Last week President Obama addressed the group meeting in Copenhagen on Climate Change debate. President Obama challenged the group, "So the question before us is no longer the nature of the challenge – the question is our capacity to meet it." I disagree with Obama on the nature of our challenge as recent studies on CO2 effects are not as the climate change group believes it to be. The recent study on Aspen trees displayed positive effects on tree growth and Dr. Park noted that the oceans with adequate forestation and biomass are absorbing excess CO2. To me it appears that Mother Earth is doing was she always does; finds balance. Now, this does not mean that we are not absolved from making it easier on Mother Earth.
Deforestation trends needs to be reversed. President Obama continued his apology tour when he said, "As the world's largest economy and the world's second-larger emitter, America bears our share of responsibility in addressing climate change, and we intend to meet that responsibility." Does that responsibility mean raiding our coffers in giving developing countries $100 billion? If the Obama is serious about America doing our part then let's do it. We are not responsible for developing countries nor are we obligated. That being said, let's focus internally and implement a new energy policy where nuclear power is front and center. President Obama alluded that "changing the way that we produce and use energy is essential to America's economic future – that it will create millions of new jobs, power new industry, keep us competitive and spark new innovation." While Obama is correct that the "green" push will create new industry and innovation it will only replace current energy jobs at a rate of 1 to 2. On the surface moving toward solar and wind power will create new jobs, it will result in a net loss as per a recent report from King Juan Carlos University (http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=newsarchive&sid=a2PHwqAs7BS0).
The result of Obama showing up in Copenhagen cost Americans $10 billion a year pledge to assist developing countries and a non-binding agreement among countries to reduce carbon emissions. Last week I brought up the point that humans contribute, personally, more than the total fossil fuel burned on an annual basis. Since humans exhale more CO2 collectively than fossil fuels then why on Earth would we want to help developing countries as the more industry a country obtains the larger the population required to run it. People who peddle climate change say that Earth is on an unsustainable path to a reducing food supply and drought. Okay, so again, why do we, as Americans, want to assist developing nations? Increasing the world's population will only place more burdens on our food and water supply. Or is there a moral obligation on the part of America? I do applaud President Obama for going to Copenhagen and not turning over the keys though.
Again...a vast majority of the rhetoric on this blog comes from unfounded claims. Is it really necessary to debate you when what you claim has factual inaccuracies?
ReplyDeleteWhen you use loaded questions, circular reasoning, and logic of questionable validity on these blogs, then what's the point of debating you?
Until you get your facts right, there is no point in even going further.
Thanks for the open-minded discussion
Please enlighten me as to where I hav ein accurate facts?
ReplyDelete*have inaccurate facts?
ReplyDeleteOK...lets start with your recent study on Aspen trees displaying positive effects on tree growth.
ReplyDeleteDid you read the article as an anti-climate change piece? Or was it just pointing out the fact that global climate change has thrown the balance of CO2 absorbtion out of whack?
Or your Dr. Park article about biomass absorbing excess CO2. "To me it appears that Mother Earth is doing was she always does; finds balance." You got that after reading 2 articles? Scientists go through years of data to write articles like that.
And..."Since humans exhale more CO2 collectively than fossil fuels"...Incorrect. There is no published data on such a claim. And if there was what point would it make? None. We still have excess buildup of CO2 in our atmosphere with overwhelming data to back up that it is man-made.
Viper, I'm not trying to be insulting or disrespectful. But you've been reminded by others on here that your opinions and your facts tends to blur.
Different Anon. A few quick things. One, why label this as an apology tour. You even seem to be in favor of reducing our impact by using nuclear power. All he did was acknowledge that we are the largest economy and second largest contributor and we need to do our part. Even if C02 isn't that bad, in your opinion, it probably isn't good. Just because trees adapt, doesn't mean that adaptation is good. We don't know the long term impact so why not reduce what we contribute and be safe. I don't see how he's apologizing.
ReplyDeleteI see a possible different outcome to helping other countries. First, yeah, I see a moral obligation to help people both domestically and internationally have a standard of living that doesn't involve drinking and bathing in water that has raw sewage in it. Where kids aren't starving to death. Yes, I grant that you could easily say that people need to be responsible for their actions and shouldn't bring kids into that situation and all sorts of other things. That's not reality, at least in my opinion. I also think helping developing countries helps to create stable governments. Now, I don't have anything to back it up, but I feel if you give people a chance to earn a decent living they'll be less likely to want to blow us up. It's overly simplistic, I know, but I see some value in helping to develop countries and to help ensure a workable form of government. It doesn't have to be our model, but sustainable.
Finally, I think the more we help countries develop and educate and empower their populations, they and us will continue to develop new technologies and methods that will allow us to do more with less as far as our food and water supply goes. Sort of how through space exploration we have developed technologies we use to improve our lives here.
And if it is only a moral obligation, what's wrong with that? If the positions were reversed, and you were in a 3rd world country, what would you hope for? Let's be honest, 10 billion a year isn't that much compared to a 3 trillion dollar budget. If we can spend 800 billion a year in defense spending to bomb some of these places to oblivion, maybe we can toss a few jinglies to help them improve.
Curious as to your thoughts.
cmh
Anon that feels my facts and opinions are blurred.
ReplyDeleteAgain you do not point out where my facts I stated or my conclusions from the articles referenced are wrong. The Aspen study showed positive growth due to an increase in CO2 levels while acknowledging that future growth was not guaranteed. As for Dr. Park's study, he said that in areas that lacked adequate biomass and forestation that oceans struggle to absorb the increase in CO2 levels but in areas with adequate biomass and forestation the oceans are absorbing CO2.
I agree that science go through years of data and is a reason why we need to look at the root causes of "manmade" climate change. Then I did produce a Government study that backs up the assertion that humans exhale more CO2 than fossil fuels. So please, again provide data to refute my claims. Just because I use my brain to interpret the data provided to draw conclusions that blurs the line of fact and opinion? Really? If so, then offer counter points supported with data and without opinion.
The purpose of my creating this blog was for me to start the ball rolling and then for others to interact with factual arguments. At times we get there and other times the conversation gets bogged down in the messenger. Not every post reflects my true feelings on a topic; rather I recognize that certain angles need to be stated to invoke conversation. And for that I appreciate all those that read and comment.
Anon (CMH)
ReplyDeleteHow does money given to 3rd World countries create stable governments? For decades we have given African countries billions of dollars for humanitarian needs, not including the charitable arm, and we still see evidence of abuse in areas like Dafur, Somalia, and Ethiopia.
$10 Billion is still a large amount of money especially when we are just printing more money to provide for the $3T budget. I just got my copy of "End The Fed" by Ron Paul. Ron Paul points out that, "The good and services you could buy for $1.00 in 1913 now cost nearly $21.00. Another way to look at this is from the perspective of the purchasing power of the dollar itself. It has fallen to less than $0.05 of its 1913 value"(p.25).
My point is our moral obligation to building up America more or less than other countries? Or has the push for global governance blurred the lines of sovernty?
Sure, we still see evidence of abuse. I don't disagree. But I can only imagine what would be going on if there wasn't a humanitarian presence. These aren't situations where we can see results in a few years. It takes generations to change attitudes and beliefs and to create stability. I'm not willing to throw my hands up in the air and say it's not working because atrocities still go on. To me, that's more of a reason to continue the aid. Over time, change can be made.
ReplyDeleteWe'll just have to agree to disagree on whether 10 billion is a large amount relative to other things.
I don't see a push for global governance. Global cooperation, yes, but not governance. In my opinion the Bush Administration put us on a path of isolation, if anything.
I don't view helping others as resulting in harm to Americans. I think over the long run that by helping others we help ourselves, too.
Regardless, going back to a question that was previously asked, what would you like the US to do if the situation was reversed and you were living in a developing country?
Don't get me wrong, humanitarians efforts create good will. Where I raise concern is when we plan to spend $10 billion that it could be money better spent in America to build up our infrastructure to meet the global demands against the Industrialized world.
ReplyDeleteThe group meeting in Copenhagen agreed on one thing; the need to punished the Industrialized World and namely the United States. When Secretary Clinton said that the United States would earmark $10 billion a year, money we don't have by the way, to assist impoverished countries to improve their countries those in Copenhagen said thank you but you need to give more. Not only that, they said that more money is needed and without restriction to its use.
Arguments are made that drought and famine are the plight of many in Africa. If that is so, then the rise in sea levels ought to help that, the melting of the polar ice caps ought to help that by providing a new source of water. The lack of irrigation, biomass, and forestation are leading the drought and famine.
As for the Bush Admin, while he did a number of things that I question, he did a lot of good for Africa. The AIDS program has been meet with global praise. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/northamerica/usa/2262217/Analysis-How-George-W-Bush-became-an-African-hero.html And Bush quadrupled the sum of money in direct aid to Africe from 700 million lbs that Clinton last offered. I am not sure what the conversation rate is to dollars. But do we see that data in our America media? No.
At what risk do we allow our economy to be put at risk? Congress just approved a raising of the debt ceiling to unprecendant heights. Geitner has been quoted that the IMF is thinking of removing the dollar as the world currency standard to which he responded favorably towards. The Chinese can only sit idle and purchase our debt for so long. I plan to take time over the next couple of days to finish Ron Pauls book "End the Fed". From what I have been told it is a great read and a very accurate portrait of the Fed.
I agree that humanitarian efforts are a good moral hazard to have. Just raise concerns to the extent of damage it will inflict upon our country thus the world. People say that the US emargo has hurt Cuba even thought Cuba can trade with every other country in the world. And other countries rely on our consumption for their goods as well. So if our economy falters or is articially prompted up, how will that change the dynamics of global economies and cooperation?
And if I lived in a developing country, I'd do everything I could to position myself in a manner that enabled me to come to America and learn. Then I'd go back to my country and teach those in my community. I would lobby charitable groups to assist my community as well.
This is absolutely offensive and disguesting: "Arguments are made that drought and famine are the plight of many in Africa. If that is so, then the rise in sea levels ought to help that, the melting of the polar ice caps ought to help that by providing a new source of water. The lack of irrigation, biomass, and forestation are leading the drought and famine"
ReplyDeleteYou don't think people in developing countries would kill for an opporunity to come here? It's not quite that easy when you live in a shanty with no running water or power and are starving. How unbelieveably pompous and conceited.
You've lost me.
Good day.
Anon - Do you disagree that the lack of irrigation, biomass, and forestation are not leading indicators of drought and famine in Africa? How is that offensive or disgusting to assert that?
ReplyDeleteI do agree that people want to come to the United States which is evident by the number of illegal immigrants. I do not see how making sure the American economoy continues to thrive is pompous or conceited. Especially when the rest of the world relies upon us for protection, consumption, and charity.
Instead of giving up, offer up points to move the conversation forward.
A Different Anon: I'll take a wild guess here, but I believe a previous anon commenter may have been disgusted and offended by the following statement of "the Ardent Viper" which alluded to the possible benefits of global warming for the continent of Africa: "Arguments are made that drought and famine are the plight of many in Africa. If that is so, then the rise in sea levels ought to help that, the melting of the polar ice caps ought to help that by providing a new source of water."
ReplyDeleteAlternatively, it may have been this statement by "The Ardent Viper" responding to the question about what he would do if the tables were turned and he were living in a third world country: "I'd do everything I could to position myself in a manner that enabled me to come to America and learn. Then I'd go back to my country and teach those in my community."
Both of these statement are preposterous, offensive, disgusting and display a complete lack of perspective, intelligence and respect for humankind.
Regarding the first quote. I cannot even imagine the gall that someone must have to suggest that global warming would be a boon for the continent of Africa by providing it with a new source of water. This statement strains credulity and would seem to be definitive proof of how truly ignorant The Ardent Viper is in his writings.
Regarding the second quote. Again, it is mind boggling to read something like that. Do you honestly believe that a person in Africa who hasn't eaten in days or doesn't know when they'll eat next and is perhaps infected with any number of diseases that have been completely eradicated in the U.S. would sit and muse about how they could get to the U.S.? I fully realize that people emigrate to the U.S. from Africa. However, your oversimplification of what someone in Africa needs to do is offensive.
And finally, to address your childish comment at the end of your last comment, I'll speak for the other anon even though I don't know them, and ask: why would anyone possibly try to "move the conversation forward" with a person like you who is so obviously flawed not only in your thinking but also in your deepest beliefs about our moral obligations towards other human beings?
Different Anon:
ReplyDeleteIn my first comment, I tried to shed light on a situation that people claim is so dire. I understand that Africa is plagued with famine, war, tyrants, and genocide. I also understand that not everyone in Africa is going to have the luxury to find a way to the United States to learn the skills needed to teach those in their community advanced logic, philosophy, economics, and humanity.
I understand that their day is beset with survival and things like school, clothing, shelter, and clean drinking water is a luxury. Because I bring a different perspective to the conversation then yours that makes me preposterous, offensive, disgusting and lack perspective, intelligence and respect for humankind?
Every attempt made by the Ardent Viper to explain a theoritical position, it is met with "Where is your data to support it". Then when the Ardent Viper provides data it is discounted, even when it is from a government source - i.e. The CO2 levels that humans exhale compared to fossil fuels. Both references used were government studies.
I was asked what I would do if I were someone in Africa. What is wrong with me gaining the education and returning to my homeland to educate those in my community? How is that not displaying respect for humankind? The trouble with our system now is that we have a printing press that enables the United States to attempt to be all for everyone. If our money was based on something, anything, we'd not have the money to throw around.
The Central Banks have enabled our society to become drunk and it is that intoxication those that control the Central Banks want to keep us in because they know the hangover is going to devastating. But I digress.
I have a great respect for humankind but I recognize when tough choices are required. Unfortunately some cannot stomach the tough language that is needed to enact the tough choices. Just look at what is going on in Congress. Obama campaigned on transparency.
Why then are backroom deals being made? Why does PHARMA, AMA, AARP, and Insurance companies get a private meeting with the President? Where is the transparency in that? Let's discuss the topics openly, honestly, and in a respectful manner. When someone states a false then call them on it and back it up with the truth. That is what I mean by moving the conversation forward.
Perhaps being a Gnostic I view things differently then the traditional religous or atheist might. Why not find common ground and work from there?