Copenhagen's Climate talks, three wise men and a beggar's banquet

Videos

Politician snow war

see larger video

sourced by Barry ORegan

• 

  Created by Barry ORegan | add comment

• 

  Created by Barry ORegan | add comment

U.S. President Obama promises lofty monetary ambitions of a trillion dollar plan to appease the developing world.

Canada's Prime Minister Harper kept  a low profile and agreed in principle that Canada would act in concert with the USA if Obama's 100 billion dollar fundraising efforts are met every year for the next decade.  Prime Minister Stephen Harper also stressed, if the USA does not keep it's commitment, a serious strain will result in achieving these climate change goals for all concerned. 

China, a developing nation and the world's No.1 polluter claim it may exceed it's goal of reducing emissions.

The David Suzuki foundation proclaimed that Canada needs to get back to the table and work out a fair, ambitious and binding deal.

Jack Layton, leader of the National Democratic Party (NDP) the Harper Conservatives did not represent the majority of Canadians. I say, please furnish the names of the majority of Canadians looking to pay into this?

If one were a betting man, and looking for three wise men, Prime Minister Harper would be at the top of the list, followed by Dr. David Suzuki and bringing up the rear would be Canadians, the taxpayer's and unemployed Canadians to be exact.

Many should realize grandstanding and false hope to appease the masses has always been a tool for all political parties looking to get that Holy Grail of governing a country. 

Harper as the No.1 wise man, took a wait and see attitude relying on his economist background, his forte. Harper won't make promises if there's a chance he may not be able to deliver the goods.

Dr. David Suzuki as the No.2 wise man, unlike Al Gore and armchair environmentalists the world over who bleat out stop climate change, unlike Dr. David Suzuki who not only offer answers to a question that no one ever asked, have an intimate knowledge of the questions and solutions beforehand. 

Canadians come in at No.3, though many get their misinformation from the internet, the majority with basic math skills know what the financial cost will be to them.  Prime Minister Harper has apprised them of that fact, though not popular in the truth hurts department.

Opposition parties hoping to bring down any governing party will always deride a Prime Minister in the hopes Canadians will bite, especially at election time.

On the subject of election time, Obama, Harper and most western democracies have a best before date of 4 years. President Obama and British Prime Minister Gordon Brown offering up taxpayers as donors to the tune of billions and billions of dollars annually to sustain a third world beggar's banquet may be premature, without first getting their electorate's approval first.

Many people believe their leaders are all powerful, with little regard that bills must pass through the house and the senate for approval. If it is agreed in principle the politician and all political parties must then sell what their governing leader is promising to the taxpayer.

The taxpayer for the most part when the world economy affects their livelihood, especially their jobs are not as charitable and believe charity begins at home. Sorry Mr. Layton, when reality sets in you should know your facts and consult the taxpayer first before grandstanding to the world.

Climate change is serious, but for the majority of Canadian taxpayers, knowing they will be on the hook for a few billion dollars every year may leave a bad taste in their mouth.  Prime Minister Stephen Harper knows this and his reluctance to offer false promises in Copenhagen shows his sensible side as wise man no.1 when it comes to the economy and jobs. Many will disagree with this, but imagine if Canada stated a few billion dollars in aid to appease the developing countries?  How long do you think it would take for the slings and arrows of taxpayer dissent to begin?

Promising trillions of dollars in climate change aid outside of any country to another developing country, especially when some countries are not keen on checks and balances on how they spend that aid is throwing money down the drain. After all, developing countries who have received billions of dollars in western aid every year for close to 60 years, one would think they would be developed already? 

Western countries see little return on their aid investment dollar as third world aid in developing these countries for the last 60 years. Yet it seems to continue, with little progress.  Apparently sustainability in teaching a man to fish is lost on the many who continue to frequent the beggar's banquet year after year.  One would think by now, any developing country corrupt practices, lack of any clear fiscal policy and a government run for decades by dictators, military regimes and despots should be eliminated as a condition of receiving any more aid.

Perhaps a climate change solution closer to home is at hand when it comes to environmentalism?

If pollution from manufactured goods is a major concern, immigration and population growth is another, with a 100 mile diet as an alternative to importation of food.

Environmentally speaking consumerism, immigration and birthrates should be curtailed and sustainability in the manufacturing of products should be demanded.   The majority of manufactured good are seen as throwaway items rarely lasting more than a year or two. This results in the manufacturing of more land, air and water pollution in the making of more and more cheap throwaway consumer products.

Do you know a replacement transmission on most hybrid vehicles purchased (depending on the model) can cost upwards of $7,000.00?  A replacement cost out of the realm of most consumers who wished to be environmentally concious and hoped for longevity.

A manufacturer's bread and butter are replacement parts, primarily in the auto sector, with many Asia pacific manufacturer's of cheaply made products reap riches in a consumer's desire wanting new and cheap.

Canada received 88,000 immigrants in 2009, with the majority settling in already carbon saturated Canadian cities.  These are immigrants from all over the globe, thus reducing the human ecological carbon footprint of their respective countries and increasing exponentially the ecological carbon footprint in Canada. The Human Development Index on ecological growth of our carbon footprint includes increases in everything from social, health, consumerism, waste, food and travel carbon footprint.  This immigration trend will continue to increase in Canada for decades to come.  

Currently for 2009 Canada's carbon footprint is 5.8 global hectacres (gha) per person according to the Global Footprint Network in 2006, so if one multiplies this by 88,000 new Canadians, this equates to a total of 510,400 gha. So when it is said the world consumes more than it generates, it is interesting to compare all countries in the Global network.   Dr. David Suzuki knows this, so does Prime Minister Harper. Does Al Gore, a politician by profession know this? Hmmm one can guarantee a "Deer in the headlights" scenario if VP Al Gore ever had to go toe to toe with Dr. David Suzuki, yet alone Prime Minister Harper who has a Masters degree in economics. Both disciplines needed to know the pros and cons of climate change and the effects. 

Al Gore has a bachelor of arts, with a background in government. In the words of Jerry Sienfeld "Not that there is anything wrong with that?"

The 100 mile diet in which a consumer only buys locally produced food from a 100 mile radius of their home will also ensure a less carbon footprint. This includes avoiding foods not in season, though with a few exceptions when it comes to heath or diet. 

Reduce, Reuse and Recycling is one aspect that is environmentally sustainable, sometimes a cheaper alternative.  Population control, perhaps unpopular is an inconvenient truth of three options many do not wish to hear, but should practice if they are truly serious about the environment.  

Otherwise, like Obama and the thousands and thousands of environmental activists, thousands and thousands of delegates and thousands of media and celebrities who traveled from all over the world to increase Denmark's carbon footprint five fold in the space of a week, perhaps speaks volumes by those adept at posturing and false promises, something humans do best.

A prediction for 2020?  Very little will change, but rest assured many more annual climate change meetings will be held all over the world to appease the developing countries lining up at the beggar's banquet, their buffet tray in hand, complaining they are still developing, leading many to conclude, the status quo between the haves and the have nots will remain as long as trillions of dollars in aid is for the taking.

Perhaps forcing someone to fish is a better philosphy than teaching them to fish, consumer and third world alike.