its about growing people as “sheeple” & then just fleecing them
& in saying so
i see this as a NEW TAX ,REVENUE to pay for the countries DEFECIETS
like the gst ,speed cameras ,parking fines ,wat-have-you
ITS JUST ANOTHER COST>>TAX

WAKE UP!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

At this point I am ok with being wrong on the issue. The alternative is too terrible to contemplate.

I think that we have to allow the world’s leaders to formulate a plan. I have read the other posters here who feel that the leaders can’t get that done, but that excessively negative point of view will never achieve anything. It is far too defeatist for my liking.

Take care..

Quite apart from the offensive paternalism being implied by what the govt is doing at the moment, you have to start worrying about what is up their sleeves. As an indication, I will paste in here the latest post on this by Bolt, but if you click on the link, it will give you more links and references that you can check up on.
http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/andrewbolt/index.php/heraldsun/comments/this_reckless_spending_must_stop1/

“This reckless spending must stop
Andrew Bolt – Sunday, December 13, 09 (09:05 am)
Exactly how much of our money is Kevin Rudd shipping off to the United Nations, to pass on as a bribe to countries such as China?

Answer? He won’t tell you:

AUSTRALIA faces having to make a hefty payout to help developing countries such as China and India cope with climate change in order to clinch a deal in Copenhagen. ..

“There are a range of figures flying around,” Senator Wong said. “(British Prime Minister) Gordon Brown has proposed a $100 billion mix of public and private money. We have not indicated a figure but we have indicated we’re prepared to do our fair share.”

Same story two weeks ago at the Commonwealth Heads of Government Meeting, where Rudd also promised away our cash for support for his global warming plans:

The Commonwealth plan for the so-called “Fast Start” fund calls for developed countries in the 53-nation group to spend $10 billion a year until at least 2012.

And again Rudd wouldn’t come clean on what he’d given away:

He decline(d) to put a figure on the funding, saying it was still to be determined.

And, wait, there’s more:

Prime Minister Kevin Rudd has previously backed a separate $US10 billion climate fund in talks with US President Barack Obama and Mr Brown.

How many billions of your money will be sent overseas by Kevin Rudd in his crazed crusade to “stop” a warming that seems to have stopped already? “

Besides, the proposal is clearly not designed to ensure reduced emissions and pollution we shoud clean up, but collect big money for the privilege to pollute. There is a difference. A big difference.

And, finally, the argument that we should be willing to do something if everybody else will agree to do the same thing is hardly the most appropriate way to arrive at our own decision. Just because some crackpot sells enough purists on the virtues of being teetotallers,
and then seeks to enforce a general prohibition on all alcohol, it does not mean that it would be a sensible thing to agree to a prohibition. And, that, even in a case where science is pretty much uncontroversial about the pros and cons of the effects of drinking on health.

I have largely stayed out of the climate change debate here and on other blogs, partly because I don’t know 100% either way, but I suspect that Sayce and others here are really in the same boat but would rather not admit that.

I do have some faith in the climate change science, but I also know that many will be trying to build their empire on the theory. That always happens.

The catch for me is that I would rather be wrong and take some action against pollution, than be wrong by NOT taking action. If the theory is correct the downside will be catastrophic. A human starts experiencing organ failure at 45 degrees centrigade, if he/she can’t cool their body with the evaporation of perspiration, cooling breezes etc. Summer temperatures in Melbourne and Adelaide are close to that at peak now, not to mention many inland centres, so a few degrees extra will kill people in our communities. Humans are not machines.

It will also reduce food production significantly, at a time when we are ever more dependant on that for a growing global population.
No food = war.

Hence my Easter Island quip. Although the islanders were wiped out by smallpox in the end, that just sped up the process, it didn’t change the outcome.

If the worst case scenario means that the world spends large sums of money on cleaner air, then I’m ok with that as long as each country spends an equitable amount. As with any new concept, I really expect them to get the initial strategies wrong, and then fine tune them later. I think that phase is unavoidable.

cb I know that you and the others have an entirely different view, but that is mine. Best of Luck……

So how come the resident geniuses in Canberra can run up a huge future debt, with more to come, and keep on trading?