Trudeau invites premiers to Paris climate talks

[maryjane48]

the green future and pot legalisation will create more jobs and wealth than oil could ever dream of and it will last as long as humans are on the planet

[The Green Barbarian]

The main reason the reputation of the oil sands is in the crapper and we could not get any pipelines built is the sad fact that Harper's and the CPC's position on climate change was basically that of imbeciles. Backwards idiots. Dolts.

I think you are wrong on that one, I didn't see Harper agreeing with Suzuki and his gang of Church of Global Warming alarmist imbeciles at all. When did that happen?

[The Green Barbarian]

the green future and pot legalisation will create more jobs and wealth than oil could ever dream of and it will last as long as humans are on the planet

Except that this "Green" economy has failed miserably everywhere it has been tried, with the end result being billions of dollars of taxpayer cash destroyed with zero reduction in carbon emissions. It's a fairy tale, with only complete imbeciles, as Partman called them, believing it could work. It's just another form of corporate welfare, that is completely unsustainable.

http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_ ... dies_.html

[The Green Barbarian]

Carmencat, I'm not sure what the point of your rant is, .

It was pretty obvious. This climate party is no different from every other climate party that has been going on for years now every November. A giant sucking sound is audible throughout each conference as taxpayers are fleeced by the world elite while they party away in five star hotels, achieving absolutely nothing. That's why Trudeau was so angry in 2011, because the government refused to pay for his trip to Durban for the 2011 climate party. He wanted to go and party hard with all of the other elitists, on the taxpayer dime. I still remember how at the Copenhagen climate party in 2009 Mugabe and Chavez received standing ovations for their speeches. If that doesn't tell you all you need to know about the mentality of the imbeciles (as per Partman) that attend these conferences, then you just aren't paying enough attention.

[maryjane48]

lol i dnt care what any calls the future , but facts are the dirty energy will be used up then there will be no choice , so why wait . both the italian supercar makers will be coming out with 200 mph electric cars as is audi , bmw and mercedies . times are changing and you be left behind

[maryjane48]

It was pretty obvious. This climate party is no different from every other climate party that has been going on for years now every November. A giant sucking sound is audible throughout each conference as taxpayers are fleeced by the world elite while they party away in five star hotels, achieving absolutely nothing. That's why Trudeau was so angry in 2011, because the government refused to pay for his trip to Durban for the 2011 climate party. He wanted to go and party hard with all of the other elitists, on the taxpayer dime. I still remember how at the Copenhagen climate party in 2009 Mugabe and Chavez received standing ovations for their speeches. If that doesn't tell you all you need to know about the mentality of the imbeciles (as per Partman) that attend these conferences, then you just aren't paying enough attention.

[/quote]the world doesnt care what you think , your world is history now ill be sure to wave as you get left behind

[The Green Barbarian]

lol i dnt care what any calls the future , but facts are the dirty energy will be used up then there will be no choice , so why wait . both the italian supercar makers will be coming out with 200 mph electric cars as is audi , bmw and mercedies . times are changing and you be left behind

No you will be left behind with your idiotic ideas. I am all for electric cars. But I am not for subsidizing them with taxpayer money. You can invest in Solyndra and lose your shirt, but the taxpayers shouldn't be on the hook for bad ideas put forth by backward imbeciles (according to Partman).

[The Green Barbarian]

According to Bjorn Lomborg, the climate party in Paris isn't just a bad idea, it's immoral too.

This Child Doesn’t Need a Solar Panel



Spending billions of dollars on climate-related aid in countries that need help with tuberculosis, malaria and malnutrition.

By
Bjorn Lomborg
Oct. 21, 2015

In the run-up to the 2015 U.N. Climate Change Conference in Paris from Nov. 30 to Dec. 11, rich countries and development organizations are scrambling to join the fashionable ranks of “climate aid” donors. This effectively means telling the world’s worst-off people, suffering from tuberculosis, malaria or malnutrition, that what they really need isn’t medicine, mosquito nets or micronutrients, but a solar panel. It is terrible news.

On Oct. 9, World Bank President Jim Yong Kim pledged a one-third increase in the bank’s direct climate-related financing, bringing the bank’s annual total to an estimated $29 billion by 2020. In September, Chinese President Xi Jinping pledged to match President Obama’s promised $3 billion in aid to the U.N.’s Green Climate Fund. Meanwhile, the U.K is diverting $8.9 billion from its overseas aid budget to climate-related aid over the next five years, and France is promising $5.6 billion annually by 2020, up from $3.4 billion today. The African Development Bank is planning to triple its climate-related investments to more than $5 billion a year by 2020, representing 40% of its total portfolio.

All these pledges had their genesis in the chaos of the Copenhagen climate summit six years ago, when developed nations made a rash promise to spend $100 billion a year on “climate finance” for the world’s poor by 2020. Rachel Kyte, World Bank vice president and special envoy for climate change, recently told the Guardian (U.K.) newspaper that the $100 billion figure “was picked out of the air at Copenhagen” in an attempt to rescue a last-minute deal. Yet achieving that arbitrary goal is now seen as fundamental to the success of the Paris summit.

This is deeply troubling because aid is being diverted to climate-related matters at the expense of improved public health, education and economic development. The Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development has analyzed about 70% of total global development aid and found that about one in four of those dollars goes to climate-related aid.

In a world in which malnourishment continues to claim at least 1.4 million children’s lives each year, 1.2 billion people live in extreme poverty, and 2.6 billion lack clean drinking water and sanitation, this growing emphasis on climate aid is immoral.

Not surprisingly, in an online U.N. survey of more than eight million people from around the globe, respondents from the world’s poorest countries rank “action taken on climate change” dead last out of 16 categories when asked “What matters most to you?” Top priorities are “a good education,” “better health care, “better job opportunities,” “an honest and responsive government,” and “affordable, nutritious food.”

According to a recent paper by Neha Raykar and Ramanan Laxminarayan of the Public Health Foundation of India, just $570 million a year—or 0.57% of the $100 billion climate-finance goal—spent on direct malaria-prevention policies like mosquito nets would reduce malaria deaths by 50% by 2025, saving an estimated 300,000 lives a year.

Providing the world’s most deprived countries with solar panels instead of better health care or education is inexcusable self-indulgence. Green energy sources may be good to keep on a single light or to charge a cellphone. But they are largely useless for tackling the main power challenges for the world’s poor.

According to the World Health Organization, three billion people suffer from the effects of indoor air pollution because they burn wood, coal or dung to cook. These people need access to affordable, reliable electricity today. Yet too often clean alternatives, because they aren’t considered “renewable,” aren’t receiving the funding they deserve.

A 2014 study by the Center for Global Development found that “more than 60 million additional people in poor nations could gain access to electricity if the Overseas Private Investment Corporation”—the U.S. government’s development finance institution—“were allowed to invest in natural gas projects, not just renewables.”

Addressing global warming effectively will require long-term innovation that will make green energy affordable for everyone. Rich countries are in a rush to appear green and generous, and recipient countries are jostling to make sure they receive the funds. But the truth is that climate aid isn’t where rich countries can help the most, and it isn’t what the world’s poorest want or need.

Mr. Lomborg, director of the Copenhagen Consensus Center, is the author of “The Skeptical Environmentalist” (Cambridge Press, 2001) and “Cool It” ( Knopf, 2007).

[Omnitheo]

Lol Omnitheo. My 'rant' was the first paragraph of my post, the rest as indicated was a column by a gentleman whose name is at the end of it. Sorry that seemed to have gone over your head. You could have saved yourself some time

Ok Carmencat, I thought so but the lack of quotations or a quote box made it difficult to tell. I'll first start with saying Ed Rogers sounds like an idiot. He is wrong on so many levels that it could be a topic in its own.

As to your comment, you appear to be grasping at straws. You say
"Add on the irony of more diesel spewing cars to transport these people to and from the conference over almost two weeks "
This is so minute and petty I don't know why you would mention it. Would these individuals not be driving cars around otherwise? Would planes not be flying? Are you saying that our politicians travel emissions and expenses are so detrimental to our planet, that we are better off just maintaining the status quo into potential doom than even so much as discussing the subject.

The fact is, Canadians spoke during the election that they wanted a prime minister who took climate change seriously, and he is owning up to that.

Our tax dollars go towards funding all sorts of international conferences. Be it g8, g20, UN, NATO etc. Canada isn't a bubble. This is not North Korea. We all occupy is planet, and we need to work with other nations around the world, not disregard them and common threats.

And if you are really against spending domestic taxes on international summits, than you can always just protest like those who opposed the G20 spending. They weren't all charged with terrorism, so you might not get deported.

[Omnitheo]

In the run-up to the 2015 U.N. Climate Change Conference in Paris from Nov. 30 to Dec. 11, rich countries and development organizations are scrambling to join the fashionable ranks of “climate aid” donors. This effectively means telling the world’s worst-off people, suffering from tuberculosis, malaria or malnutrition, that what they really need isn’t medicine, mosquito nets or micronutrients, but a solar panel. It is terrible news.

incorrect. It is possible to offer aid in more than 1 form simultaneously

On Oct. 9, World Bank President Jim Yong Kim pledged a one-third increase in the bank’s direct climate-related financing, bringing the bank’s annual total to an estimated $29 billion by 2020. In September, Chinese President Xi Jinping pledged to match President Obama’s promised $3 billion in aid to the U.N.’s Green Climate Fund. Meanwhile, the U.K is diverting $8.9 billion from its overseas aid budget to climate-related aid over the next five years, and France is promising $5.6 billion annually by 2020, up from $3.4 billion today. The African Development Bank is planning to triple its climate-related investments to more than $5 billion a year by 2020, representing 40% of its total portfolio.

great to hear!

All these pledges had their genesis in the chaos of the Copenhagen climate summit six years ago, when developed nations made a rash promise to spend $100 billion a year on “climate finance” for the world’s poor by 2020. Rachel Kyte, World Bank vice president and special envoy for climate change, recently told the Guardian (U.K.) newspaper that the $100 billion figure “was picked out of the air at Copenhagen” in an attempt to rescue a last-minute deal. Yet achieving that arbitrary goal is now seen as fundamental to the success of the Paris summit.

define a non arbitrary goal? At least setting a target is better than the continuous "we believe there is a problem...and we should do something about it some time maybe" conferences of the past. Besides, if diverting a small amount of GDp towards combatting a major international issue is too much for a nation to bare, they can always just pull a Canada and disregard it completely.

This is deeply troubling because aid is being diverted to climate-related matters at the expense of improved public health, education and economic development. The Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development has analyzed about 70% of total global development aid and found that about one in four of those dollars goes to climate-related aid.

In a world in which malnourishment continues to claim at least 1.4 million children’s lives each year, 1.2 billion people live in extreme poverty, and 2.6 billion lack clean drinking water and sanitation, this growing emphasis on climate aid is immoral.

it is not immoral in the slightest. It is a parent issue above drinking water, poverty, malnourishment.
It's like saying we shouldn't spend money on researching and fighting cancer, because we should be focusing on tumour removal.

Climate change stands to make drinking water less available, to displace billions into poverty, remove arable land and other sources of nourishment.


Not surprisingly, in an online U.N. survey of more than eight million people from around the globe, respondents from the world’s poorest countries rank “action taken on climate change” dead last out of 16 categories when asked “What matters most to you?” Top priorities are “a good education,” “better health care, “better job opportunities,” “an honest and responsive government,” and “affordable, nutritious food.”

and if you were poor you would probably care more about getting a job or a meal than you would care about some fumes you happen to be breathing in. This a short term crisis vs long term crisis issue, and when you're struck with a crisis, it can be easy to have tunnel vision on it and be blinded to the bigger picture.

According to a recent paper by Neha Raykar and Ramanan Laxminarayan of the Public Health Foundation of India, just $570 million a year—or 0.57% of the $100 billion climate-finance goal—spent on direct malaria-prevention policies like mosquito nets would reduce malaria deaths by 50% by 2025, saving an estimated 300,000 lives a year.

or just .057% of the UN combined military spending annually.

Providing the world’s most deprived countries with solar panels instead of better health care or education is inexcusable self-indulgence. Green energy sources may be good to keep on a single light or to charge a cellphone. But they are largely useless for tackling the main power challenges for the world’s poor. hundreds of millions of people around the world are somehow able to power more than just light bulbs or cellphones with renewable energy. This person probably still thinks this is the 1970s as far as solar panels go. Plus in terms of powering single light bulbs or cellphones, there small projects which use a gravity system to generate that much power easily. I'll try and find some more info on it. As for solar panels instead of health care or education:



According to the World Health Organization, three billion people suffer from the effects of indoor air pollution because they burn wood, coal or dung to cook. These people need access to affordable, reliable electricity today. Yet too often clean alternatives, because they aren’t considered “renewable,” aren’t receiving the funding they deserve.

A 2014 study by the Center for Global Development found that “more than 60 million additional people in poor nations could gain access to electricity if the Overseas Private Investment Corporation”—the U.S. government’s development finance institution—“were allowed to invest in natural gas projects, not just renewables.”

Oh we have clean fossil fuels now. Good, we can keep polluting the earth and sky and pretend it's clean now. And continue to cycle of fossil fuel resource driven warfare and infinite CEO profit margins.

Addressing global warming Climate Changeeffectively will require long-term innovation that will make green energy affordable for everyone. Rich countries are in a rush to appear green and generous, and recipient countries are jostling to make sure they receive the funds. But the truth is that climate aid isn’t where rich countries can help the most, and it isn’t what the world’s poorest want or need.

rich countries, poor countries. We're all Earth countries. This is an Earth issue

Mr. Lomborg, director of the Copenhagen Consensus Center, is the author of “The Skeptical Environmentalist” (Cambridge Press, 2001) and “Cool It” ( Knopf, 2007).

author of anti climate-change books. It can easily be claimed that they are a biased individual with profit driven self interests

[Glacier]

That's a good question. In some aspects you can do both -- but poorly -- because we have limited resources. Lomborg's thesis is basically that if we spend the trillions of dollars to slow climate change down by a decade as the UN proposes the money has to come from somewhere, or more specifically, at the expense of something else. We could solve world hunger and poverty for less money than what mitigating climate change will cost. In addition, the benefits of spending billions to slow down climate change is not very much. It does not stop climate, it only delays the inevitable by a decade or so.

Lomborg takes the scientific approach instead of the feel good emotional approach. That's why people don't like what he has to say. It's science and cost-benefit analysis, not feel good emotional stuff.

[Gone_Fishin]

According to Bjorn Lomborg, the climate party in Paris isn't just a bad idea, it's immoral too.
[b]
This Child Doesn’t Need a Solar Panel

Politicians don't care if hundreds of thousands of children die every year of malaria, TB, and other strife. All they care about is flinging buzzwords that appeal to the unwashed masses of morons on the left that will vote for them again. It's really disgusting how the left prefers to see all these children die while throwing money at a trendy hoax. People truly are idiots.

[maryjane48]

*removed*

[The Green Barbarian]

it is not immoral in the slightest. It is a parent issue above drinking water, poverty, malnourishment.
It's like saying we shouldn't spend money on researching and fighting cancer, because we should be focusing on tumour removal.

And you have that luxury because you aren't currently suffering from poverty (not the way these people are, anyway), malnourishment or bad drinking water. It is the height of arrogance to decide for people who have no voice what their biggest problems are, without even talking to them or asking their opinion, and instead of making sure they actually have clean drinking water and food to eat, decide instead that they should have a solar panel, all because it makes you, the guy with the no poverty and clean water, feel good. It's not about feeling good about yourself, it's about helping those in need with real actual problems, not trying to protect them from fairy tales.

Climate change stands to make drinking water less available, to displace billions into poverty, remove arable land and other sources of nourishment.

This is what you've chosen to believe, without any actual proof. Meanwhile, children dying from horrible yet totally treatable diseases every day, thanks to bad sanitation, lack of mosquito nets, and malnourishment, is an actual real thing, that exists right now.

As Glacier said, Lomborg looks at cost benefit, rather than just emotions. If you were starving and dying, would you want food and medicine, or some elitist bozo telling you that he is "saving you from climate change"? Sorry, but you don't care about climate change when you are starving, or your kid is dying. You just want food. Man-made climate change, if it in fact does exist, is a problem that can wait, until actual, real issues have been dealt with. Doing anything else is exactly like Lomborg described, highly immoral.

[Partmanpartfish]

It is interesting to note that our right wing friends who have dismissed climate change and concluded that it is a hoax, have not come to this conclusion by careful analysis of the data or an exhaustive review of historical trends.

No, they have arrived at this conclusion solely by listening to poorly educated, loudmouthed talking heads in the wingnut media.

Monkey see, monkey do.