Utopia Talk - Politics - UN want's uncle sam's trillion for BS

Welcome to the Utopia Forums! Register a new account
The current time is Tue May 07 16:45:25 2024

Utopia Talk / Politics / UN want's uncle sam's trillion for BS

habebe
Member Sat Apr 11 19:04:07
The U.N.'s Global Green Raw Deal
by Patrick J. Michaels

Patrick J. Michaels is senior fellow in environmental studies and author of Meltdown: The Predictable Distortion of Global Warming by Scientists, Politicians, and the Media.

Added to cato.org on April 9, 2009

This article appeared in the National Review (Online) on April 9, 2009.

PRINT PAGE CITE THIS Sans Serif Serif Share with your friends:

ShareThisDay by day, our government is taking more and more control over once-private corporations, with plenty of green strings attached. GM will be required to produce more hybrid cars that people won't buy. Employee compensation will be determined by federal fiat. "Everyone will be better off."

Not surprisingly, the United Nations has just jumped on President Obama's hybrid bandwagon, demanding yet another trillion dollars (coming mostly from you-know-who) to fund "A Global Green New Deal for Sustainable Development." Translation: The U.S. will provide funds to poorer nations so that they, too, can tell their private companies what to make, whom to employ, and how much to pay them. The U.N. wants your money pronto, by the end of next year.

The U.N.'s "deal" really amounts to drastic interference in the development of other nations that are neither recipients of nor contributors to the cool Trillion. India's Tata Motors has just unveiled a $2,000 mini-car, which could be a hit in a lot of poor countries. China's Cherry is poised for a global pounce as soon as liquidity reappears. But the U.N. proposes to spend our money fighting "automobiles, which are environmentally harmful," promoting instead a "shift to clean public transport" which they then call "clean fuel buses."

Huh? So the UN is hoping to close developing markets in poor countries to developing producers in countries a tier or two up the economic ladder, and then substitute a nonexistent technology?

Our researchers are still busy at work trying to figure out what a "clean fuel bus" is. It can't be one run on ethanol, because that takes more energy to produce than we currently get out of it. If it's run on electricity produced by solar panels, the physics become daunting. An array required to run just one bus for 100 miles per day would stretch over ten miles. And where would the energy come from at night?

Like Obama's initiatives, the U.N.'s purpose is to provide "green jobs." Nothing new here. Germany put in a similar program a few years ago, sending out an army of people otherwise employed or not employed to install solar panels. German taxpayers subsidized each of these 35,000 jobs at $170,000 apiece. Now the UN wants to do the same with your money ? all over the world.

Patrick J. Michaels is senior fellow in environmental studies and author of Meltdown: The Predictable Distortion of Global Warming by Scientists, Politicians, and the Media.

More by Patrick J. MichaelsWorse still, the "Green New Deal" wants energy subsidies from you ? called global "feed-in tariffs" ? to boost inefficient energy sources. This reverse tariff would "overcome" the "difficulty" of noncompetitive energy, providing guaranteed purchase prices to producers in developing countries for a period of 20 years. The electricity would then be sold to final consumers at a lower price.

What's the difference between a "feed-in" tariff and a real one? There isn't one. It basically says that anyone who has cheaper electricity for sale across national borders need not apply. As is the case with Obama's cap-and-trade energy taxes here in the States, the U.N. says their tax on us is "desirable on climate-related grounds."

Nothing is new here. The U.N. is hoping for more green stimulus from an already overstimulating and intrusive president, and returning more of the same: higher taxes, and technologies that won't work and that will cost a fortune.

And people wonder why the US popuation generally hates the UN, as in the earlier thread we've shown they do nothing productive really, at the cost of a few trillion dollars, when the economy is down, they really know how to kick a guy when he's hurting.

Real Fred
Member Sat Apr 11 19:13:05
Jesus Christ.

cthulhu
Member Sat Apr 11 19:13:12
if anyone really truly wanted to save the planet, they would become a pychotic murderer and join the voluntary human extinction project

www.vhemt.org

Real Fred
Member Sat Apr 11 19:17:48
"join the voluntary human extinction project"

I have actually been following their theory long before they were ever formed.

Seb
Member Sat Apr 11 19:19:02
2Our researchers are still busy at work trying to figure out what a "clean fuel bus" is. It can't be one run on ethanol, because that takes more energy to produce than we currently get out of it."

Er, no. Only if you are using corn. Try sugar cane or sugar beet.

"If it's run on electricity produced by solar panels, the physics become daunting. An array required to run just one bus for 100 miles per day would stretch over ten miles."

That's just plane wrong.

Hot Rod
Member Sat Apr 11 20:54:25

I imagine it is plain wrong too.

But, Solar Panels have their use in the grand scheme of things.

Hot Rod
Member Sat Apr 11 20:57:21

As for the OP, you can bet your bippy Obama will give them what they want.

Eikeys Ghost
Sports Mod Sat Apr 11 22:19:18
fucking hell...

we'll be in Orwell's 1984 in no time, at this pace.

habebe
Member Sat Apr 11 22:26:08
"Er, no. Only if you are using corn. Try sugar cane or sugar beet. "

Seb, ah but the "all knowing government" has deemed (in the US atleast) that Ethanol must come from corn (or atleast mostly) this is why they pay people to grow corn with subsidies and whatnot.

Coincidently, corn farmers unions/activist groups also pay money into campaigns and pledge support to certain politicians

""If it's run on electricity produced by solar panels, the physics become daunting. An array required to run just one bus for 100 miles per day would stretch over ten miles."

That's just plane wrong. "

To be honest I don't know the physics on this, and you probably would know alot more about that then I would.

However, I do know that the "greenhhouse gases" caused by man are minimal. I also know that even lare cuts in GHG's at current levels will not have any major impact,but it will cost ridiculous amounts of money. I don't see why the money couldn't be better spent on just trying to cool down the worlds glaciers directly which seems much more feasible scientifically and economically.

show deleted posts

habebe Member	Sat Apr 11 19:04:07 The U.N.'s Global Green Raw Deal by Patrick J. Michaels Patrick J. Michaels is senior fellow in environmental studies and author of Meltdown: The Predictable Distortion of Global Warming by Scientists, Politicians, and the Media. Added to cato.org on April 9, 2009 This article appeared in the National Review (Online) on April 9, 2009. PRINT PAGE CITE THIS Sans Serif Serif Share with your friends: ShareThisDay by day, our government is taking more and more control over once-private corporations, with plenty of green strings attached. GM will be required to produce more hybrid cars that people won't buy. Employee compensation will be determined by federal fiat. "Everyone will be better off." Not surprisingly, the United Nations has just jumped on President Obama's hybrid bandwagon, demanding yet another trillion dollars (coming mostly from you-know-who) to fund "A Global Green New Deal for Sustainable Development." Translation: The U.S. will provide funds to poorer nations so that they, too, can tell their private companies what to make, whom to employ, and how much to pay them. The U.N. wants your money pronto, by the end of next year. The U.N.'s "deal" really amounts to drastic interference in the development of other nations that are neither recipients of nor contributors to the cool Trillion. India's Tata Motors has just unveiled a $2,000 mini-car, which could be a hit in a lot of poor countries. China's Cherry is poised for a global pounce as soon as liquidity reappears. But the U.N. proposes to spend our money fighting "automobiles, which are environmentally harmful," promoting instead a "shift to clean public transport" which they then call "clean fuel buses." Huh? So the UN is hoping to close developing markets in poor countries to developing producers in countries a tier or two up the economic ladder, and then substitute a nonexistent technology? Our researchers are still busy at work trying to figure out what a "clean fuel bus" is. It can't be one run on ethanol, because that takes more energy to produce than we currently get out of it. If it's run on electricity produced by solar panels, the physics become daunting. An array required to run just one bus for 100 miles per day would stretch over ten miles. And where would the energy come from at night? Like Obama's initiatives, the U.N.'s purpose is to provide "green jobs." Nothing new here. Germany put in a similar program a few years ago, sending out an army of people otherwise employed or not employed to install solar panels. German taxpayers subsidized each of these 35,000 jobs at $170,000 apiece. Now the UN wants to do the same with your money ? all over the world. Patrick J. Michaels is senior fellow in environmental studies and author of Meltdown: The Predictable Distortion of Global Warming by Scientists, Politicians, and the Media. More by Patrick J. MichaelsWorse still, the "Green New Deal" wants energy subsidies from you ? called global "feed-in tariffs" ? to boost inefficient energy sources. This reverse tariff would "overcome" the "difficulty" of noncompetitive energy, providing guaranteed purchase prices to producers in developing countries for a period of 20 years. The electricity would then be sold to final consumers at a lower price. What's the difference between a "feed-in" tariff and a real one? There isn't one. It basically says that anyone who has cheaper electricity for sale across national borders need not apply. As is the case with Obama's cap-and-trade energy taxes here in the States, the U.N. says their tax on us is "desirable on climate-related grounds." Nothing is new here. The U.N. is hoping for more green stimulus from an already overstimulating and intrusive president, and returning more of the same: higher taxes, and technologies that won't work and that will cost a fortune. And people wonder why the US popuation generally hates the UN, as in the earlier thread we've shown they do nothing productive really, at the cost of a few trillion dollars, when the economy is down, they really know how to kick a guy when he's hurting.
Real Fred Member	Sat Apr 11 19:13:05 Jesus Christ.
cthulhu Member	Sat Apr 11 19:13:12 if anyone really truly wanted to save the planet, they would become a pychotic murderer and join the voluntary human extinction project www.vhemt.org
Real Fred Member	Sat Apr 11 19:17:48 "join the voluntary human extinction project" I have actually been following their theory long before they were ever formed.
Seb Member	Sat Apr 11 19:19:02 2Our researchers are still busy at work trying to figure out what a "clean fuel bus" is. It can't be one run on ethanol, because that takes more energy to produce than we currently get out of it." Er, no. Only if you are using corn. Try sugar cane or sugar beet. "If it's run on electricity produced by solar panels, the physics become daunting. An array required to run just one bus for 100 miles per day would stretch over ten miles." That's just plane wrong.
Hot Rod Member	Sat Apr 11 20:54:25 I imagine it is plain wrong too. But, Solar Panels have their use in the grand scheme of things.
Hot Rod Member	Sat Apr 11 20:57:21 As for the OP, you can bet your bippy Obama will give them what they want.
Eikeys Ghost Sports Mod	Sat Apr 11 22:19:18 fucking hell... we'll be in Orwell's 1984 in no time, at this pace.
habebe Member	Sat Apr 11 22:26:08 "Er, no. Only if you are using corn. Try sugar cane or sugar beet. " Seb, ah but the "all knowing government" has deemed (in the US atleast) that Ethanol must come from corn (or atleast mostly) this is why they pay people to grow corn with subsidies and whatnot. Coincidently, corn farmers unions/activist groups also pay money into campaigns and pledge support to certain politicians ""If it's run on electricity produced by solar panels, the physics become daunting. An array required to run just one bus for 100 miles per day would stretch over ten miles." That's just plane wrong. " To be honest I don't know the physics on this, and you probably would know alot more about that then I would. However, I do know that the "greenhhouse gases" caused by man are minimal. I also know that even lare cuts in GHG's at current levels will not have any major impact,but it will cost ridiculous amounts of money. I don't see why the money couldn't be better spent on just trying to cool down the worlds glaciers directly which seems much more feasible scientifically and economically.
	show deleted posts

Your Name:
Your Password:
Your Message: