Stealing our money to "tackle" climate change

SLUSK

Swedish Prime Minister Fredrik Reinfeldt has announced that the European Union's member states have agreed to give €7.2 billion ($10.6 billion, 75.3 billion kronor) to help developing nations tackle climate change.
http://www.thelocal.se/23798/20091211/

What they are saying is that they are stealing tax payers money and giving it to someone else like polititiancs always do.

If they were serious about reducing greenhouse gas emissions they would immediately stop all subsidies for agriculture within the EU. As you all know agriculture produces lots of greenhouse gas emissions. Do you think they will do that? No way, instead they steal our money and give it to third world countries and let dictators pocket our tax money.

old_aussie

China and India are developing nations, send the money to them

They are laughing at the west as China and India spew out millons of tons of carbon and pollution.

Not to mention the money India spends on their Nuclear Weapons program, Aircraft Carriers, Space program etc you get the picture.

Ireland should actually be subsidised! Im serious. We stand to benefit from warming through longer growing seasons as do many other countries. Why should WE be taxed to prevent something that will benefit us. :mad:

walshb

It's just racket after racket after racket.

I personally am sick to the teeth of Africa this and Africa that.

The problem with Africa is other nations interfering with it all the freaking time.
Ireland are committing 100 million to this scheme. Where is the money
coming from? The Current overseas budget, or maybe all the money they
are cutting from US, they are shipping abroad?

c4cat

SLUSK wrote: »

Swedish Prime Minister Fredrik Reinfeldt has announced that the European Union's member states have agreed to give €7.2 billion ($10.6 billion, 75.3 billion kronor) to help developing nations tackle climate change.
http://www.thelocal.se/23798/20091211/

What they are saying is that they are stealing tax payers money and giving it to someone else like polititiancs always do.

If they were serious about reducing greenhouse gas emissions they would immediately stop all subsidies for agriculture within the EU. As you all know agriculture produces lots of greenhouse gas emissions. Do you think they will do that? No way, instead they steal our money and give it to third world countries and let dictators pocket our tax money.

What is the government going to do with the carbon tax they imposed in the 2010 budget?? Plant trees to offset carbon emissions??? no pay for a scrappage system to finance new cars....yes to produce more carbon to make more cars.....so instead of calling it an increase in fuel duty it became a carbon tax instead

c4cat

c4cat wrote: »

Plant trees to offset carbon emissions???

Careful now!!

deforestation has a net cooling influence on Earth’s climate, because the warming carbon-cycle effects of deforestation
are overwhelmed by the net cooling associated with changes in albedo and evapotranspiration

PNAS_Deforestation_4-9-07.pdf

Macha

SLUSK wrote: »

What they are saying is that they are stealing tax payers money and giving it to someone else like polititiancs always do.

How are they stealing? And do you consider all overseas development aid to be "stealing"?

SLUSK wrote: »

If they were serious about reducing greenhouse gas emissions they would immediately stop all subsidies for agriculture within the EU. As you all know agriculture produces lots of greenhouse gas emissions. Do you think they will do that? No way, instead they steal our money and give it to third world countries and let dictators pocket our tax money.

And how exactly would the reduction of subsidies to agriculture work so well in reducing GHG emissions? And why do you think that your comment generally linking the "third world" with dictators is justified?

old_aussie wrote: »

They are laughing at the west as China and India spew out millons of tons of carbon and pollution.

Per capita, China and India are miles behind us.

Deleted User wrote: »

Not to mention the money India spends on their Nuclear Weapons program, Aircraft Carriers, Space program etc you get the picture.

What does that have to do with it?

Deleted User wrote: »

Ireland should actually be subsidised! Im serious. We stand to benefit from warming through longer growing seasons as do many other countries. Why should WE be taxed to prevent something that will benefit us. :mad:

[mod]Do not turn this into a discussion on how climate change "benefits" Ireland".[/mod]. A claim that Ireland, a country with one of the highest per capita ghg emission rates and a history of silly subsidies from the EU, in some way merits MORE subsidies? I don't know whether to laugh or cry.

walshb wrote: »

The problem with Africa is other nations interfering with it all the freaking time.

That is a gross simplification of the incredibly complex problems that exist in developing nations. To argue that us simply washing our hands is the best solution ignores these complexities.

walshb wrote: »

Ireland are committing 100 million to this scheme. Where is the money
coming from? The Current overseas budget, or maybe all the money they
are cutting from US, they are shipping abroad?

Even in the best of times, there's always someone willing to argue that we shouldn't give any money away. Overseas Aid is a paltry nod to the recognition that we have far higher living standards that other countries (and perhaps even a hint of acceptance that the very same system that we benefit from plays a role in keeping them down).

c4cat wrote: »

What is the government going to do with the carbon tax they imposed in the 2010 budget?? Plant trees to offset carbon emissions??? no pay for a scrappage system to finance new cars....yes to produce more carbon to make more cars.....so instead of calling it an increase in fuel duty it became a carbon tax instead

€50m is being used to help those at risk of fuel poverty
€130 million allocated for energy efficiency measures

That's almost half of the expected income. As for the rest? Talk to the Dept of Finance: just like any other Dept of Finance in the world, they hate hypothecated taxes. Shocking? Not really.

Deleted User wrote: »

PNAS_Deforestation_4-9-07.pdf

blindjustice, you've been around long enough to know the charter of this forum. Please provide your opinion on the link. And again, do NOT turn this thread into a discussion of how allegedly wonderful climate change is.

taconnol

taconnol wrote: »

What does that have to do with it?

It has everything to do with it. The title of the thread is: " stealing our money to "tackle" climate change". India is currently in receipt of aid yet it priorites are such things as ICBMs and spaceships. We are in effect subsidising these extravagances and any such fund for climate change will be the very same.

taconnol wrote: »

A claim that Ireland, a country with one of the highest per capita ghg emission rates and a history of silly subsidies from the EU, in some way merits MORE subsidies? I don't know whether to laugh or cry.

Well it is silly, I agree with you there, however its merely an extension of the logic behind sending funds to India and China i.e a total waste of time without more fundamental change.

taconnol wrote: »

blindjustice, you've been around long enough to know the charter of this forum. Please provide your opinion on the link. And again, do NOT turn this thread into a discussion of how allegedly wonderful climate change is

I did comment on the link! and I did not try to turn it into a discussion on the pros or cons of climate change based on my link! My comment was "careful now". I don`t think you got the humour. Your loss :P :pac::pac::pac:

Macha

Deleted User wrote: »

It has everything to do with it. The title of the thread is: " stealing our money to "tackle" climate change". India is currently in receipt of aid yet it priorites are such things as ICBMs and spaceships. We are in effect subsidising these extravagances and any such fund for climate change will be the very same.

So you believe that we get to decide the budget and spending of any country we give aid to?

Deleted User wrote: »

Well it is silly, I agree with you there, however its merely an extension of the logic behind sending funds to India and China i.e a total waste of time without more fundamental change.

No, it is a part of the change. If we want to encourage developing countries to embrace low carbon technologies and transform to low carbon economies, we will have to help them fund it - it takes money and investment.

Deleted User wrote: »

I did comment on the link! and I did not try to turn it into a discussion on the pros or cons of climate change based on my link! My comment was "careful now". I don`t think you got the humour. Your loss :P :pac::pac::pac:

No in-thread discussion of modding. Don't try my patience.

taconnol

taconnol wrote: »

So you believe that we get to decide the budget and spending of any country we give aid to?

EU structural aid to Ireland was highly successful and was aid that could be described as "with strings attached". I suggest we do the very same. In fact what you write here:

taconnol wrote: »

If we want to encourage developing countries to embrace low carbon technologies and transform to low carbon economies, we will have to help them fund it - it takes money and investment.

Thats what you attach the strings to ^^ as well as demanding they quit spending money on nuclear weapons and such. Otherwise we ARE subsidising it.

Mozart1986

taconnol wrote: »

So you believe that we get to decide the budget and spending of any country we give aid to?

blindjustice may or may not. But western governments certainly do. Thats why they make them sign unfair trade agreements. When the west has reduced their culture/social structures/economy to ashes, so the people require aid to survive, which means they become dependant, which means that should the leaders not accept the aid they will be over-thrown, which means they must sign away their profitable resources (e.g. Angolan/Sudanese/Scottish:p oil), etc...

Aid is just colonialism in a new popular form. Geldoff's aid funded and prolonged a massive civil that killed 10 times the amount of people that were kept alive by the food. Aid is the bane of the developing world. I wouldn't call taxes "theft", although I can understand the reason behind using the term. There have been many examples in the past of theft with a benevolent face put on it.

Mozart1986

Mozart1986 wrote: »

Thats why they make them sign unfair trade agreements.

That right there is why I disagree with carbon trading. The first world will simply buy up the rights to pollute putting the third world at a massive disadvantage.

Mozart1986

Deleted User wrote: »

That right there is why I disagree with carbon trading. The first world will simply buy up the rights to pollute putting the third world at a massive disadvantage.

Thats the way it is! This is all colonialism, but they've managed to rap up it up in "Green" blanket. Sure those other leaked e-mails from Copenhagen said explicitly that the major economies would prevent the developing economies from reaching a certain level of carbon emissions. But that level was way below the level that the big nations were ever willing to go. Its disgusting the way they are trying to prevent Brazil, for example, from using their off-shore oil, while we keep guzzling (still planning my tyre-burning party - get in touch if you're interested;)). Oil is the difference between success and failure for these countries. Its a bloody disgrace:mad:.

BTW, I have a wind-turbine, solar panels, three compost heaps, I grow a rake of veggies every year, I shop local and try to get local produce when i can, etc... I'm far more green than all the green-talkers. I know plenty of greenies who are just interested in the idea and not the practice. They'll have some gimic goin' every once in a while just for the image, and they'll be very vocal about not eating meat. But really its all an image. Being green is a typically middle-class thing, whereby they make a show and present a green image so they feel pious about condemning others who don't have the same luxuries as them. Its easy to give 100euro to charity if you have an income of 10,000euro per week. But if you only make 200euro a week, would you enjoy being forced to give up 50euro of that? I think not.

Beware carbon credits. Banks and financial institutions are trading in these peaces of paper. They might collapse in value if carbon is shown to have little or no effect. I consider that a scary prospect given our last run on property. That shows how easy it is for people to live in la-la land only to be hit square in the face by reality down the line, especially if you're as emotionally invested as greenies are.