Is unequal energy consumption relative to popularion a bad thing? Does climate factor in?
You cite poverty and world hunger statistics in a thread about global warming. Is the implication that we have more pressing issues to focus on than global warming?
As usual, you just dump shit into the comments without taking a position and usually the content of what you dump in is of questionable validity.
daleyrocks (906622) — 12/17/2007 @ 9:22 am“SPQR – Maybe blah could find peace living in a yurt in Mongolia if man’s inhumanity to man bother him so much.”
Blah, if she ever really went to Mongolia, would be distressed to learn that it is the most pro-American nation on earth. Bar none. A few years ago, when Robert Kaplan wrote “Imperial Grunts,” the US military mission to Mongolia consisted of one Lieutenant Colonel who spoke Khalka and spent his time teaching the Mongolian army to staff their border posts. They are very worried about China and have a free enterprise economy.
Mike K (693378) — 12/17/2007 @ 9:51 amblah conveniently ignores that the majority of contemporary famine is local politics – starving the enemy in civil war.
Darleen (187edc) — 12/17/2007 @ 10:18 amToday at high noon there will be a debate between two scientists on the climate change.
It’s a podcast so you can listen over computer.
Details here.
See what happened is, a professor from Texas A&M at the sciguy blog challenged me to a debate.
I’m no climatologist but I know some of them. I contacted Dr Tim Ball and he practically jumped at the chance to debate Global Warming. It was as if the media have actually been stonewalling Dr Ball, keeping him from the chance to share his 32 years of knowledge regarding climate. (shocking ain’t it)
So here it is. A real live debate where you can send in comments and questions.
papertiger (3a3033) — 12/17/2007 @ 10:42 amBetter then you ever got from the MSM.
Listen here
And Darleen conveniently ignores the people who drew the maps for the countries involved in those civil wars.
Read a little history.
“You cite poverty and world hunger statistics in a thread about global warming.”
The thread was about the use of global warming as an excuse.
The book is called “Imperial Grunts,”
blah (fb88b3) — 12/17/2007 @ 11:32 amYou figure it out.
No, blah, the “you figure it out” horse manure got old long ago. Its your shorthand for “I’m too incompetent to actually form and articulate a message so I pretend to know what I’m talking about with vague references to other’s work.”
And the whole half-baked theme you have, of past economic injustices is both ridiculous and irrelevant to this discussion.
SPQR (26be8b) — 12/17/2007 @ 11:35 amI was unaware the UN had the authority to levy taxes on citizens and businesses of the United States. I thought that was something only Congress can do?
Any President or congress person who actually thinks we should go along with this horrid idea should be lined up against a wall and shot.
Go_Fish (6d0473) — 12/17/2007 @ 11:50 amThey do not as yet, Go Fish, but the UN bureaucracy has been trying in this and some other subjects to get a taxation regime adopted.
SPQR (26be8b) — 12/17/2007 @ 12:13 pmimperial |imˈpi(ə)rēəl|
blah (fb88b3) — 12/17/2007 @ 12:52 pmadjective
1 of or relating to an empire : Britain’s imperial era.
• of or relating to an emperor : the imperial family.
• majestic; magnificent : the bedroom is huge and imperial.
• imperious or domineering : the party and its autocratic—many would say imperial—ways.
2 of, relating to, or denoting the system of nonmetric weights and measures (the ounce, pound, stone, inch, foot, yard, mile, acre, pint, gallon, etc.) formerly used for all measures in the UK, and still used for some.
3 chiefly historical (of a size of paper) measuring roughly 762 × 559 mm (30 × 22 inches).
noun
a small pointed beard growing below the lower lip (associated with Napoleon III of France).
DERIVATIVES
imperially adverb
ORIGIN late Middle English : via Old French from Latin imperialis, from imperium ‘command, authority, empire’ ; related to imperare ‘to command.’ Compare with emperor , empire , also with imperious .
Has anyone else had problems accessing the website recently or was it just me?
DRJ (09f144) — 12/17/2007 @ 1:13 pmI haven’t had any problems DRJ…
kimsch (2ce939) — 12/17/2007 @ 1:27 pmThanks kimsch. It looks like comments have been posted all day so it must have just been me. Hmmmm.
DRJ (09f144) — 12/17/2007 @ 1:38 pmWe should just stop giving things away and start charging a fair price for food, drugs, weapons and other items produced by US industry.
We could peg the export prices to the gross carbon tax.
There was a 1980s movie about wall street where a tour guide explains, “there’s no shortage of food. There’s a shortage of money. If poor people had the money, we would be happy to feed tham.”
arch (2fee36) — 12/17/2007 @ 2:09 pm> Reading these articles, it also seems the Bush Administration caved on climate change … proving once again that Bush may be tough on terrorism but he’s soft on domestic issues when they spend taxpayers’ money.
DRJ, you’re reading the wrong articles.
Hilary Benn is an idiot. Our diplomats are suckers. American negotiators have pulled the same trick twice, and for the second time our governments have fallen for it. There are still two years to go, but so far the new agreement is even worse than the Kyoto protocol. It contains no targets and no dates. A new set of guidelines also agreed at Bali extend and strengthen the worst of Gore’s trading scams, the clean development mechanism. Benn and the other dupes are cheering and waving their hats as the train leaves the station at last, having failed to notice that it is travelling in the wrong direction.
–George Monbiot, The Guardian, 17 December 2007
http://www.guardian.co.uk/Columnists/Column/
0,,2228609,00.html
The greenies are outraged and in despair over the results of Bali. If so, then Bush did his job and stalled them.
Arthur (40bcf4) — 12/17/2007 @ 2:31 pmBlah, on the food production that’s more like it, that chart shows 20% of the worlds total grains produced in the US and the same with oilseed. I knew you could find a source that was accurate. That of course doesn’t include any produce, meat, or fish production.
So do you still really doubt my 23% (a bit outdated but in the ballpark).
LifeTrek (201637) — 12/17/2007 @ 3:16 pmDKK
Forgot to add:
LifeTrek (201637) — 12/17/2007 @ 3:18 pmWhen you realize the FACT that we produce so much of the worlds food and wealth it puts that little canard of using 25% of the worlds resources for 5% of the worlds population in a VERY different light.
DKK
And a lot of the grain goes to feed cattle. And half of our production goes to waste.
We “produce” a lot of the world’s wealth, out of the labor of people and materials from all over the world. And we keep most of the wealth to ourselves [a smaller percentage of us every day]. And then of course there’s Finance Insurance and Real Estate [FIRE] How’s that mortgage doing?
Think of it this way: America is NY and LA and a lot of the world is Mississippi, Louisiana, and Texas, and maybe a few places like Ohio. Texas has oil, but it’s a Monarchy, ruled for a family with close ties to the powers that be in NY and LA. But in Texas they chop people’s heads off for having sex before marriage. And the New York National Guard has troops in 18 States.
The US has troops in 60 of the 194 countries in the world.
You want to pretend we “earned” our power, and you want to pretend its not one world. But we stole a lot of it and now we maintain it be any means necessary. [Though we have other advantages: what percentage of the world’s arable land is within our borders?] Do you know the history of American interventions, military or political over the past 100 years? How many governments have we overthrown or tried to? People around the world think of the US the same way people in Kansas thought of NY and LA, before the Spitzer Administration declared war on Nebraska.
I don’t care about the people of this country any more or less than I care about the people in Sweden or Angola. If I did that would be moral relativism, and I find that abhorrent. Immoral.
Of course most people are nationalists of one sort or another, and people like me have to put up with that. Of course you’d say liberals are Internationalist but the only internationalism they’re interested in is the internationalism of McDonalds and Microsoft. And that’s the one that we’ll end up with too. The American Right is just like Israel- They make the same stupid mistake. Israel is grabbing so much land that its increasing the Arab population under its control. And American Conservatism is so fixated on expanding corporate wealth that international corporations are going to push for one world government even faster. It’s depressing, but still I laugh. At liberals. At you.
But don’t me any lectures on history or morality.
blah (fb88b3) — 12/17/2007 @ 6:14 pmI don’t care about the people of this country any more or less than I care about the people in Sweden or Angola. If I did that would be moral relativism, and I find that abhorrent. Immoral.
We already know that about you, blah. If you ever wondered why you are so detested.
nk (6061ba) — 12/17/2007 @ 6:31 pmAnd I’m sure you call yourself a Christian.
blah (fb88b3) — 12/17/2007 @ 7:23 pmMost people are barbarians, but I prefer mine honest.
Cut the righteous morality crap and we’ll get along just fine.
I don’t expect much of people but hypocrisy is where I draw the line.
blah, given that you are giving us a lecture on history ( which you are not competent to comment upon actually ) and morality ( ditto ), your admonition for us not to lecture you is as offensively hypocritical as most of your comments are.
Oh and could you possibly make this sentence any less coherent?:
SPQR (26be8b) — 12/17/2007 @ 7:26 pm“People around the world think of the US the same way people in Kansas thought of NY and LA, before the Spitzer Administration declared war on Nebraska.”
blah, if hypocrisy is where you draw the line, then your face should be covered with a grid of ink.
SPQR (26be8b) — 12/17/2007 @ 7:26 pmBlah,
So is that your way of admitting that I was correct? It’s easy, just say, your right, but… – unfortunately that would demonstrate your moving of the goalposts.
Of course you do know that the meat from one head of cattle will feed 11 people for a year while the grain required to feed that one will feed only 5 people.
Your completely misrepresenting that study. The study, “indicates that a shocking forty to fifty per cent of all food ready for harvest never gets eaten,” which doesn’t appear to be included in the figures from either of the websites you linked. Read your article again then read your link to the amount, “produced.”
The rest is nothing but socialistic/anarchistic claptrap. As I said before wealth is not a zero sum game. Ask the Chinese who are now rich enough to buy cars in record numbers if they prefer their life now to that before they sold products to the US, like when they were starving by the tens of millions under Mao’s controlled economy.
Seriously Blah, get a clue. Read and understand the stuff you read. Get out of the fever swamps of the far left internet and get out in real life.
Oh, and don’t try to claim your opponents don’t know history without knowing what their education and experience might be in, it just makes you look foolish.
LifeTrek (201637) — 12/17/2007 @ 7:28 pmDKK
I don’t care about the people of this country any more or less than I care about the people in Sweden or Angola.
Do you have a mom and dad? Do you care more about them then some stranger? If you do, does that make you immoral?
Darleen (187edc) — 12/17/2007 @ 7:34 pmCut the righteous morality crap and we’ll get along just fine.
You really are delusional. Why on earth would I want to get along with someone like you? I am an American with a stake in America’s future. You’d be my enemy if I wanted to grant you that dignity. So far, you have not earned it. Just my detestation.
nk (6061ba) — 12/17/2007 @ 7:36 pmBlah…I’m trying to figure out if you insulted me, being from Louisiana, but so much of your dribble is just drool…
But watching the grain leave the Port of New Orleans on a daily basis for foreign ports makes me wonder about how much we feed the world…
And, that doesn’t include the CHARITY FROM AMERICA that feeds another part of the world….
reff (99666d) — 12/17/2007 @ 8:01 pmCharity…
Another Drew (8018ee) — 12/17/2007 @ 8:16 pmAnd, remember, when the world needs to move massive amounts of emergency aid to some fore-saken spot to ameliorate the effects of a tsunami, etc., the only one who has the air/sea lift capability is the good old USofA (see: United States Navy/United States Air Force) – plus having the specialized personnel to put these places back together again. Without the DoD, the UN and all of the world’s NGO’s would be lost.
“What he found was that not only is edible food discarded that could feed people who need it, but the rate of loss, even partially corrected, could save US consumers and manufacturers tens of billions of dollars each year. Jones says these losses also can be framed in terms of environmental degradation and national security.
Jones’ research evolved from and builds on earlier work done at the University of Arizona. Archaeologists there began measuring garbage in the 1970s to see what was being thrown away and discovered that people were not fully aware of what they were using and discarding.”
—
“Of course you do know that the meat from one head of cattle will feed 11 people for a year while the grain required to feed that one will feed only 5 people.”
Give me the link.
Meat production is much more expensive, and draining on the environment.
(I eat my steak rare by the way)
“Do you have a mom and dad? Do you care more about them then some stranger? If you do, does that make you immoral?”
blah (fb88b3) — 12/17/2007 @ 8:40 pmI do, or I did when they were alive, but that’s personal not political. I’m not the law.
“Patriotism is the last refuge of a scoundrel.”
“Patriotism is the last refuge of a scoundrel.” — Samuel Johnson
“Inane quotes are the last refuge of an idiot.” — nk
nk (6061ba) — 12/17/2007 @ 8:46 pmRead further:
In no way does this support your 50% waste of produced food as a percent of the 21% (I rounded incorrectly when I said 20% so it is even closer to my 23% figure) of world total produced.
Without seeing the actual study we have no way of knowing what the actual findings are. You cannot make a case using this news article.
Here you go:
http://cadlab6.mit.edu/2.009.wiki/anchor/index.php?title=Environmentally-related_(2007)
Now, back to you having the courage to admit you may have been mistaken – oh why do I bother.
LifeTrek (201637) — 12/17/2007 @ 9:07 pmDKK
nk, if you want to argue that people in every country are as nationalist as you are, I wouldn’t argue. I’m not naive. But I don’t confuse realism with idealism.
blah (fb88b3) — 12/17/2007 @ 9:11 pmI asked for a link. I didn’t say you were lying.
Thank, you. I clicked on Details
http://cadlab6.mit.edu/2.009.wiki/anchor/index.php?title=Number_of_people_that_can_be_fed_over_one_year_by_eating_the_meat_from_one_cow
But I repeat what I said above: “Meat production is much more expensive, and draining on the environment.”
Now give me the full economic breakdown of the cost of factory meat production vs grain.
I’m tired. I’m out.
blah (fb88b3) — 12/17/2007 @ 9:24 pm“Patriotism is the last refuge of a scoundrel.”
It’s nice to know, vis a vis your view about of patriotism, that you’re an evolutionary dead end, blah. The gene pool will be better for it.
Darleen (187edc) — 12/17/2007 @ 9:33 pmMaybe we would better off having blah not explain himself/herself/itself. That was really warped, demented, twisted, dark and ugly.
So far, from what I have been able to pick up, blah is a leftist atheist jew who hates America and Israel, who wants to forcibly redistribute the world’s wealth and resources. blah has a fundamentally distorted understanding of history and economics, particularly development economics.
I suggest prayer.
daleyrocks (906622) — 12/17/2007 @ 10:18 pmGee, one pound of beef from .3 pounds of grain in a developing country where they need nutrient rich food. Isn’t that what you were worried about earlier?
Beef has about 2 times the nutrition (protein, calories) of soy at half the price and 5 times the nutrition of corn at 1/4 the price.
Man is designed to eat meat (as early as the 19th century (reaffirmed in recent works) it was theorized that eating cooked meat lead directly to our development because of the concentration of nutrients versus vegetarian diets as it required a smaller more efficient digestive tract allowing more energy for the development of the brain.)
Again, it is not “much” more expensive as you claim calorie for calorie. As a matter of fact when silage is used it conserves energy and cost that would have been wasted if it weren’t used.
Pound for pound, well not even close in developing nations.
Environmentally, many of those myths don’t add up either, see the link above.
Are you still worried about the hungry in the world? Or did you move that argument as well.
Have a great night, time to move on to newer news.
LifeTrek (201637) — 12/18/2007 @ 12:51 amDKK
That’s research from the meat producers on an industry sponsored website. If you look at their charts (find them yourself) they’re garbage. How much water does it take to raise one head of cattle? The industry says the water that cattle piss out over a year is recycled so that they don’t include it!
There’s more like that.
—
“…who wants to forcibly redistribute the world’s wealth and resources.”
blah (fb88b3) — 12/18/2007 @ 7:14 amBut they’ve already been forcibly redistributed. They always have been. I’m willing to argue but I don’t know what to say to people who don’t care about history. You want to argue that its an immoral world? Go ahead. But then don’t claim that you’re any different than anyone else.
GLOBAL WARMING is a big time rip off its being used by unscruplous persons especialy evil men like AL GORE and some of the worlds biggist tyrants and despots
krazy kagu (e08c0e) — 12/18/2007 @ 7:45 amBlah:
“That’s research from the meat producers on an industry sponsored website. If you look at their charts (find them yourself) they’re garbage. How much water does it take to raise one head of cattle? The industry says the water that cattle piss out over a year is recycled so that they don’t include it!There’s more like that.”
This probably the most important statement you have included. Now I understand completely your position.
Mankind needs to go back to nomadic farming.
davod (5bdbd3) — 12/18/2007 @ 11:47 amNo. just more economical means and less waste after the fact.
blah (fb88b3) — 12/18/2007 @ 1:57 pmAnd less reliance on meat is better for everybody.
Actually that is research from CAST:
CAST is a nonprofit 501 (c)(3) organization composed of 38 scientific societies and many individual, student, company, nonprofit, and associate society members. CAST’s Board of Directors is composed of 38 representatives of the scientific societies and individual members representing over 170,000 member scientists, and an eight-member Executive Committee. CAST was established in 1972 as a result of a 1970 meeting sponsored by the National Academy of Sciences, National Research Council.
If that level of scientists are good enough for you on global warming they should be good enough for this.
Oh and who should know better how much to feed cattle then those who raise cattle after all.
LifeTrek (201637) — 12/18/2007 @ 2:32 pmDKK
blah – How far back in time would you propose reparations to stretch and why would you stop at that point?
daleyrocks (906622) — 12/18/2007 @ 2:32 pmLivestock’s long shadow
Environmental issues and options. The report is from LEAD:
On Soy read:
The American Journal of Clinical Nutrition: Quantification of the environmental impact of different dietary protein choices
I went after details when I should have thought bigger. My mistake.
blah (fb88b3) — 12/18/2007 @ 4:26 pmNext week I’m going out to Peter Luger’s for a nice rare porterhouse. I’ll think of you.
Damn. All this time I thought blah wanted to turn us into Moslems. It turns out that she wants us to be Buddhists. Or maybe anything is better than Western civilization to her.
nk (6061ba) — 12/18/2007 @ 5:42 pmblah…
BTW, all water is recycled. No water is created or lost in life. It is constantly being repurified and reused.
Think about it.
Another Drew (8018ee) — 12/18/2007 @ 5:54 pmWell then everything organic is recycled; so it all evens out.
blah (fb88b3) — 12/20/2007 @ 12:40 amWhy not discount the water that is evaporated as sweat?
Why not discount everything?
And if all water is recycled why do I pay a water bill?
Think about it. Just a little.
Why not discount the water that is evaporated as sweat?
Ever studied chemistry?
Why not discount everything?
See above.
And if all water is recycled why do I pay a water bill?
So you don’t have to dig and maintain a well, and physically carry water from the well to your home. What, did you think that having the conveinence of a faucet in your home was free?
Think about it. Just a little.
I suggest you find out more about how the world works today, and how people actually lived 100 years ago, so you don’t embarrass yourself as you have on this thread.
Paul (d07d56) — 12/20/2007 @ 3:14 am