About Me & This Website
My Positions
On Facebook
Contact Me

Articles
  DougCo School Board Loss
  Pro-Caucus Chairman
  Free the Delegates
  Clinton Surplus Myth
  Taxes, Rich & Poor
  Clinton Surplus Myth, Pt. 2
  Financial Crisis
  Obama's Economy
  More articles...

Videos
  Live: U.S. Senate
  Live: U.S. House
  America's Marines

Some Humor
  Time for Campaignin'

A "Shared" Vision   December 2nd, 2008
Read on to see the "shared vision" environmentalists have for us       

 
QUICK OBSERVATIONS

More observations...
 

I've written before about the true agenda of environmentalists... and now environmentalists at a Poland climate summit is criticizing the U.S. because we aren't accepting their "shared vision." What's their "shared vision?" Check it out...

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/28016904/

But activists warned of failure at the Poznan talks, which last through Dec. 12, saying industrialized countries are resisting setting long-term targets for cutting the emission of greenhouse gases unless developing countries make a similar sacrifice...

But Alden Meyer of the Union of Concerned Scientists said he doesn't believe a shared vision will emerge in Poznan because the Bush administration "refuses to put any target on the table for 2020."

Meyer said wealthy industrial countries need to slash emissions, transfer green technology to developing countries and provide funding to help them adapt now to the climate changes already under way, such as rising sea levels and harsher weather patterns.

"That's the shared vision," Meyer said. "The reason we can't get it is because the Bush administration has refused to put on the table any meaningful target and any meaningful financial package from the U.S."


So the "shared vision" is that developed nations should unilaterally reduce emissions while exempting developing countries from doing the same, and we should give technology and money to other countries. And we're the bad guys because we aren't jumping up and down in excitement about the prospect of signing such a one-sided agreement?

Climate agreements are a joke and a fraud unless they apply to everyone. Exempting developing countries won't reduce emissions, it will simply cause even more companies to relocate to those countries where they won't be subject to emissions restrictions. That does no good for the environment but does transfer industry and wealth from country "A" to country "B". Simple wealth redistribution. That's what these kinds of agreements are really about unless they apply to everyone.

What worries me is that given Obama's apparent predisposition to wealth redistribution and his promise to "lead" in environmental issues, he might actually be inclined to accept the kind of one-sided climate agreements that Democrats and Republicans have had the good sense to reject since Kyoto.

 Go to the article list