Land is cleared and left empty? Trees and plants don't grow back? If plants and trees don't grow back, why the big stink to pay $40 for a sapling that will be cut down in 5 years to offset an plane ride?
Durban Climate Change Conference 2011
- Thread starter mentalfloss
- Start date
When it comes to you misguided greenies, I don't know whether to laugh or cry but I do feel sorry for all your wasted efforts.
The NWO requires blind obedience to the party line. I have no doubt we will be required to meet them in battle some day soon. Of course I will be at headquarters far behind the front directing the flow of munitions and beans to healthy fit killing machines like yourself. They are religious and political fanatics, they do not weigh without thumbs in mission science.
Not if you use the free range organic version of Polysporin from an oat based plastic tube.
I was kinda wondering if MF has a mild allergy to the tin foil he uses as a hat to keep the gvt satellites from reading his thoughts.
I'll do a little poking around and see if there is a hypo-allergenic foil that may deal with this problem.... That or get him some J&J 'no more tears' shampoo for x-mas.
How was your morning coffee?
And it helps keep you cool in the sun.
No, someone who thinks a cold winter in Saskatchewan disproves global warming has problems understanding the system.
I tell you what, go to one of the threads in the Climate Change sub-forum, and lay out all the problems with an enhanced greenhouse effect. See if you can do it without referencing your beloved conspiracies. See if you can do it by actually using the physical mechanisms in our climate system. I don't think you have the acumen.
The easiest thing one can do is just check the rising ocean temperatures, glaciers disappearing and melting ice caps on a global scale for example.
This makes sense, if you're out by a year in your info. I'd believe that
THIS winter (not last) was/is the third warmest winter so far, and that
the 2010-2011 winter (not 2009) was the coldest year in SK in 27yrs.
Last winter sucked. It was nasty out here. This year for winter so far
hasn't been bad at all.
$100 Billion! Wow.. that's a lotta moolah.. Isn't it funny how only the oil exporters are against this?
Hmmm...
HHHMMmmmmmmmmm.....
Durban negotiators plan to tap shipping for $100bn climate fund
A tax on the shipping industry could provide finance for a fund to help poorer countries tackle climate change, according to a formal proposal published at the Durban climate summit today.
The document proposes that "financial resources" are raised through unspecified measures designed and implemented by the International Maritime Organisation as part of efforts to cut the sector's emissions.
It adds that the resulting revenue should be funnelled towards the $100bn Green Climate Fund in order to compensate developing countries whose own fleets might be affected by the levy.
The idea has been discussed at UN level for some time, but today's document is significant as it represents the first formal proposals on how the Green Climate Fund could be financed.
Prior to the Durban summit, experts predicted that the fund, agreed at the Copenhagen summit in 2009, might be one of the few areas of progress.
However, reports emerged last week that the US, Venezuela and Saudi Arabia have refused to accept a draft plan to establish the fund.
Green campaigners have long argued that a tax on shipping would have the dual effect of providing much needed finance at the same time as cutting carbon emissions from the sector, which is currently outside global emissions targets set by the Kyoto treaty.
Shipping is responsible for around three per cent of total global emissions, but this is expected to grow dramatically over the coming years in line with the expansion in global trade.
A report by WWF and Oxfam earlier this year calculated that a $25 per tonne tax on bunker fuel could generate $25bn a year in receipts by 2020, adding that more than $10bn of this could go to climate aid.
The shipping industry is broadly supportive of such a scheme as long as it is applied globally.
Prior to Durban, the International Chamber of Shipping joined green groups to call for countries to lay the ground for a market-based measure addressing emissions that could be in place by 2015.
Durban negotiators plan to tap shipping for $100bn climate fund - 06 Dec 2011 - News from BusinessGreen
Hmmm...
HHHMMmmmmmmmmm.....
Durban negotiators plan to tap shipping for $100bn climate fund
A tax on the shipping industry could provide finance for a fund to help poorer countries tackle climate change, according to a formal proposal published at the Durban climate summit today.
The document proposes that "financial resources" are raised through unspecified measures designed and implemented by the International Maritime Organisation as part of efforts to cut the sector's emissions.
It adds that the resulting revenue should be funnelled towards the $100bn Green Climate Fund in order to compensate developing countries whose own fleets might be affected by the levy.
The idea has been discussed at UN level for some time, but today's document is significant as it represents the first formal proposals on how the Green Climate Fund could be financed.
Prior to the Durban summit, experts predicted that the fund, agreed at the Copenhagen summit in 2009, might be one of the few areas of progress.
However, reports emerged last week that the US, Venezuela and Saudi Arabia have refused to accept a draft plan to establish the fund.
Green campaigners have long argued that a tax on shipping would have the dual effect of providing much needed finance at the same time as cutting carbon emissions from the sector, which is currently outside global emissions targets set by the Kyoto treaty.
Shipping is responsible for around three per cent of total global emissions, but this is expected to grow dramatically over the coming years in line with the expansion in global trade.
A report by WWF and Oxfam earlier this year calculated that a $25 per tonne tax on bunker fuel could generate $25bn a year in receipts by 2020, adding that more than $10bn of this could go to climate aid.
The shipping industry is broadly supportive of such a scheme as long as it is applied globally.
Prior to Durban, the International Chamber of Shipping joined green groups to call for countries to lay the ground for a market-based measure addressing emissions that could be in place by 2015.
Durban negotiators plan to tap shipping for $100bn climate fund - 06 Dec 2011 - News from BusinessGreen
-27C here this morning......Was talking to some friends last night who are spending the winter in Arizona, and they are having a winter freeze down there....Global warming Baah!
....
....
China’s climate compromise won’t woo Canada back into Kyoto: Kent
OTTAWA—Canada won’t be shifted off its anti-Kyoto stance even with a new concession that could see the world’s largest emitter, China, pledge to cut its greenhouse gases.
The Conservative government’s long-standing goal in global climate negotiations has been to replace the Kyoto Protocol with a signed deal that binds all countries with large greenhouse gas outputs to lower their emissions.
China took a huge step toward that eventual deal, on the condition that developed countries take on new commitments after 2012 under the Kyoto Protocol.
In response, Canada scoffed.
“That would not change our position,” Environment Minister Peter Kent said.
Countries are fixated this year on getting emissions pledges for a second Kyoto period because the agreement expires at the end of 2012 and a long-term successor agreement is still years away. If Kyoto lapses, so too do its rules, which govern global greenhouse gases, including requirements that force countries to maintain and publish annual registries of emissions.
Kent refused again to comment on reports that the Tories plan to file one-year’s advance notice later this month of their plans to withdraw from the Kyoto Protocol. Such a move would brand Canada as the most activist of the developed countries, including Japan and Russia, who are opposed to the Kyoto deal.
The Chinese gambit was the most significant to come forward since the annual climate meetings began last week. The other conditions attached to the country’s offer are that rich countries deliver billions of dollars to help developing nations adapt to a warming planet as well as share emerging low-carbon technologies.
But additional Kyoto commitments for the period after the original agreement expires in 2012 is “the most important issue of Durban,” said Xie Zhenua, a top Chinese climate negotiator. “I think it’s time to see who is acting in a responsible way to deal with the common challenge of human beings,” he said. “China is open in this regard.”
It may not be open in other ways, suggested Guy Saint-Jacques, Canada’s climate change ambassador and chief negotiator.
The move could be an important development in attempts to reach a longer-term climate deal that includes the world’s largest emitters, but he said Beijing has been less forthcoming behind the scenes.
“There are a number of clarifications that will be required, such as how much they intend to be transparent in reporting of their emissions. So far this year in all of the negotiating sessions they have basically refused to live by the commitments in the Cancun agreement of last year,” Saint-Jacques said.
“The devil is in the details.”
On his arrival in Durban, Peter Kent announced Canada would be putting forward $600 million this year and next in so-called fast-start financing to help poorer nations build up energy efficiency and clean energy development.
The pledge earned Canada rare plaudits from environmentalists, though they cautioned that money without political support around the negotiating table in Durban will ultimately be counterproductive.
About half of the money will be handed out as grants. The other half will be in the form of loans, which Kent said will help to leverage private sector investment and have a “multiplier effect.”
http://www.thestar.com/news/canada/...se-won-t-woo-canada-back-into-kyoto-kent?bn=1
Last edited: