Climate Justice Social Justice is all socialism and collectivism or redistrbution of wealth which is what carbon credits were supposed to be for . collect money from richer countries to pay to the poorer ones . Of course they will skim their portion off the top . SCAM all of it . Seems like our Geoengineers love the Idea too .( "Hi everyone."
"Some of you might be interested to hear that the latest issue of PS: Political Science and Politics vol 46, issue 1 has a symposium of short articles on climate justice, including a couple of pieces on geoengineering. "
Did you bother to read any of the linked articles on that page? I see nothing in any of them that approaches any sort of socialism or redistribution of wealth. The concepts of justice in them seem to be all about equity - eg those who do the damage should pay for it and various other concepts such as protecting the vulnerable from climate change.
Here is one of the articles - it isn't long, and I see nothing in it to support your theory - an extract from it:
If climate change mitigation is instead viewed as fundamentally
a problem of assessing shares of liability for protecting
the vulnerable against climate-related harm by reducing
current greenhouse emissions or otherwise coming to their
aid, other conceptions of justice emerge. Here, the overall focus
is on the economic costs or other burdens associated with carbon
abatement, combinedwith one of several sets of facts that
can assess liability for shares of those costs or burdens. If, for
example, one was to apply a conception of justice based in
responsibility to climate change mitigation, the focus would
be on each party’s total contributions toward the problem and
would require a further judgment concerning the role of fault
in assessing the liability of various parties. Under a strict liability
standard, each party’s cumulative and net greenhouse
emissions would determine its share of overall remedial liability,
thus focusing on its historical and current emissions
along with its land use changes or other carbon sequestration
efforts, which can affect net emissions. If a fault-based liability
standard is used, the focus would shift from causal contribution
to excusing conditions that justify subtractions from
cumulative emissions in calculating each party’s remedial liability,
on grounds that it cannot be faulted for those contributions.
Under such a standard, pre-1990 emissions might be
exempted, as occurring before governments could be expected
to adequately know the relationship between greenhouse pollution
and climate change, or those emissions associated with
the meeting of basic needs might likewise be exempted as
unavoidable and therefore faultless.
By contrast, if remedial liability is assessed according to
the differentiated capabilities of various parties, then the focus
turns away from the historical facts and ethical judgments
central to responsibility-based justice, and toward largely economic
and political facts concerning the relative capacities of
various parties. Those countries viewed as being in a position
to more easily reduce their current emissions, whether because
of the lower socialwelfare opportunity costs of diverting funds
toward climate change mitigation that can be associated with
general affluence, or on the basis of the different marginal
abatement costs that result from variable past efforts in harvesting
the “low-hanging fruit” of carbon abatement opportunities
as well as national differences in built infrastructure
and access to low-carbon energy resources or sequestration
options, would be assigned, by this standard, relatively higher
mitigation burdens. Even among burden-sharing approaches,
the features of various potentially liable parties that each
focuses on is significantly different, as would be the prescriptions
that each justice principle issues on the basis of a fixed
set of facts.
Note that this paragraph identifies 3 approaches to "justice" - responsibility, strict liability, and fault-based liability. I suggest these are not quit socialism!
I'm pretty sure the idea is to help underdeveloped economies develop without having to burn fossil fuels, which is pretty much he only way they can significantly increase their energy supply ATM, and what with "development" now being synonymous with energy use.
There's no point the "developed world" cutting back on GHG's if the developing world makes up the shortfall!
And if the "developed world" just tells the "developing world" - no, sorry, you can't have hydrocarbon fuels any more that is tantamount to mass murder through continued poor living standards over many, many years to come.
Are you in favour of artificially restricting fossil fuel access to poor countries?
If the developing world cant keep up with the rest of us thats their problem . We are not a collective society . Iv read plenty of other documents on this crap and most of it is a bunch of crooks skimming money off the top , Climate justice decided in a world court .Just another way to fleece the taxpayer out of more of their money . Global warming is the biggest conspiracy and scam . The fact that they think they can try to fix anything is even worse . I wonder how much c02 the average human exhales daily time 8 billion ? Next they will think of ways to tax our breath .
If the developing world cant keep up with the rest of us thats their problem . We are not a collective society . Iv read plenty of other documents on this crap and most of it is a bunch of crooks skimming money off the top , Climate justice decided in a world court .Just another way to fleece the taxpayer out of more of their money . Global warming is the biggest conspiracy and scam . The fact that they think they can try to fix anything is even worse . I wonder how much c02 the average human exhales daily time 8 billion ? Next they will think of ways to tax our breath .
CO2 is part of the natural life cycle of Earth, it's true. But you can have too much of a good thing. Breathing is good, but hyperventilating is bad because it knocks the oxygen transport mechanism out of balance. We don't want then to stop breathing, we just want to breath the right amount. We don't want to ban CO2, we want just the right amount.
Have you considered that you might be reading only from sources that reinforce what you already believe? Would you describe your opinion as fixed and unchangeable?
The thing is, the carbon from the CO2 we exhale ultimately comes from the atmosphere - that is, from plants that took it out of the atmosphere. It's part of the normal carbon cycle. The systems by which we obtain our food do have implications for climate change, but our respiration itself is essentially carbon-neutral.
Unfortunately, it's not just 'their' problem. Developed nations use resources from around the globe, climate change by it's nature affects the entire planet and the only way it can be mitigated with any real chance of success is by dealing with it AS a collective society. We've been a collective society for the last 20 years, arguably more.
Hi all, long term lurker, first post. Development studies, Economics & Environment undergraduate.
If the developing world cant keep up with the rest of us thats their problem . We are not a collective society . Iv read plenty of other documents on this crap and most of it is a bunch of crooks skimming money off the top , Climate justice decided in a world court .Just another way to fleece the taxpayer out of more of their money . Global warming is the biggest conspiracy and scam . The fact that they think they can try to fix anything is even worse . I wonder how much c02 the average human exhales daily time 8 billion ? Next they will think of ways to tax our breath .
I take issue with 'Global warming is the biggest conspiracy and scam' too. I thought even most climate change sceptics acknowledged it was happening, with the real disagreement on the level of anthropogenic impact.
Unfortunately, it's not just 'their' problem. Developed nations use resources from around the globe, climate change by it's nature affects the entire planet and the only way it can be mitigated with any real chance of success is by dealing with it AS a collective society. We've been a collective society for the last 20 years, arguably more.
Hi all, long term lurker, first post. Development studies, Economics & Environment undergraduate.
Even if someone is a hard-core US isolationist, there's still very real national security issues associated with climate change, both at a military level (particularly for the Navy), and politically, with the inevitable socio-economic disruption. The military takes it very seriously. There's lots of .mil (US Military sites) discussion about this:
CO2 is part of the natural life cycle of Earth, it's true. But you can have too much of a good thing. Breathing is good, but hyperventilating is bad because it knocks the oxygen transport mechanism out of balance. We don't want then to stop breathing, we just want to breath the right amount. We don't want to ban CO2, we want just the right amount.
Have you considered that you might be reading only from sources that reinforce what you already believe? Would you describe your opinion as fixed and unchangeable?
No never would my opinions be fixed or unchangable . Im sure yours is not either ? Like I said once it became political like many other issues thats where many lose trust and faith . or when it becomes all about money and taxes . I made sure i built my shop close to where I live so i dont have to commute . 2 miles in a straight line or 4 miles by car . Id prefer a bike but Florida roads old people and now texters dont make that a option . also have many giant oaks on my shops property . Im as green as it gets but I dont like to be forced either . I say plants trees lots and lots of them . If there is so much c02 they should thrive . just stick with natrual methods and convince us dont force us or tax us . Thats why their is so much push back against the movement .
No never would my opinions be fixed or unchangable . Im sure yours is not either ? Like I said once it became political like many other issues thats where many lose trust and faith . or when it becomes all about money and taxes . I made sure i built my shop close to where I live so i dont have to commute . 2 miles in a straight line or 4 miles by car . Id prefer a bike but Florida roads old people and now texters dont make that a option . also have many giant oaks on my shops property . Im as green as it gets but I dont like to be forced either . I say plants trees lots and lots of them . If there is so much c02 they should thrive . just stick with natrual methods and convince us dont force us or tax us . Thats why their is so much push back against the movement .
Yeah, emotional push-back is a problem. It's something you have to deal with in debunking. Often people argue simply because they like arguing, and if they feel insulted, of belittled, or forced in any way then they argue even more. It would be great if everyone could be neutral, but they are not, so we have to work with it. Same thing with the environmental movement. Compromise might be better than stalemate.
But lots of CO2 is not going to help your oak trees. Oak trees thrive in a particular climate, not a particular CO2 concentration. They already have plenty of CO2, but if the climate changes, then your trees may die. Here's the distribution of Live Oak in the US. They exist in the relatively small area because the local environment is right for them. If you change the environment, then everything changes. http://esp.cr.usgs.gov/data/atlas/little/
Yeah, emotional push-back is a problem. It's something you have to deal with in debunking. Often people argue simply because they like arguing, and if they feel insulted, of belittled, or forced in any way then they argue even more. It would be great if everyone could be neutral, but they are not, so we have to work with it. Same thing with the environmental movement. Compromise might be better than stalemate.
But lots of CO2 is not going to help your oak trees. Oak trees thrive in a particular climate, not a particular CO2 concentration. They already have plenty of CO2, but if the climate changes, then your trees may die. Here's the distribution of Live Oak in the US. They exist in the relatively small area because the local environment is right for them. If you change the environment, then everything changes. http://esp.cr.usgs.gov/data/atlas/little/
I think the map is a little off, based on personal observation.
The range of Quercus Virginiana is mostly confined by moisture. On moist sites here in the south, it extends to Little Rock, AR, but on drier sites westward out to West Texas, the Texas Live Oak, nearly identical but smaller at it's climax, has no problems growing. In a changing climate, one species might proliferate over another, possibly extending the range of Southern Live Oaks. I don't know why people necessarily expect an environment to remain stagnant ever-unchanging, because that isn't the way of the natural world. Change introduces diversity, it isn't necessarily bad.
Largest Live Oak, Seven Sisters Oak, Mandeville, LA est. 1200 yrs old (blink of nature's eye)
I think it's unfortunate that the very legitimate concerns over climate change are being exploited as a mechanism through which to further monetize anything and everything. 'Carbon credits' are a good example, and are being used, beyond as a sort of global taxation experiment, as an excuse to buy up and assign a very monetary 'environmental value' to massive swaths of rainforest in the third world. Now on one hand it's perhaps a good thing, as the carbon credits depend upon the forests staying forests which locals are often paid livable wages to protect, but on the other hand it's a mechanism through which the 'value' of a rainforest can be bought, sold, and bet against.
Another thing that bugs the hell out of me is Ethanol, a supposedly 'environmentally friendly' fuel, that happens to be made of the same 'products' people typically eat to live. Electric cars can stay a novelty, but turning food into fuel (while global food prices soar) is the way of the future. Brilliant.
The climate is changing, absolutely no question. If you just watch the weather from time to time, you'll notice the use of the words 'in history', usually attached to 'for the first time' or 'never before', has picked up considerably, usually in relation to heat waves, storm systems, or draught conditions. Are people an influencing factor? Quite possibly. Some say probably, some say absolutely, some say it's dumb as stumps to think otherwise.. I'll go with quite possibly. Still, I think our focus as a global community- which is more or less the state of the world now (with a few rapidly dwindling exceptions) in any economic sense, rather desperately needs to turn away from profit motivation if there's ever going to be any significant change, environmental or for people in general.
Put a frog in a pan of boiling water and it'll jump straight out, clever frog. Put a frog in cold water and slowly bring to the boil, it will boil to death, stupid frog. Which pan are you in?
The climate is changing, absolutely no question. If you just watch the weather from time to time, you'll notice the use of the words 'in history', usually attached to 'for the first time' or 'never before', has picked up considerably, usually in relation to heat waves, storm systems, or draught conditions. Are people an influencing factor? Quite possibly. Some say probably, some say absolutely, some say it's dumb as stumps to think otherwise.. I'll go with quite possibly. Still, I think our focus as a global community- which is more or less the state of the world now (with a few rapidly dwindling exceptions) in any economic sense, rather desperately needs to turn away from profit motivation if there's ever going to be any significant change, environmental or for people in general.
I would agree, except what's the alternative? People are not going to just stop, and there's no political will for change. Ideally we'd be moving towards something like the ideas laid out in Agenda 21, but that's been characterized as some kind of demonic power grab by the illuminati.
Personally I'll take what I can get in terms of carbon reduction. There are far bigger problems in the world than a carbon tax.
Here in Canada, the government signed the Copenhagen Accord in the December of 2009. This is their goal:
When Canada signed the Copenhagen Accord in December 2009, it committed to reduce its greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions to 17% below 2005 levels by 2020, establishing a target of 607 Megatonnes (Mt). This mirrors the reduction target set by the United States.
The Government of Canada's initial focus in tackling GHG emissions has been directed at the largest source of Canadian emissions through regulation of the transportation sector, as well as actions to reduce emissions from electricity generation. The Government is now turning its focus to work with partners in other key economic sectors, in particular, working with our partners in the oil and gas sector to make further progress on meeting our target.
greenhouse gas emissions in Canada will depend on a number of factors including: economic activity, population, development of energy markets and their influence on prices, technological change, consumer behaviour, and government actions.
[h=3]The report projects that Canada is one half of the way toward meeting its Copenhagen Commitment[/h]Overall, this report demonstrates that Canada is making significant progress towards meeting its 2020 target for GHG emissions. Beyond federal initiatives, provincial and territorial governments are contributing with significant action of their own under their respective jurisdictional targets. Taken together, the measures of the federal and provincial governments, combined with the efforts of consumers and businesses, are projected to have a significant impact on emissions over the coming years.
2005
2010
2015
2020
* Includes the contribution of LULUCF in 2015 and 2020.
Emissions – Assuming No Government Measures (2011)
740
718
784
850
Emissions – with Existing Government measures (2012 update)*
740
692
700
720
Table ES 1 – Canadian GHG Emissions and Government Measures (Mt CO
2
e)
Last year, Canada's GHG emissions were projected to be 850 Mt in 2020 under a scenario assuming no government measures to reduce emissions. Taking into account existing measures of federal, provincial and territorial governments, it was projected that emissions would be 785 Mt in 2020. This reduction of 65 Mt represented one quarter of the reductions needed to meet Canada's target of 607 Mt. This year, GHG emissions are now projected to be 720 Mt in 2020, as a result of all the developments outlined in this report. The gap between the initial projected business-as-usual GHG emissions in 2020 (850 Mt) and the 607 Mt target now has been closed by 130 Mt – one half of the way to meeting Canada's target. Upcoming federal policies, in particular oil and gas regulations, along with further provincial measures, will further contribute to the additional 113 Mt required for Canada to meet its commitments under the Copenhagen Accord.
Canada is aiming at to lowering their Carbon levels to the the levels of the early 90's, in a growing GDP, which I think, is pretty darn impressive, and gives me hope.
I would agree, except what's the alternative? People are not going to just stop, and there's no political will for change. Ideally we'd be moving towards something like the ideas laid out in Agenda 21, but that's been characterized as some kind of demonic power grab by the illuminati.
Personally I'll take what I can get in terms of carbon reduction. There are far bigger problems in the world than a carbon tax.
No its a power grab by the UN . We opted out now in the city of Vero Beach as well as the Indian river county and the officails from the county and the city said their biggest complaint was no one from the Seven5o group would listen to them . They had no input at all . So yes its a local power grab first then it spreads like a cancer .just like carbon credits its all about control and money .Global warming Agenda 21 National Healthcare all part of a one world government Under the UN not the Illuminate . The only thing standing in their way is the Second Admendment .
Agenda 21 is a set of voluntary guidelines, that are not actually "administered" in any way by the UN - that is to say if you choose to follow them (or any part of them) then the UN doesn't come and force you to do as you have said. And you are free to decide to drop them too if you want.
What sort of "power grab" is that??
AFAIK the 2nd amendment does not stand in the way of governments adopting sustainable development guidelines. Could you explain what you mean by that?
There is ample evidnce that it is everyone's problem if htey choose to use fossil fuels in an attempt to "keep uop"
Also of course hte longer they remain low wage low energy economies the longer companies will seek to send jobs to them - I'm pretty sure that employment is a big issue in hte USA isn't it?
What a curious statement - no - not curious - just unbelievably ignorant. Yes we are, and w always have been.
Iv read plenty of other documents on this crap and most of it is a bunch of crooks skimming money off the top , Climate justice decided in a world court .
Well what sort of court should justice be decided in?
Just another way to fleece the taxpayer out of more of their money . Global warming is the biggest conspiracy and scam . The fact that they think they can try to fix anything is even worse . I wonder how much c02 the average human exhales daily time 8 billion ? Next they will think of ways to tax our breath .
"just unbelievably ignorant" .? Really Mike you want to revert to name calling ? According to Moyra Grant, in political philosophy "collectivism" refers to any philosophy or system that puts any kind of group (such as a class, nation, race, society, state, etc.) before the individual. According to Encyclopædia Britannica, "collectivism has found varying degrees of expression in the 20th century in such movements as socialism, communism, and fascism .
Agenda 21 is a set of voluntary guidelines, that are not actually "administered" in any way by the UN - that is to say if you choose to follow them (or any part of them) then the UN doesn't come and force you to do as you have said. And you are free to decide to drop them too if you want.
What sort of "power grab" is that??
AFAIK the 2nd amendment does not stand in the way of governments adopting sustainable development guidelines. Could you explain what you mean by that?
Thats my opionion why they need a national healthcare in America . Well Ill ask my friend in the UK how long hes been sick ? He said he ready to move back to the states . Origanally from Manchester he moved back there because he is in his sixties and figured he get better healthcare ? Not the case . Deathpathways is what they call their deathpanels . Not exactly healthcare .
The National Health Service in the UK is fantastic and everyone has access to it. It isn't perfect, of course, but then nothing will ever function at 100%. It's an important institution that's taken for granted by many and I dread to think of living with an alternative such as the US system. We're proud of it for the most part, hence Boyle wanting to show it off in opening Olympics ceremony.
I honestly struggle to understand why such a system is considered so nefarious.
Put a frog in a pan of boiling water and it'll jump straight out, clever frog. Put a frog in cold water and slowly bring to the boil, it will boil to death, stupid frog. Which pan are you in?
It would make an excellent science fair experiment, but alas here in the US we have gotten so PC that school experimentation on vertebrates involving possible pain is forbidden, though they serve flesh in the lunchrooms.
Yes, it is a sore spot with me
My son's excellent attempt to clone a local endemic but endangered plant was disqualified for a prize when the culture medium became contaminated with a microorganism......
The National Health Service in the UK is fantastic and everyone has access to it. It isn't perfect, of course, but then nothing will ever function at 100%. It's an important institution that's taken for granted by many and I dread to think of living with an alternative such as the US system. We're proud of it for the most part, hence Boyle wanting to show it off in opening Olympics ceremony.
I honestly struggle to understand why such a system is considered so nefarious.
Well I have many Canadian customers (Snowbirds) and its not what I heard . Considering the population of both countries ? But Ill stop since this is off topic .
I had a conversation with a friend over the Christmas period about the differences between US/UK healthcare. After much heated discussion, and being called a liar, he still didn't understand how vastly different it is in the US, I had to show him via some basic Wiki articles to explain. As I said, it's taken for granted here.
A lot of young people in the US didn't know an alternative existed, and vice-versa outside of the US.
I think Socialism has become a filthy word in the US, and to some extent the UK too - it's appended on to anything that is even mildly associated with some form of government assistance/anti-private sector. Claims against are legitimate but labelling it Socialism almost precludes it from any sensible debate.
You have never tried to engage with anyone on anything - you simply "gish gallop" and then either refuse to explain (as you have just done) or change the topic.
If you will not, or can not, explain how it is that Agenda 21 rpresents a "UN power grab" then I have to question whether you understand what it is at all.
You have never tried to engage with anyone on anything - you simply "gish gallop" and then either refuse to explain (as you have just done) or change the topic.
If you will not, or can not, explain how it is that Agenda 21 rpresents a "UN power grab" then I have to question whether you understand what it is at all.
Like The Muslim brotherhood ? which now rules Eygpt ??? Thanks to the Obama administration ? Its becuase you want me to do your research . Im not wasting my time to go back on all the information that has lead me to my conclusions and my OPINION . as far a Agenda 21 nobody really knows but we DONT TRUST THE UN at all , http://www.businessinsider.com/agenda-21-is-the-us-on-the-verge-of-takeover-2012-5
As a Canadian, I have to say, the system works mighty fine. However, there are people who take advantage of it, and treat hospitals like they are a bloody clinic. Patients book a date, do not come, and as a result, need to be rebooked. sometimes, they will just arrive on a random day and say "I want my ---- fixed, I don't feel to good" Which results in a mix up of dates, and a single doctor running around like a madman trying to serve everybody as fast as they can. But this is mainly in Quebec, where there is a shortage of doctors (And I can't blame them, when a hockey player gets payed more than a doctor or teacher does, why in the hell would you want to stay there?)
Like The Muslim brotherhood ? which now rules Eygpt ??? Thanks to the Obama administration ? Its becuase you want me to do your research . Im not wasting my time to go back on all the information that has lead me to my conclusions and my OPINION . as far a Agenda 21 nobody really knows but we DONT TRUST THE UN at all , http://www.businessinsider.com/agenda-21-is-the-us-on-the-verge-of-takeover-2012-5
Treasure, you did it again. Why don't you trust in the UN? Have they pulled a nefarious plan to rule the world?
Your statement on the Muslim Brotherhood seems a bit odd. Everywhere the source comes from "An Egyptian magazine". Why doesn't the magazine have a name? Seems a bit suspicious to me... but again, that's off topic.
come on dude the question is simple - you said that Agenda 21 represents a "power grab by the UN" - and I asked you to explain why you think that, and how a set of voluntary guidelines is a power grab.
And you "answer" with this rant about the Moslem Brotherhood in Egypt as if it is somehow relevant
which now rules Eygpt ??? Thanks to the Obama administration ? Its becuase you want me to do your research .
Treasure, you did it again. Why don't you trust in the UN? Have they pulled a nefarious plan to rule the world?
Your statement on the Muslim Brotherhood seems a bit odd. Everywhere the source comes from "An Egyptian magazine". Why doesn't the magazine have a name? Seems a bit suspicious to me... but again, that's off topic.
Just look at some of the member of the Human rights commision . In July 2012, it was reported that Sudan and Ethiopia were nominated for a seat on the council, despite being accused by human rights organizations of grave human rights violations. The NGOUN Watch condemned the move to nominate Sudan, and pointed out that President Omar Al-Bashir of Sudan was indicted for genocide by the International Criminal Court. According to UN Watch, Sudan is virtually assured of securing the seat. A joint letter of 18 African and international civil society organizations urged foreign ministers of the African Union to reverse its endorsement of Ethiopia and Sudan for a seat, accusing them of serious human rights violations and listing examples of such violations, and stating that they shouldn't be rewarded with a seat.? I mean I could give you many more reasons but I think its pointless . Whether or not they want to rule the world is pure speculation and opinion . That doesnt mean it cant and wont happen . You can debunk the past but until the future happens you can only try to prevent it from happening .
come on dude the question is simple - you said that Agenda 21 represents a "power grab by the UN" - and I asked you to explain why you think that, and how a set of voluntary guidelines is a power grab.
And you "answer" with this rant about the Moslem Brotherhood in Egypt as if it is somehow relevant
I want you to answer the question about why you think Agenda 21 is a "power grab by the UN"
OK - that'sa choice you get to make. But it has a consequence - you have no right to expect anyone else to believe or understand you.
So no in fact no-one rally knows that is is a power grab at all - is that what you are saying?
I have no problem with people not trusting the UN - I asked you to explain your statement, and you have said you aren't going to.
33% of the United States is owned by the government local state and federal . We have over 16 trillion debt there is plenty of places to find the information http://www.crossroad.to/News/agenda-21.htm
No I was answering Clocks question why I and many dont trust the UN at all . Since Agenda 21 came from the UN ? and the Information all over Al Gores internet ,
save me some time and some fuel 
