Is Global Warming about Global Warming?

[JonS]

I don't know

That much is clear. It's no excuse though.

[JonS]

I'm also sorry you beat me to the sig.

In the true spirit of anarcho syndcalist collectivism, I am than happy to share this sig with my esteemed Comrade Dave H. From each according to their ability, to each according to their needs, and the global collectivist government will surely triumph.

Of course, once the revolution is complete everyone will have to use this sig anyway, so you may as well get in now.

BTW, I'm contemplating adding a [sic] to the end of the sig. What do you think?

[costard]

I don't get it (no news there) - "revolution" means "Comes full circle." How is it that it also means "lasting change"?

[JonS]

I think the root is revolt, rather than revolve

[Michael Emrys]

The Buddhists sometimes speak of enlightenment as a "turning around in the seat of consciousness". That would seem to embrace both meanings of the word 'revolution'.

Michael

[Tero]

I think the root is revolt, rather than revolve

Not according to

http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?search=revolution&searchmode=none

revolution 1390, originally of celestial bodies, from O.Fr. revolution, from L.L. revolutionem (nom. revolutio) "a revolving," from L. revolutus, pp. of revolvere "turn, roll back" (see revolve). General sense of "instance of great change in affairs" is recorded from c.1450. Political meaning first recorded 1600, derived from French, and was especially applied to the expulsion of the Stuart dynasty under James II in 1688 and transfer of sovereignty to William and Mary. Revolutionary as a noun is first attested 1850, from the adjective. Revolutionize "to change a thing completely and fundamentally" is first recorded 1799

[ASL Veteran]

I know that some of you are still laughing about the new collectivist ‘world government’ that is headed our way, but that well known conspiracy organ called “The Washington Times” has gone ahead and looked over the climate change treaty for us. For those who don’t like to click on links and favor pontificating rather than looking I have decided to go ahead and place the text of the article in the body of my post and add appropriate bolding. Fortunately for us here in America this treaty would be DOA at the senate even if Obama signs it. I’m not sure what international treaty mechanisms apply to other countries though so you guys may be screwed.

http://washingtontimes.com/news/2009/oct/27/green-world-government/#

Tuesday, October 27, 2009

EDITORIAL: Green world government

THE WASHINGTON TIMES

Environmental alarmism is being exploited to chip away at national sovereignty. The latest threat to American liberties may be found in the innocuous sounding Copenhagen Climate Treaty, which will be discussed at the United Nations climate-change conference in mid-December. The alert was sounded on the treaty in a talk given by British commentator Lord Christopher Monckton at Bethel College in St. Paul, Minn., on Oct. 14. Video of the talk has become an Internet sensation.

The treaty's text is not yet finalized but its principles are aimed at regulating all economic activity in the name of climate security, with a side effect that billions of dollars would be transferred from productive countries to the unproductive.

The control lever is the regulation of carbon emissions, which some purport are causing global warming. The treaty would establish a Carbon Market Regulatory Agency and "global carbon budget" for each country.

In effect, this would allow the treaty's governing bodies to limit manufacturing, transportation, travel, agriculture, mining, energy production and anything else that emits carbon - like breathing.

Treaty supporters market the agreement through fear. Even though mean global temperatures have been on a downward spiral for several years after peaking in 1998, we are told that catastrophe is imminent. "The world has already crossed the threshold beyond which it is no longer possible to avoid negative impacts of anthropogenic climate change," says proposed treaty language being circulated by Greenpeace, the World Wildlife Fund and other groups. It is critical that they cultivate a sense of impending doom to justify the sweeping restrictions and new powers enshrined in the treaty. The sky is falling and they want us to act now, act swiftly, act before it is too late - but don't read the fine print.

The governing authority envisioned by the document reads like a bad George Orwell knockoff. The treaty establishes a body called the Conference of the Parties (COP), which is given ultimate authority over administering and enforcing the treaty. Its executive arm is something called the Adaptation Fund Board, under which is the Copenhagen Climate Facility, also known as "the Facility." The Facility is necessary because in order to save the planet, "the way society is structured will need to change fundamentally." This change would be impossible under the "fragmented set of existing institutions," so the Facility will step in with "such legal capacity as is necessary for the exercise of its functions and the protection of its interests." That's the Facility's interests, not yours.

The Facility will be run by an executive committee, the membership of which "may include representation from relevant intergovernmental and non-governmental stakeholders." So left-wing pressure groups, animal rights fanatics, tree-huggers, Al Gore or any other part of the environmentalist fringe would be eligible for executive committee membership. Naturally, global-warming skeptics like Lord Monckton need not apply.

A "massive scaling up of financial resources" will be required to fund the COP's activities. The United States and others will be required to transfer $800 billion over five years, with additional funding requirements assessed on an as-needed basis. The COP will have taxing authority "including, but not limited to, a levy on aviation and maritime transport." The ability to tax aircraft and shipping is bad enough, but as careful readers of the elastic clauses of the U.S. Constitution know, the phrase "including but not limited to" authorizes any tax they can imagine.

Signatories of the treaty will be required to file reports to the Committee for Reporting and Review ("the Committee"), and if found not in compliance with the treaty's terms, they may have to face "the Facilitative Branch." If this branch finds that a country is violating the terms of the agreement, it will "undertake the measures necessary" to bring the country back into compliance.

The treaty language would be farcical but for the fanaticism of its proponents. The environmental movement is driven by a millenarian determination to save humanity from itself, regardless of its impact on real people. President Obama reportedly will skip the Copenhagen meeting unless the treaty language is finalized. We urge him to resist the urge to pander to the international community at the expense of the United States.

We look forward to headlines about record cold temperatures during the December climate summit, and to hearing desperate speeches about stopping irresistible global warming during the signing ceremony, held during a blizzard.

[costard]

It's not much more than the establishment of another bureaucracy - like we need another hole to throw money into.

If the treaty doesn't mention the establishment of an executive arm to enforce the laws, it's nothing more than hot air. I'd like to see the inclusion of a chapter dealing with the levying of an international para-military force to ensure that the Facility's wishes are adhered to. The funding and command structure discussions should make for interesting reading.

[Stalins Organ]

All international treaties limiting anything "chip away" at national sovereignty.

It's not rocket science that when you agree t olimit carbon output, or join the IMF or whatever, then yuo are agreeing to abide by conditions imposed thereby...so what?

The worst cases of "chipping away" at national soveriegnty in recent times (say since WW2) come from those well known collectivist organisations the IMF and the World Bank that have screwed over many small and impoverished states with conditions imposed on loans to "ensure free markets" and similar one-world-government socialist objectives......

oh...hang on......

[dieseltaylor]

Nice one Stalin : )

[costard]

Indeed.

[Tero]

Could it be that for the Americuns the "chipping away" threatens their way of life. Ie gas-gussling big cars AND price of 1,3$/per liter instead of gallon. In addition to the fact that they would be forced to take orders from others instead of being in the position to dictate them.

[Affentitten]

All international treaties limiting anything "chip away" at national sovereignty.

My dear old friend is quite correct. But it depends if you're holding to a staunch realist theoretical line, where the state is paramount and any lessening of sovereignty is perceived as a weakness. The classic zero sum game. If you're a liberal theorist, you would recognise that you give something up to reap something better. The best example being the EU, which has seen a constant lessening of member state sovereignty for the sake of greater economic power and stability.

Those states that have remained mainly aloof from any of these international institutions usually don't benefit much from their "Mine, all mine!" approach to sovereignty. Not much fun living in North Korea, really. Even to a lesser extent, when the USA ran off in a huff from the ICJ over the Nicaragua case, they then lost their resort to that court in their own international disputes.

[costard]

Tero, anyone believing that the US will take orders from anyone else is not cognisant of anything relating to reality as it is experienced by anyone else living on this planet.

The sad truth is that the gas-guzzling way of life and the profit margins being generated by way of easy access to cheap oil are on their way out anyway - it will suit some people to complain that this is someone's fault (mostly Americans, funnily enough, but also anyone else who is going to lose real wealth).

The carbon trading scham is merely a way of spending taxation largess that, five years ago, was being touted as likely to continue for ever with a never ending boom in the market. With the funding gone, and funding for the basics of government likely to be somewhat scarce over the next ten to fifteen years (no more wars guys, we can't afford them), this idea of a new bureaucracy with global reach will die. Give it another six months for the reality of the money situation to sink in - the policy makers will only be two years behind reality, a bit better than par.

[Tero]

By costard

anyone believing that the US will take orders from anyone else is not cognisant of anything relating to reality as it is experienced by anyone else living on this planet.

That is rather my point.

The sad truth is that the gas-guzzling way of life and the profit margins being generated by way of easy access to cheap oil are on their way out anyway - it will suit some people to complain that this is someone's fault (mostly Americans, funnily enough, but also anyone else who is going to lose real wealth).

The carbon trading scham is merely a way of spending taxation largess that, five years ago, was being touted as likely to continue for ever with a never ending boom in the market.

The result has been more sinister than that, at least here in Finland. Due to that trade the consumer price of electricity has been inflated because the companies calculate their cost on the basis of coal (and not other sources) while AFAIK no coal-using powerplant has been fired up in the last 5 years (at least). That way they have traded most of their carbon quota AND charged the customers top Euro.

(no more wars guys, we can't afford them),

WE can't afford them but the multi-national corporations can.

this idea of a new bureaucracy with global reach will die.

Only to be rearranged as a privately run business.

Give it another six months for the reality of the money situation to sink in - the policy makers will only be two years behind reality, a bit better than par.

By that point they will start printing more money and/or selling public services to the private sector at an increased rate.

[costard]

That pricing structure by the power companies has to have government collusion factored in - are we looking at a decay of the Eurozone as the population realises they've been sold a pup? Tero, tax-farming has never benn held in high regard by any populace subjected to it: you'd conclude that only history challenged legislators would consider it. Having said that, the morons in charge over here in Australia re-introduced it about ten years ago, setting up a private company with legislative protection (for it's monopoly) to collect speeding fines from the populace for the gummint. So reliable has the income been that the Victorian State Government has had a $500 million shortfall (that's a hell of a lot of money from a population of 3 million, particularly if its all profit) this year when the populace decided that speeding past fixed (and inadequately camouflaged) cameras makes no sense.

There's a growing trend of tax payers around the world getting dirty on their bureaucracies - California had a pretty public meltdown earlier this year when it's populace gave the finger to it's elected representatives. For economies like the UK, a lack of tax revenue is a disaster - too much of the workforce is paid for by taxation. I cannot see the political will to cut public sector wages in an effort to maintain jobs (in most developed economies the wages haven't increased over the last decade anyway - except for the highly skilled policy makers and leadership clique): one alternative is to print enough money in order to effect the same result. And so, the price of commodities increases and inflation with it. This in a time of wage freezes and increasing unemployment.

[Stalins Organ]

In htese parts there's currently planed to be a multi-billion dollar subsidy of "big business" by the taxpayer for the next score of years or so - NZ is (as I understand it...) committed to paying for carbon in some way shape or form, but we are only going to slowly phase in requiermetns for industries to pay their way ....so until they get to 100% the rest of the bill will be picked up by the taxpayer.

I can't see that as socialism at work!

[ASL Veteran]

I just wanted to toss a little more chum into the waters in here. Take this article about what Lord Stern recently said about the new climate change ‘deal’

Lord Stern, the author of the influential 2006 Stern Review on the cost of tackling global warming, said that a successful deal at the Climate Change Conference in Copenhagen in December would lead to soaring costs for meat and other foods that generate large quantities of greenhouse gases.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/environment/article6891362.ece

So I guess that anyone who is in favor of a global collectivist government in which you have no vote or representation should probably put “Salad eating” in front of that because the government is going to be ‘encouraging’ you to go vegetarian if you haven’t already. It’s to save the planet of course. You know, sacrafices have to be made.

It also looks like Gordon Brown is doing his best to lead the ‘wealth transfer’ charge. How does a payment of 100 billion Euros per year sound?

European heads of state will formally recommend this week that rich countries should hand over around €100bn (£90bn) a year to nations such as India and Vietnam by 2020 to help them cope with the impact of global warming. The pledge is expected to come at the end of a two-day summit of European leaders on Thursday and Friday, and before negotiations on a new climate treaty in Copenhagen in December.

The move marks a victory in Brussels for the UK and Gordon Brown, who appears to have won arguments with member states including Germany over whether Europe should commit to climate funding ahead of the Copenhagen talks. Brown was the first western leader to put hard figures on the table when he said in a speech earlier this year that rich countries needed to provide $100bn (£61bn) a year by 2020.

A draft copy of the European summit's conclusions obtained by the Guardian spells out that a "deal on financing will be a central part of an agreement in Copenhagen" and that Europe is ready to "take on its resulting fair share of total international public finance".

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2009/oct/27/europe-climate-change-deal-pledge

Mark Steyn has an interesting article about the Climate Change Treaty.

“We all too often mistake the nature of those negotiations in Copenhagen,” remarked professor Flannery. “We think of them as being concerned with some sort of environmental treaty. That is far from the case. The negotiations now ongoing toward the Copenhagen agreement are in effect diplomacy at the most profound global level. They deal with every aspect of our life and they will influence every aspect of our life, our economy, our society.”

http://www2.macleans.ca/2009/10/29/gullible-eager-beaver-planet-savers/

Steyn then goes on to discuss that aspect of the treaty in his own entertaining style.

As a bonus non Global Warming item I heard that Blair made it official government policy to encourage mass immigration according to an aide

Andrew Neather said the mass influx of migrant workers seen in recent years was not the result of a mistake or miscalculation but rather a policy the party preferred not to reveal to its core voters.

http://news.sky.com/skynews/Home/Politics/Ex-Government-Adviser-Andrew-Neather-Says-Mass-Immigration-To-UK-Was-Deliberate/Article/200910415414170?lpos=Politics_Second_Home_Page_Article_Teaser_Region_7

You may want to read up on this particular strategy of the left known as the “Cloward Piven strategy”. I’m uncertain that it applies to the mass immigration thing, but it is a recognized strategy of the left to overwhelm the government welfare system in order to collapse the state. The details can be found here although you should be able to find plenty of other articles on that if you search for it.

First proposed in 1966 and named after Columbia University sociologists Richard Andrew Cloward and Frances Fox Piven, the "Cloward-Piven Strategy" seeks to hasten the fall of capitalism by overloading the government bureaucracy with a flood of impossible demands, thus pushing society into crisis and economic collapse.

http://www.discoverthenetworks.org/groupProfile.asp?grpid=6967

[costard]

Mmmm, nice chum.

Quote:

“We all too often mistake the nature of those negotiations in Copenhagen,” remarked professor Flannery. “We think of them as being concerned with some sort of environmental treaty. That is far from the case. The negotiations now ongoing toward the Copenhagen agreement are in effect diplomacy at the most profound global level. They deal with every aspect of our life and they will influence every aspect of our life, our economy, our society.”

So we have a bunch of pollies getting together around a table, telling stories about how they have been incapable of effecting any sort of change or competent management, but from now on they will be the instigators of profound, planet saving change. Yep, sounds like politicians to me.

This highlights the problem with any conspiracy theory - they require the finding of a group of like-minded human beings, who are capable and intelligent and willing to work together. The odds against this are big enough to make the likelyhood of a successful conspiracy somewhat less than the odds of my winning the lottery tomoroow.

[Stalins Organ]

You may want to read up on this particular strategy of the left known as the “Cloward Piven strategy”. I’m uncertain that it applies to the mass immigration thing, but it is a recognized strategy of the left to overwhelm the government welfare system in order to collapse the state. The details can be found here although you should be able to find plenty of other articles on that if you search for it.

As opposed to Fascist strategies?

sooner or later I'm going to stop yawning at al these "revelations"...perhaps when something actually surprising is posted?

Heck - we've known for decades that the world produces more food than is actually needed even without GE.......you'd think that actual people, actually starving to death, would be a conspiracy more worthy of investigation than perhaps being told to eat more salad at some undefined time in the future.

There's sure some screwed priorities here....

[ASL Veteran]

An interesting response Stalin’s Organist. A good nibble on the chum … lol. From how I’m interpreting your post (feel free to correct me) if given a choice between tackling world hunger (the collective) and maintaining your individual freedom you would choose tackling world hunger over maintaining your individual freedom. However, there is also the hint there that you don’t feel that your individual freedom is actually under threat so it’s really no choice at all. Incidentally I don’t feel that I’m posting any revelations ….. it’s all right out there for anyone to see, it just depends on how individuals interpret what they see and what meaning they ascribe to it.

So, let’s start with this part of your post first

Heck - we've known for decades that the world produces more food than is actually needed even without GE.......you'd think that actual people, actually starving to death, would be a conspiracy more worthy of investigation than perhaps being told to eat more salad at some undefined time in the future.

There's sure some screwed priorities here....

Let’s just start with the premise that nobody wants to see another person starve to death and not act to prevent it if it’s possible. Here is an article from the CATO institute which should be on point http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=8206 I will use quotation marks as opposed to quote boxes to distinguish what you are posting with what I am quoting from the article.

“Around the globe between 1990 and 2003, the amount of land given over to agricultural uses increased less than 2 percent, even though population growth increased 20 percent. Chronic hunger in developing countries declined to 17 percent from 37 percent between 1970 and 2001, despite an 83 percent increase in population. These improvements, largely due to greater agricultural productivity, increased food production per capita, helping to drive down global food prices by about 75 percent since 1950. As a result, access to food increased worldwide, despite increasing demand from a wealthier and more populated world.”

This seems to track with what you are saying in your post. The article then goes on to say this though

“Global warming hysteria - a boon for the ethanol and other biofuel enterprises - has boosted demand for crop-based fuels worldwide. This now threatens to reverse a half century of gains not only against world hunger, but also in holding the line against conversion of undeveloped land.”

You seem to be saying that we shouldn’t be worried about eating salad when the “Climate Change Treaty” is agreed to but that we should be worried about world hunger instead. Isn’t it fair to say though that you are basically talking about two sides of the same coin? In other words, what is being put forward as a choice between the ‘collective’ and the ‘individual’ is really no choice at all. It’s a ‘non choice’ not because of political ideology (which I will address in a moment) but because in this case you can keep your individual freedom and solve world hunger at the same time by rejecting government interference in the ‘capitalist’ free markets. If governments didn’t mandate and subsidize biofuels then there would be very little demand for it. Eliminate government interference then the biofuel issue evaporates and your world hunger problem is alleviated.

As opposed to Fascist strategies?

sooner or later I'm going to stop yawning at al these "revelations"...perhaps when something actually surprising is posted?

After reading the first half of my response I hope that you can see that I view this bit to be irrelevant and actually makes me yawn lol. However, it too is worthy of a response because it hints at the lense you view my posts through. Let me start by saying that Fascism and Communism are basically birds of a feather to me rather than polar opposites. As far as I’m concerned they are basically interchangeable so when you say “as opposed to Fascist strategies” what you are describing as polar opposites is viewed by me as mostly undifferentiated therefore your comparison makes no sense through my lense.

http://www.americanthinker.com/2009/09/rethinking_the_political_spect.html

“There is something nonsensical about a political spectrum that spans the range between tyranny and ... tyranny. If one end of the spectrum is the home of tyranny, then shouldn't the opposite end of the spectrum be the home of liberty, tyranny's opposite?”

Or rather, I would modify that a bit and put ‘Anarchy’ at the extreme right of the political spectrum and total state control at the extreme left of the spectrum. The question remains though. Would you rather choose what you eat from what’s available to you on the free market, or would you rather have someone else restrict your choices through government intervention?

[Stalins Organ]

ASL I believe we have vastly more freedom now than compared to, say 1776 - even then the free-est people had to work an awful lot harder than we do in order to live a life that we would consider dirty and difficult.

sure they could wander off to the frontier and be beyond any influence of "big government"....but they had better make sure they got on well with the local indians, shot enough deer in summer to live through winter, and watch 50% of their children die before they reached 5 years of age.

So no, I don't consider that my freedom, or yours, is under threat.

However I belive that you believe that yours is.......and you are prepared to fight for it. And I think that is quite sad.

You talk about having a "free market" to choose from - but you ignore the fact that the market is grossly distorted - the value of maintaining a habitable planet is not reflected in the prices we pay.

If you were truely a proponent of a free market then you would be railing against he subsidy that every person on the planet pays the oil industry in terms of how much it will cost to keep the planet happily habitable if we keep pumping carbon into the atmosphere.

you would rail against the inflated prices you pay for US built goods because if trade barriers and agricultural subsidies.

but you do not.

As far as I can see some previous posters have it right - you are not in favour of a free market at all - you are in favour of maintaining your lifestlye as cheaply as possible regardless of how it screws the market, and to hell with the rest of the world.

That's how I see "it".

As for dictatorships - as long as you and others insist that global warming is somehow a socialist plot it is you who is maintaining the terminology, not me.

[ASL Veteran]

ASL I believe we have vastly more freedom now than compared to, say 1776 - even then the free-est people had to work an awful lot harder than we do in order to live a life that we would consider dirty and difficult.

sure they could wander off to the frontier and be beyond any influence of "big government"....but they had better make sure they got on well with the local indians, shot enough deer in summer to live through winter, and watch 50% of their children die before they reached 5 years of age.

So no, I don't consider that my freedom, or yours, is under threat.

However I belive that you believe that yours is.......and you are prepared to fight for it. And I think that is quite sad.

I wouldn’t say that I am feeling an immediate threat but that I am guarded and alert. Depending upon how someone defines freedom I guess the levels of freedom we have today as compared to the past could be debated for quite a while. Each society has to have some form of restriction or set of laws placed upon the citizenry in order to have an ordered society. Unlike many though I have a definition of my rights and liberties as spelled out in the Constitution so that’s really my guideline for what individual freedom entails. I would like to simply say that ‘big government’ with regards to the US is an invention of the 20th century. Prior to that I think the view of Americans towards government was probably summed up best by George Washington here

“Government is not reason, it is not eloquence, it is force; like fire, a troublesome servant and a fearful master. Never for a moment should it be left to irresponsible action.”

George Washington

First president of US (1732 - 1799)

As far as what I’ll fight for I’ll just let Thomas Jefferson guide my actions. Rather than feel sad or ashamed of my principles I am proud of them.

“In matters of style, swim with the current; in matters of principle, stand like a rock.”

Thomas Jefferson

3rd president of US (1743 - 1826)

You talk about having a "free market" to choose from - but you ignore the fact that the market is grossly distorted - the value of maintaining a habitable planet is not reflected in the prices we pay.

If you were truely a proponent of a free market then you would be railing against he subsidy that every person on the planet pays the oil industry in terms of how much it will cost to keep the planet happily habitable if we keep pumping carbon into the atmosphere.

I’m not sure that I understand what you are saying here, or that it actually makes economic sense. Maybe you could expand on that a little – and try to be specific.

you would rail against the inflated prices you pay for US built goods because if trade barriers and agricultural subsidies.

but you do not.

Here in the US it’s primarily Labor Unions who apply political pressure in order to erect trade barriers on goods and they are the ones primarily pushing the green agenda. They don’t want those US jobs going to foreigners. I don’t like agricultural subsidies either so no disagreement there. The farm lobby is pretty powerful though so those subsidies probably aren’t going away any time soon.

As far as I can see some previous posters have it right - you are not in favour of a free market at all - you are in favour of maintaining your lifestlye as cheaply as possible regardless of how it screws the market, and to hell with the rest of the world.

That's how I see "it".

I’ll grant you that there aren’t very many totally and completely ‘free markets’ in this world due to taxes and government regulation of various stripes, but I’m not exactly certain that’s what you are referring to here. I think I’ll hold off on this one until you can further clarify this for me.

As for dictatorships - as long as you and others insist that global warming is somehow a socialist plot it is you who is maintaining the terminology, not me.

Whether global warming is a fabrication by Communists in order to push their agenda or if it’s just concerned citizens who are worried about the planet will have to be judged by each of us individually. Either way, by necessity, there is a price to be paid in terms of personal freedom in order to ‘save the planet’ from global warming. It’s not just me who says that – the environmentalists who are negotiating the current treaty are saying that. Why? Because everything we do is about the environment. Do you have a dog or a cat Stalin’s Organist? You may want to read this so you can keep up with the latest in staying Green:

http://spectator.org/archives/2009/11/03/gang-green-going-to-the-dogs

“According to authors of a new book, Time to Eat the Dog: The Real Guide to Sustainable Living, it takes 0.84 hectares of land to keep a medium-sized dog fed.

Bad as cars are alleged to be for global warming, that single dog is about twice the environmental burden of a Toyota Land Cruiser, according to New Zealand writers Brenda and Robert Vale, husband-wife professors at Victoria University, specialists in sustainable architecture and co-authors of Time to Eat the Dog.

The Vales recommend that our pets be "usefully recycled" either by us eating them or turning them into pet food when they expire.

"A lot of people worry about having SUVs but they don't worry about having Alsatians and what we are saying is, well, maybe you should be because the environmental impact is comparable," explains Brenda Vale.”

You can find that book on Amazon here http://www.amazon.co.uk/Time-Eat-Dog-Sustainable-Living/dp/0500287902

If global warming is a fraud then you are paying a price for absolutely no reason. If global warming is real then you are still paying the same price in terms of a loss of personal freedom, it’s just that each of us has to evaluate whether the price we pay is appropriate to the cause. If you were to choose to live in a cave and eat berries for the rest of your life in order to reduce your carbon footprint then more power to you. If I choose not to because I feel the cost in personal freedom is too high, then who are you to tell me otherwise?

"The only freedom which deserves the name is that of pursuing our own good in our own way, so long as we do not attempt to deprive others of theirs, or impede their efforts to obtain it. Each is the proper guardian of his own health, whether bodily, or mental or spiritual. Mankind are greater gainers by suffering each other to live as seems good to themselves, than by compelling each to live as seems good to the rest."

John Stuart Mill, On Liberty, 1859

English economist & philosopher (1806 - 1873)

"An honest man can feel no pleasure in the exercise of power over his fellow citizens."

Thomas Jefferson, letter to John Melish, January 13, 1813

3rd president of US (1743 - 1826)

[Battlefront.com]

Either way, by necessity, there is a price to be paid in terms of personal freedom in order to ‘save the planet’ from global warming.

And there is a price to be paid in terms of personal freedom in order to "exploit the planet" for the good of a few at the expense of the many. If you've ever known a loved one who has suffered from cancer caused by environmental pollution you may not be so quick to put your life into the hands of corporations.

And I'm a Capitalist Pig and I want to be regulated. Just fairly. The Greens aren't the ones I'm worried about on that score.

Just a thought to close up this thread.

Steve