Just saw this piece on my NYTimes app, couldn't wait to get on a computer and talk about it.
First off, I was hoping that China would be as ever non-committal about climate change as they have in the past. This has always been the most effective politically charged attacks against climate change "why should we hold ourselves back as China marches ahead," but this announcement will probably lead the administration to charge forward to Coopenhagen pressing harder for some type of concrete action to reward his environmental-hippy allies. This news might be enough for the administration to think it has the political capital necessary to deflect the current Email debacle.
(But I think the method of making spending for the environment relative to increase in GDP as novel. We should incorporate it domestically for actual environmental programs like Forest Service, Parks, Endangered Spieces protection, fish conservation efforts, etc).
(But I think the method of making spending for the environment relative to increase in GDP as novel. We should incorporate it domestically for actual environmental programs like Forest Service, Parks, Endangered Spieces protection, fish conservation efforts, etc).
What I've become more concerned with, besides simple Cap-and Trade, is the growing insistence by countries that the West should pay for most of the tab. Brazil has made it's own version of Cap & Trade contigent on foreign funding (slahs and burn deforestation accounting for 75% of it's emissions) China has now come out and said that it won't allow anyone to inspect their compliance with the summit unless it is for efforts that have received foreign funding. Brazil and China represent the two of the largest and most powerful booming economies. It only makes sense for them to want any BS wasteful climate change spending to be done by those eggheads that are foolish to shell it out. While I doubt anything to emerge from the climate summit will be the new large evil international government that many here worry about (if you're worried about this, you should behold the beast of Babylon that emerged from the Montreal Pact, the most successful international environmental pact). I'm worried about the prospect that our Welfare Statist president is going to waste billions of dollars in foreign countries (most importantly China), who don't deserve one god damned cent.
Fortunately, there's good signs this BS is already proving too difficult to maintain. The Aussies are already falling apart over this and shows the consequence of trying to shove environmental programs without working with economic interests.
Healthcare is being picked away over it's run-away spending. if Obama commits to anything in Coopenhagen that further adds to wasteful spending that Washington doesn't have; than we can expect his political support to plummit faster and this summit to be one of the first things to be scrapped under Republican leadership. Maybe a treaty will languish in the Senate long enough for us to pick up a few more seats and ensure it's defeat during the ratification process.
The West will pay to fight climate change. Redistributing wealth from the West to developing countries is the main purpose behind the whole global warming scam--the policies that are required to fight it led to the redistribution of wealth. It is amazing that they don't rethink what they are doing in light of the new developments. What does this say about their intent?
ReplyDelete"While I doubt anything to emerge from the climate summit will be the new large evil international government that many here worry about(if you're worried about this, you should behold the beast of Babylon that emerged from the Montreal Pact, the most successful international environmental pact)."
Melkor, I don't think anybody is worried about this. Copenhagen will be a failure. Their purpose and intent is to try and make a more unified world government(look at the many statements of the people that support this), but it won't happen. The fact is that they want to create this, but they won't be able to. Even if they are able to do everything they want, there won't be some evil international government. But if anything does come out of the meeting, it will help to lay the foundations for this and will be another step in that direction. The league of nations and the UN and many other things are all steps in that directions. This will be another baby step in that direction too. I don't that "evil IG" happening anytime soon. But their is an attempt to make some international governing body and the foundation for it is being layed. It won't be some thing oozing with evil, but with Globalization and the direction the world is headed they are leading us towards an international governing body--way down the road in the future and it won't be a completely true one-world government. I think it is called Globalization. Or from an anthropological or scientific point of view, it is the inevitable direction that a civilization that is confined to a single planet takes. It is good thing for the advancement of our civilization.
http://robinsontalkingpoints.blogspot.com/2009/07/dr-kaku-on-changes-occuring-in-human.html
When I am on my death bed and Patrick walks in the room to speak to me, I will smile and point my finger in his face and say, "Ha ha fag, at least I don't have to see Obama's one world government." Then my eyes close and I sail peacefully away with a smile on my dead face.
ReplyDeletePoint is, I agree that a one world government will come someday. All tradition and heritage is slowly disappearing and someday a one world government will be easy for uncultured Americans to embrace.
Jeff, are you opposed to Globalization or International Organizations in general? And if it is the latter is it because they're ineffective or you're afraid they will be effective?
ReplyDeleteOn the issue of IG's being ineffeictive, the US has tip toed towards "One World Gov't" with many successful organizations as the International Telegraph Union, International Maritime Organization, the Montreal monitoring scheme, the IAEA and the WTO. In the circumstance of the IAEA, there's no other international body that is allowed to be so pervasive as them. The amount of intelligence we gain from them is amazing. The WTO has been instrumental in breaking down the barriers that has allowed Globalization (and the boomtide of our economy) to blossom. You're right that there needs to be international bodies capable of facilitating globalization (IMO regulates our freedom of the seas so as not to have a giant chaotic mess), any such body that facilitates free trade is good in my opinion. Such regulation isn't obstructing industrious people but helping them, regulation in the terms of competition, is meant to eliminate the inequalities in information that pose a threat to Adam Smith's free hand (that and tariffs).
Do you think the previously cited IO's are bad because you think Globalization is bad? And if that's true, then you truly are the classical conservative of Adam Smith's time and stand opposed to traditional capitalism. I assume that I don't need to say the consequences of such opposition.
Why are there worthless IO's? Look across the spectrum, those organizations that are feeble are that way because they COULD threaten us but also because we MADE them. We made it that way intentionally, those organizations that are strong are made that way to further our interests. Those organizations that are weak are done so that no one could infringe on us, and, with sufficient support, we could infringe on others. Any agreement that comes out of Coopenhagen will only be as strong as our interests say it should be. Even if is passed it'll never passed muster in the Senate. The point of this post, is that I'm not afriad of a new IO, but of flat check payments to our enemies and competitors.
No I am not opposed to globalization or IO. I think they are necessary and inevitable. I agree with your assessment of these IOs. My whole point was to state the fact that the world is headed towards becoming more interconnected and interdependent. My whole controversy was the fact that it is coming under the guise of fighting the global warming scam and solving the finical crises that was caused by governments, and what they want to solve it leads to more government and less freedom.
ReplyDeleteTo have a truly prosperous world economy the artificial trade barriers of national boundaries need to be eliminated. It would be a good thing if the world economy becomes one and that it be based off of capitalism. It is not heading towards being based off of capitalism, from what I see.
"The point of this post, is that I'm not afriad of a new IO, but of flat check payments to our enemies and competitors." That is the whole point of the global warming scam--a world-wide redistribution of wealth.
The point I find interesting is that there is an attempt to make a one world government by the various left leaning governments of the world through the global warming scam with cap and trade and the Copenhagen meetings. And the current finical situation is being taken advantage of by the various governments of the world to increase their size and scope of influence into and at the expense of the private sector and freedom. Why are the people that are pushing for all of this international regulation and this international governing body doing so through lies--global warming--and why does the solution led to more government and less private sector?
"Any agreement that comes out of Coopenhagen will only be as strong as our interests say it should be." The whole purpose of Copenhagen is to fight a non-existent crises, yet the solution leads to more government intervention in the private sector and the redistrubtion of America's wealth at the expense of America to the rest of the world. The whole premise of the meeting is wrong. How can this benefit America?
I am not opposed to any international governing body or IO just as I am not opposed to any government. It depends what type of IGB or government it is, and it seems like the IGB that is coming about is one that is not good for capitalism or freedom--who is pushing for it and under what guise?
Melkor, I think you're incorrect at least in the motives of the people at Copenhagen. They do aim to destroy the power of the West. They think it's fair to let other people develop as the West has and kneecap the West to let them catch up. It's up to the grownups: us, the people that are blowing holes in climate change science, etc. Just like health care. It's not the people currently in power that are pushing things just-so-far. They're pushing as hard as they can to destroy as much as they can, and the only way they're being stopped is through Herculean efforts by those out-of-power.
ReplyDeleteI have serious doubts of Melkor's & Jeff's assumed benefits of a World Government. I think it would eventually stifle free enterprise and certainly stifle freedom. International organizations that are controlled by their member countries' governments, such as the IMF, are good things. But, once organizations like IMF really do have the power, bad things will happen. But, that's grist for another article.
Post forth coming.
ReplyDeleteSo we should support a pathetic UN rather than a poerfull one? Tell me what to believe!
ReplyDeleteI think Melkor and I will have a hearty disagreement over that one. I don't think there should be any UN. Melkor thinks otherwise.
ReplyDeleteAlso, I should point out that I agree with the majority of Melkor's article. I think the permanent Democratic majority is going to last about as long as the permanent Republican majority of Bush's reign lasted.
One thing I think Obama is true to his word on is his statement about being OK with a being a one-term president if that's what it takes to get his agendas passed.
A international governing body is necessary and inevitable along with all of these IO. International cooperation is good and necessary for capitalism to flourish and for a properous world. With advancement in technology and the natural course of development in human civilization, a more united world is inevitable. The question is what form will this government be taking? From what I understand, it is not taking a form that is good for freedom or capitalism.
ReplyDeleteThe UN is a joke and a home of despotic regimes. It is a way for these regimes to shake down the West and use the UN as a means to attack America. The UN is a weapon that despotic regimes--mainly Russia and China and their little off shoots-- use to attack the West and the freedom that it stands for.
Russia has the same amount of influence in the UN--they had the same amount of votes--as the US or it did during the cold war. This is what happens when you don't do away with all of the bad that is in the world. There won't be some all out battle of good vs evil, so the current world government will probably be a despotic one because all of the despotic regimes won't be done away with. Because how can you have cooperation and union between freedom and tyranny or good and bad? Freedom or good always looses and tyranny or bad always wins in such a union. The world government is taking the form of a nice and mild despotic regime like Tocqueville talked about. Maybe I am just seeing things through a negative prism, but one that seems plausible to me.
On Obama passing his agenda, I think he will push it at the expense of his second term. There is no doubt that the fundamental transformation that he stated is that of a less free and prosperous American, and this transformation--through the economy and global warming, and health care-- is helping to strengthen the world at the expense of America.
cops