Global warming fear-mongering will change policies of governments and this will adversely affect the Poor.
http://www.nysun.com/pf.php?id=53259&v=3345677711
http://www.nysun.com/pf.php?id=53259&v=3345677711
The Poor are the victims of Kyoto etal.
- Thread starter Walter
- Start date
The poor will always suffer because as far as the government is concerned they don’t pay taxes and are a burden on society.
The poor are the guinea pigs and are tested and prodded on a regular bases for a few crumbs and maybe a fistful of change.
A good example of the governments distaste for the poor is their inaction to help the survivors of hurricane Katrina which a large percentage were poor,
There are homeless and poor in America and Canada because the taxpayer doesn’t want to share the wealth and solve this crisis.
The poor are the modern day slaves and there seems to be no way out for them.
They hope that their children will be luckier that’s if they are not get sucked up in gangs.
We have religious organization that throw a few table scraps into their bowl like they would to a junk yard dog and if the poor wants more then they are told to pray to their God so he can take away their hunger so they can die in peace.
The government tries to help the poor but if they give them more money middle class and wealthy taxpayers would complain that spending money on the poor is a waste of money.
The poor will suffer in any idea the government might have to cut greenhouse gases like the flawed Kyoto agreement and the poor that suffer unnecessarily will always be the cost of doing business of these useless exercises.
The poor are the guinea pigs and are tested and prodded on a regular bases for a few crumbs and maybe a fistful of change.
A good example of the governments distaste for the poor is their inaction to help the survivors of hurricane Katrina which a large percentage were poor,
There are homeless and poor in America and Canada because the taxpayer doesn’t want to share the wealth and solve this crisis.
The poor are the modern day slaves and there seems to be no way out for them.
They hope that their children will be luckier that’s if they are not get sucked up in gangs.
We have religious organization that throw a few table scraps into their bowl like they would to a junk yard dog and if the poor wants more then they are told to pray to their God so he can take away their hunger so they can die in peace.
The government tries to help the poor but if they give them more money middle class and wealthy taxpayers would complain that spending money on the poor is a waste of money.
The poor will suffer in any idea the government might have to cut greenhouse gases like the flawed Kyoto agreement and the poor that suffer unnecessarily will always be the cost of doing business of these useless exercises.
Westmanguy -
I think I agree with you but you write like your Ritalin prescription has long since expired. It is very difficult to understand your disjointed thoughts and half-finished ramblings.
Pangloss
I think I agree with you but you write like your Ritalin prescription has long since expired. It is very difficult to understand your disjointed thoughts and half-finished ramblings.
Pangloss
Taxpayers are people who earn their money. Other than those few with mental disorders or physical disabilities, the vast majority of the poor in the US and Canada are that way because they made stupid choices or are unwilling to do what it takes not to be poor. I grew up very poor, with few of the things poor kids take for granted these days (and I know what their lives are like, we used to take in foster kids) but because my parents had their priorities right, we never went hungry, or without clothing or shelter. My parents work was eventually rewarded and they are very well off now. They NEVER asked for or expected a handout from government or taxpayers.
Slaves???? Most of them don't even work! (hint - work is the way out)
I know some religious people who give to the poor. Many of them are also poor, aged pensioners on a tiny fixed income. They are under no obligation to give, but do so out of the generosity of their hearts. The Salvation Army, the St. Vincent dePaul Society and other organizations regularly give good meals to the homeless.
Governments hand out $billions to the poor. Residents of the Lower East Side of Vancouver (poorest postal code in Canada) also get free clothing, shelter and up to 7 free meals a day if they want them. If you added up the value of all the things they receive, plus all the illicit income (drug dealing, prostitution etc) I'll bet they'd show a rather high average income. The reason most of them live the way they do is they choose not to be responsible for their own well being and/or figure the world owes them.
Well, we don't.
A reporter in Toronto went on the streets as a homeless person a few years back in order to write an article about how terrible it is for them. He found he had all the free food he needed, free places to sleep, and made an average of $20 per hour (tax free) panhandling. If all the parasites would get off their butts and look after themselves, there'd be a whole lot more money available for those who genuinely need it, like the physically and mentally disabled. The rest of them are poor because they choose to be, and I have no sympathy for them.
Oh, by the way, Liberalman, how much do you personally give to the poor? I'm certain you wouldn't expect me and other taxpayers to give more than you do, so how much money do you hand out to poor people on a regular basis?
The new "Green " revolution in the US has already spawned and whole new industry. Those in on the ground floor stand to make a lot of money and the "financial rewards" are nothing more than bait for the unsuspecting. The alleged tax credits are another joke too. Ask your CPA what you truly realize from a $10,000 investment in some energy saving device installed by a contractor engaged to do the job through your local public utility service. The winners are the businesses, the utility company and maybe in small part the users. I see it as another scam to boost the business sector who has been assailed recently by the government who has exported thousands of skilled technical US jobs and now the economy is in a down turn and the numbers need a boost. This will smoke out those wishing to make a positive contribution to what is now being given top billing by the government as being a serious issue.
Last edited:
The new green industry has spawned thousands of jobs. Energy efficiency, and renewables, which are primarily government regulated employ over 8 million Americans now. Not only that, they lower utility bills. Not only that, they clean up the air, less pollution makes for better health. Generating 20 percent of U.S. electricity from new renewable energy by 2020 will add 185,000 new jobs, while cumulatively reducing utility bills $10.5 billion and increasing rural landowner income by $26.5 billion.
http://www.eesi.org/briefings/2007/Energy%20&%20Climate/11-8-07_green_jobs/EEREJobsFactSheet_11-8-07.pdf
Yah, it's a scam alright.:roll:
http://www.eesi.org/briefings/2007/Energy%20&%20Climate/11-8-07_green_jobs/EEREJobsFactSheet_11-8-07.pdf
Yah, it's a scam alright.:roll:
Last edited:
Food vs. Fuel
By Robert J. Samuelson
Wednesday, December 12, 2007; Page A29
If people can't eat, they can't do much else. One of the great achievements of the past century has been the enormous expansion of food production, which has virtually eliminated starvation in advanced countries and has made huge gains against it in poor countries. Since 1961, world population has increased 112 percent; meanwhile, global production is up 164 percent for grains and almost 700 percent for meats. We owe this mainly to better seed varieties, more fertilizer, more mechanization and better farm practices. Food in most developed countries is so plentiful and inexpensive that obesity -- partly caused by overeating -- is a major social problem.
But the world food system may now be undergoing a radical break with this past. "The end of cheap food" is how the Economist magazine recently described it. During the past year, prices of basic grains (wheat, corn) and oilseeds (soybeans) have soared. Corn that had been selling at about $2 a bushel is now more than $3; wheat that had been averaging $3 to $4 a bushel has recently hovered around $9. Because feed grains are a major cost in meat, dairy and poultry production, retail prices have also risen. In the United States, dairy prices are up 13 percent in 2007; egg prices have risen 42 percent in the past year. Other countries are also experiencing increases.
Higher grocery prices obviously make it harder to achieve economic growth and low inflation simultaneously. But if higher food prices encouraged better eating habits, they might actually have some benefits in richer societies. The truly grave consequences involve poor countries, where higher prices threaten more hunger and malnutrition.
To be sure, some farmers in these countries benefit from higher prices. But many poor countries -- including most in sub-Saharan Africa -- are net grain importers, says the International Food Policy Research Institute, a Washington-based think tank. In some of these countries, the poorest of the poor spend 70 percent or more of their budgets on food. About a third of the population of sub-Saharan Africa is undernourished, according to the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations. That proportion has barely changed since the early 1990s. High food prices make gains harder.
What's disturbing is that the present run-up doesn't seem to be temporary. Of course, farming is always hostage to Mother Nature, and drought in Australia has cut the wheat harvest and contributed to higher worldwide prices. But the larger causes lie elsewhere. One is growing prosperity in China, India, other Asian countries and Latin America. As people become richer, they improve their diets by eating more protein in the form of meat and dairy products. The demand for animal feed grains rises. This has been going on for years and, until recently, was met by the steady gains in agricultural output from improved technology and management.
It's the extra demand for grains to make biofuels, spurred heavily in the United States by government tax subsidies and fuel mandates, that has pushed prices dramatically higher. The Economist rightly calls these U.S. government subsidies "reckless." Since 2000, the share of the U.S. corn crop devoted to ethanol production has increased from about 6 percent to about 25 percent -- and is still headed up.
By Robert J. Samuelson
Wednesday, December 12, 2007; Page A29
If people can't eat, they can't do much else. One of the great achievements of the past century has been the enormous expansion of food production, which has virtually eliminated starvation in advanced countries and has made huge gains against it in poor countries. Since 1961, world population has increased 112 percent; meanwhile, global production is up 164 percent for grains and almost 700 percent for meats. We owe this mainly to better seed varieties, more fertilizer, more mechanization and better farm practices. Food in most developed countries is so plentiful and inexpensive that obesity -- partly caused by overeating -- is a major social problem.
But the world food system may now be undergoing a radical break with this past. "The end of cheap food" is how the Economist magazine recently described it. During the past year, prices of basic grains (wheat, corn) and oilseeds (soybeans) have soared. Corn that had been selling at about $2 a bushel is now more than $3; wheat that had been averaging $3 to $4 a bushel has recently hovered around $9. Because feed grains are a major cost in meat, dairy and poultry production, retail prices have also risen. In the United States, dairy prices are up 13 percent in 2007; egg prices have risen 42 percent in the past year. Other countries are also experiencing increases.
Higher grocery prices obviously make it harder to achieve economic growth and low inflation simultaneously. But if higher food prices encouraged better eating habits, they might actually have some benefits in richer societies. The truly grave consequences involve poor countries, where higher prices threaten more hunger and malnutrition.
To be sure, some farmers in these countries benefit from higher prices. But many poor countries -- including most in sub-Saharan Africa -- are net grain importers, says the International Food Policy Research Institute, a Washington-based think tank. In some of these countries, the poorest of the poor spend 70 percent or more of their budgets on food. About a third of the population of sub-Saharan Africa is undernourished, according to the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations. That proportion has barely changed since the early 1990s. High food prices make gains harder.
What's disturbing is that the present run-up doesn't seem to be temporary. Of course, farming is always hostage to Mother Nature, and drought in Australia has cut the wheat harvest and contributed to higher worldwide prices. But the larger causes lie elsewhere. One is growing prosperity in China, India, other Asian countries and Latin America. As people become richer, they improve their diets by eating more protein in the form of meat and dairy products. The demand for animal feed grains rises. This has been going on for years and, until recently, was met by the steady gains in agricultural output from improved technology and management.
It's the extra demand for grains to make biofuels, spurred heavily in the United States by government tax subsidies and fuel mandates, that has pushed prices dramatically higher. The Economist rightly calls these U.S. government subsidies "reckless." Since 2000, the share of the U.S. corn crop devoted to ethanol production has increased from about 6 percent to about 25 percent -- and is still headed up.
Sometimes it depends just what is said and just what is excluded. For example, carbon taxes are also supposed to be a boon to the economy.
Link for related article.
All sounds wonderful until the facts are checked out.
Link for rebuttal.
Oops! Kinda the reverse of what was supposed to happen, wasn't it?
And then, of course, we mustn't forget all those economic spinnoffs derived from the sale of indulgences (carbon trading, carbon offsets). Oh yeah, that's a good thing! :roll:
Oil is what fuels our economy. Without it we would need to cut down more trees to feed ourselves and cut down more trees to heat our homes.
Wednesday 12 December, 2007
Contact:
Caroline Boin (Bali)
+62 819 361 346 17
environment@policynetwork.net
[FONT=Verdana,Helvetica]Let Them Eat Cake!
- Climate conference forgets the world’s poor[/FONT]
[FONT=Verdana,Helvetica]Some development organisations, journalists and government officials celebrated the 10th anniversary of the Kyoto Protocol with a giant birthday cake. Spirits were high as many seemed content with the progress made since COP-12, and the potential for a post-2012 treaty.[/FONT]
[FONT=Verdana,Helvetica]But though the cake may have been sweet for COP-13 attendants, life will remain bitter for the majority of the world’s poor who are set to lose heavily from a post-2012 deal. [/FONT]
[FONT=Verdana,Helvetica]As Barun Mitra of India’s Liberty Institute, one of the 42 members of the Civil Society Coalition on Climate Change, explains:[/FONT]
[FONT=Verdana,Helvetica]“The problem facing hundreds of millions of poor people throughout the world is not that they consume too much, but that they hardly have any reliable and efficient sources of energy, clean water or a secure supply of food. All of these will be jeopardized in a world that is made much poorer through a post-2012 agreement which essentially inhibits economic growth.[/FONT]
[FONT=Verdana,Helvetica]To expect or ask that the poor sacrifice today for the sake of the rich tomorrow is not only immoral, but it also ignores the plight of poverty faced by millions today”.[/FONT]
[FONT=Verdana,Helvetica]Though activists claim to be acting on behalf of the poor, the measures they propose would only cause harm. Instead of such hyperbole, we need to consider why countries like India have created abundance from scarcity and have adapted to changing circumstances. After the major famine of 1965-66 which killed 1.5 million people, India was considered a basket case. Today, India is poised to become a net food exporter. The improvement in India’s agriculture was due to a number of factors, including: [/FONT]
[FONT=Verdana,Helvetica]If governments really care about the present and future of the world’s 800 million undernourished people, they would take the costless and effective steps of removing trade and regulatory barriers that only serve to make food and associated technologies far more costly. Tragically for their poorest citizens, Sub-Saharan African countries worry about the impact of climate change – but continue to apply an average import tariff of 33.6% on agricultural imports. [/FONT]
[FONT=Verdana,Helvetica]The cake and policies wheeled out in Bali will hardly help the hungry or the poor. The way forwards is home-grown adaptation through technology and trade, which will allow people to raise themselves out of poverty. [/FONT]
Contact:
Caroline Boin (Bali)
+62 819 361 346 17
environment@policynetwork.net
[FONT=Verdana,Helvetica]Let Them Eat Cake!
- Climate conference forgets the world’s poor[/FONT]
[FONT=Verdana,Helvetica]Some development organisations, journalists and government officials celebrated the 10th anniversary of the Kyoto Protocol with a giant birthday cake. Spirits were high as many seemed content with the progress made since COP-12, and the potential for a post-2012 treaty.[/FONT]
[FONT=Verdana,Helvetica]But though the cake may have been sweet for COP-13 attendants, life will remain bitter for the majority of the world’s poor who are set to lose heavily from a post-2012 deal. [/FONT]
[FONT=Verdana,Helvetica]As Barun Mitra of India’s Liberty Institute, one of the 42 members of the Civil Society Coalition on Climate Change, explains:[/FONT]
[FONT=Verdana,Helvetica]“The problem facing hundreds of millions of poor people throughout the world is not that they consume too much, but that they hardly have any reliable and efficient sources of energy, clean water or a secure supply of food. All of these will be jeopardized in a world that is made much poorer through a post-2012 agreement which essentially inhibits economic growth.[/FONT]
[FONT=Verdana,Helvetica]To expect or ask that the poor sacrifice today for the sake of the rich tomorrow is not only immoral, but it also ignores the plight of poverty faced by millions today”.[/FONT]
[FONT=Verdana,Helvetica]Though activists claim to be acting on behalf of the poor, the measures they propose would only cause harm. Instead of such hyperbole, we need to consider why countries like India have created abundance from scarcity and have adapted to changing circumstances. After the major famine of 1965-66 which killed 1.5 million people, India was considered a basket case. Today, India is poised to become a net food exporter. The improvement in India’s agriculture was due to a number of factors, including: [/FONT]
- [FONT=Verdana,Helvetica]access to new technologies such as hybrid seeds, agro-chemicals, and irrigation[/FONT]
- [FONT=Verdana,Helvetica]relatively greater market access [/FONT]
- [FONT=Verdana,Helvetica]secure land tenure [/FONT]
- [FONT=Verdana,Helvetica]vibrant democracy.[/FONT]
[FONT=Verdana,Helvetica]If governments really care about the present and future of the world’s 800 million undernourished people, they would take the costless and effective steps of removing trade and regulatory barriers that only serve to make food and associated technologies far more costly. Tragically for their poorest citizens, Sub-Saharan African countries worry about the impact of climate change – but continue to apply an average import tariff of 33.6% on agricultural imports. [/FONT]
[FONT=Verdana,Helvetica]The cake and policies wheeled out in Bali will hardly help the hungry or the poor. The way forwards is home-grown adaptation through technology and trade, which will allow people to raise themselves out of poverty. [/FONT]
Quoting Extrafire ":Governments hand out $billions to the poor. Residents of the Lower East Side of Vancouver (poorest postal code in Canada) also get free clothing, shelter and up to 7 free meals a day if they want them. If you added up the value of all the things they receive, plus all the illicit income (drug dealing, prostitution etc) I'll bet they'd show a rather high average income. The reason most of them live the way they do is they choose not to be responsible for their own well being and/or figure the world owes them."
Good point. Was watching a doc about the Lower East, about a reformed druggie/wohre who was trying to help her sisters and get to get a few off the streets, and it was stated that:.........some druggies have habits costing three to four hundred dollars A DAY!.....Now, you gotta hustle to make that kind of change. Must be hard on the poor gals. (no pun intended), and yes, I know, they're someones' mummy or daughter............(cue the violins)
Good point. Was watching a doc about the Lower East, about a reformed druggie/wohre who was trying to help her sisters and get to get a few off the streets, and it was stated that:.........some druggies have habits costing three to four hundred dollars A DAY!.....Now, you gotta hustle to make that kind of change. Must be hard on the poor gals. (no pun intended), and yes, I know, they're someones' mummy or daughter............(cue the violins)
Last edited:
More right wing propaganda.
Earlier, when we discussed how the poor pay more in blood taxes for the wars created by the wealthy elites, the reply to that was ''cry me a river''.
Earlier, when we discussed how the poor pay more in blood taxes for the wars created by the wealthy elites, the reply to that was ''cry me a river''.
What does Carbon taxes in Norway have to do with what you quoted from me? That tax in Norway is an example of what not to do. I'm not an idiot, and I don't jump on board because something has been greenwashed, or promoted by the loudest talking heads. That's the benefit of hind sight, we can see how some programs have failed, and others have given good results. Even economists get it wrong sometimes.:lol:
Carbon taxes and carbon trading are two different mechanisms.
The newly-elected PM of Australia said, just days after committing his country to Kyoto, that Australia would, indeed, not be meeting Kyoto's targets. Why?
http://www.news.com.au/heraldsun/story/0,21985,22883548-662,00.html
And huge increases in electricity prices hit the poorest the most.
It seems like more than a few left-wingers have forgotten about the poor in all this. PM Rudd hasn't.
http://www.news.com.au/heraldsun/story/0,21985,22883548-662,00.html
And huge increases in electricity prices hit the poorest the most.
It seems like more than a few left-wingers have forgotten about the poor in all this. PM Rudd hasn't.
