Apparently China and the UN are now defining human beings in terms of "tons of CO2 emissions." See the following excerpt from China Daily (December 15, 2009).
As a result of the family planning policy, China has seen 400 million fewer births, which has resulted in 18 million fewer tons of CO2 emissions a year, Zhao said. The UN report projected that if the global population would remain 8 billion by the year 2050 instead of a little more than 9 billion according to medium-growth scenario, "it might result in 1 billion to 2 billion fewer tons of carbon emissions."
In other words, if we could just eliminate enough pre-born babies, or as they do in China, eliminate by needle in the brain more born but unlicensed babies, then we could stem the tide of global warming and save the planet. But what kind of cold and unfeeling planet would it be for those who survive this holocaust to live in!
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
19 comments:
It's amazing how someone can take an article that talks about Chinese population control, which is nothing but propoganda on how China is doing their part in battling CO2 and then take a sentence from a 70 page UN report and make it all sound so dastardly.
Tom, I'm not making this sound dastardly; it is dastardly. There are those in the UN and China who have no problem seeing the world as a place to be micro-managed by those who are intelligent enough to understand the relative value of human life. This has been the argument of the eugenics movement for over a century now, that we must save mankind by eliminating certain elements of the population. To me this is cold and calculating, and frankly, I don't like being around people who are so callous about their fellow members of the human family.
Yes, and then how much less CO2 could we achieve by eliminating all those farting cows? No more evil hamburgers, folks. Of course, don't the trees take in CO2 and emit oxygen? We can't give up trees, can we? Aren't the (communist) Chinese the ones who send all the people (involuntarily) out into the streets with brooms whenever it snows? That's the kind of standard of living we need here, you Obama supporters.
It's as I always say: Socialism kills. That's the only way it can function. These climate change fanatics are religious zealots; only they don't believe in God. They believe in "the earth," and they think they are supreme.
Hey Dave,
I did not mean your interpretation. You want to believe there is some eugenic conspiracy going on, so be it. What I meant was whoever wrote the article you cited, decided to merge a China population/carbon policy with one sentence out of a UN report to come up with implying the UN would be just as happy to reduce carbon emissions via population control as any other means. That's not what the report is about or says. The only reason the Chinese said what they said was their attempt to show that they reduce carbon by population control. Well duh, that does not make their policy valid. It just shows they have no intent to reduce coal/oil use, etc. No one can argue that fewer people would mean less greenhouse gas, but I have not heard anyone come out and say that is the way to tackle the problem. Who in the UN is espousing eugenics?
Brian, When Obama takes away my snow shovel or my neighbors gasoline powered snow blower, I will be right there with you. And by the way.....I don't buy all the doomsday crap on climate change either.
All:
Let me commend to you a book that had a lasting impact on me; it's long out of p[rint but maybe you can track it down on Amazon. It's called "The bridge," by D. Keith Mano. It was written in 1973 - and I read it at around that time, understanding even then that i was seeing a prescient and true glimpse of the future. For indeed, even in 1973, just two years after the inception of earth Day, it was clear where the logic of environmentalism would ultimately lead. mano wrote The Bridge as an exposition of that logic.
here's a website that talks about the Bridge in today's context:
http://hadleyblog.blogspot.com/2007/09/crossing-bridge.html
And, as we say nowadays, best wishes for the season. (After all, even the phrase "happy holidays" offends because of the unfortunate derivation of the word "holiday.")
I was listening to your alls buddy el Rushbo on the way home from work. He was saying that it snowed in Copenhagen and them at the very least implied that this shows global warming does not exist. Looking at weather.com it seems December is one of Copenhagen's more precipitious months during the winter. See, this is where conservatives go wrong for any kind of climate debate. It's winter time (darn close anyway) and it snows in a Scandinavia country that usually does not get a lot of snow, therefore how can you say we have global warming. I have no desire to debate anyone on man made climate change. It is truly not something on my radar, but the logic used by Rush is so flawed to anything I have read on the subject it would be like a believer saying record high temps in Australia spring show there is global warming.
Tom, I think you just entered the debate. Rush's point is that Denmark has relatively mild winters because of ocean currents. Consequently, it is a delicious irony that God would send a snowstorm to the very place where these global warming alarmists (whose activities you don't wish to know about) are congregating. As Rush said, "God has a sense of humor." Do you believe in God, Tom? And do you have a sense of humor? And why do you listen to Rush?
btw, it snowed in Australia recently, and it's spring or summere there. Check it; it was in the news.
Yes Denmark has a rather mild winter, but they do have winter and they do average 9 days in winter where it rains or snows. A 2 week summit and they have some snow, hardly that unusual I would say. Do I believe god sent that weather? No more than Rush believes it.
I have continually maintained that I, unlike you, listen to both sides. As for what this summit is planning.....if there was some nefarious eugenic talk going on, I would think I would hear that on FNC.
By the wya, Rush doesn't stay on very long. He is too full of crap for me to stomach for long.
How virtuous of you, Tom, to listen to both sides! How "moderate." As for myself, I know what the other side is: communism, socialism, control of everyone's life, aggrandizement of government, etc., etc., etc. The other side has always been thus. Consequently, it would be rather a waste of time for me to listen to Air America or its clones: Charlie ("good 'ol Charlie") Gibson, Katie (as if she, too, is my good 'ol pal) Kouric, and Brian (former Carter shill) Williams. As for you, who don't know--or won't admit--what you believe, you must invest more of your time to figure out (though you always seem to come around to the leftists') which position to favor (except, of course, for those issues you don't care about, like "global warming"). It's all so much easier when you have principles, at least that you'll admit to.
Such a pity I don't have the time or desire to listen to Katie, Charlie, or Brian. Such a pity for you that you can read a book by Jonah Goldberg and actually believe every word he writes is accurate, true, and has no spin at all to it.
Are you not thrilled that health care is falling apart in the Senate? Typical dems, can never agree on anything. To bad republicans are not more like the dems and maybe we would not have doubled the debt under Bush.
Keep your heard buried Brian. It makes for good debate. :)
Well, then, to whom do you listen, oh sage (besides Rush and Fox News)? What books do you read? How do you evaluate the authors' contentions? What is your political philosophy? And what exactly is your position in the "good debate"? Other than ad hominem remarks about Rush, you've essentially disavowed any position on "climate change," though I have to presume you'll be happy to pony up the increased taxes and prices that will result from the "tax & kill" scheme.
Climate change opinion is I believe something is happening at the poles. Ice is melting. Why? Is it CO2 not allowing the reflected heat off the ice to escape outside of our atmosphere, or is a natural climatic cycle or sun cycle? Or, is there some other yet to be figured out reason? I don't think all the science is in yet to make a proper decision. NASAlauched a satellite that might have opened some new doors, but unfortunately it fell into the Pacific ocean. Another one is on its way but that's still a few yards down the road. I doubt you trust NASA since they are part of our commie government, but that's up to you. Until it is, I am not in favor of any cap and trade policy by the USA. I am in favor of some kind of government intervention to persuade energy companies to begin working on renewable energy sources, especially for generating electricity. Pollutants are not good regardless of the climate change debate and I just don't think businesses are willing to invest in true renewable sources without government persuasion of some kind. They are sitting fat and happy at the current status quo. There has to be a carrot to dangle in front of them, I am just not sure what it is yet.
It's a great goal to rid ourselves of fossil fuels, but it won't happen in my lifetime or my kids lifetime. The "libs" who think it is are the far left loonies that few pay attention to other than the far right loonies. solve the Seaford NH problem and I am all for nuclear power. Should gov. help with financing nuclear and renewables? I think you guys feel it is not the govs responsibility or constitutional authority. Point me to a company willing to spend their own money to create new energy sources.
You seem to think I enjoy paying taxes. I don't know anyone who enjoys that yearly exercise other than H&R Block. Taxes in our society are a necessary evil. I pay the effective rate of 13 per cent of my income in federal taxes every year. The effective rate for corporations is 19 per cent after all the loopholes and other breaks they get. Warren Buffet pays 15%. I am not sure how fair that is, but that is the way it is today.
Let me ask you a question. If Bush had said he wanted to increase taxes to pay for his 2 wars via a tax surcharge or some similar means of income tax would you have complained? Instead Bush said go shopping and let the chinese finance our wars. I would have gladly paid the tax to go kick Osama's ass.
By the way, if I watch the news on tv, it is the fox news hour at 6PM.
Tom, you've actually demonstrated a modicum of reasonableness here. The problem is that the federal government doesn't typically use the technique of "persuasion" with industries, like the energy industry and "Big Oil," which it makes a living out of demonizing. The government's typical method of "persuasion" is to use force. A less onerous means of persuasion would be tax incentives; but there comes a point at which shelling out taxpayer dollars for methods of producing energy that have no chance of becoming profitable is wasteful and wrong. If the underpinnings of "global warming" are false, then the whole atmosphere of fear of the evil "fossil fuels" is also false. God put those fossil fuels on the earth, and they are remarkably efficient. There is no reason not to use them to their maximum effect. Necessity is the mother of invention. When there is some proof that we are "running out of oil," science and the private sector will respond, as they always have.
In my opinion, all Americans who pay taxes, and that includes American corporations, are overtaxed. This is the direct result of the government's insistence on maintaining a welfare state, and now, with the advent of Obama, on redistributing wealth to people who didn't earn it. There should no such thing as "corporate taxes." A corporation exists to make a profit for shareholders. When those shareholders earn money on their investments, they pay taxes. To then tax "the corporation," and at an exhorbitant rate, is unjustifiable.
I support both wars, which are merely parts of the war on terror, which, I'm sorry to say, will never end. (I have not, however, always supported the ways in which these wars have been prosecuted.) If Bush had made the proposal you posit, I'd have told him not to do a prescription drug benefit and to eliminate wasteful, immoral, unnecessary social welfare spending.
Tax incentives or credits might work. Might even work for health care to a degree. The problem has been for the past 8 years especially, is that these tax credits get handed out with no cut in spending to make up for it. Republicans just seem to be content to just borrow the money. As Cheney said, deficits don't matter, Reagan showed us that. The drug benefit package that Bush did, I understand HHS intentionally lied to congress on its cost. Crap like that makes it seem like whoever is in power you fight a losing battle.
The difference between me and you Brian, is that I have gone ahead and accepted that certain social programs are here to stay. There is a need for at least some of them despite what you may think. Absolutely they are abused and cost savings can be realized. Medicare is a good example. Need I say the scooter store :). Now the dems are ready to tackle that and all of a sudden the republicans love medicare. Gotta love it and laugh.
I keep telling you I am not a flaming lib. I just am pragmatic.
One thing to always think about concerning climate change; what if the science is right? My brother Herb sent me a url on a good video that addressed that question, but I no longer have it.
Since Bill won't say it, I will. Merry Christmas, guys!!!!!!
Republicans believed in some borrowing, excessive to be sure. The communists under Obama are simply "printing" money. (I guess that way you don't have to worry about debt, huh?)
You're wrong about Medicare. The socialist commu-crats aren't "tackling" it; it was a switcheroo: they needed to cut Medicare in order to pay for Obama-Don't-Care, which itself is just a replacement for Medicare. You must watch the bouncing ball.
If I adopted your outlook on entitlement, I would concede that all is lost. And it might well be. However, you seem to believe the welfare state has some legitimacy; I do not.
On "climate change," when you say "science," you mean the Algore "science." I ask you: What if the science which refutes the Algore "science" is true?
By all means, Merry Christmas and a Capitalist New Year!
I always thought corporations were formed to act as a separate entity to protect the owners from certain liabilities. Like you sue GE for breaking laws, to Immelt himself or the share holders. Now you tell me they exist solely to make profits for their investors/shareholders/owners I assume via the dividend. The dvidend I thought was the carrot to get investors to invest in your corporate enterprise. What if the corporation does not pay a dividend? Your basically saying Google that makes money hand over fist and pays no dividend should also not pay any taxes?
I know you dont want regulation. You're fine with rivers catching on fire and stuff like that, but to allow Google to make billions and pay no tax? WOW.
Limited liability is indeed a benefit to the corporate form of organization. However, with respect to a "C" corporation, I doubt that many people would invest if they did not expect to receive a return on their investment. I affirm my original point: the corporation's business is to make a profit for the shareholders. In a widely held corporation, it is perfectly appropriate that the shareholders, in their individual rights, be shielded from liability for the corporation's wrongful acts. This is part of the deal in allowing the great aggregations of capital that the corporate form facilitates.
As I'm sure you know, the sharholders elect the board of directors, who choose the officers of the corporation. Thus, a corporation is a democracy. If a company were making money hand-over-fist and not declaring any dividend, I expect the shareholders would revolt. This could affect the share price. People could unload their shares. All kinds of things could happen. The corporation itself could collapse, and that would not be in anybody's interest. I'm sure the investors who were in on the ground floor when Google took off are quite satisfied. As for how some hypothetical corporation behaves, unless I'm an owner, I couldn't care less. The example you cite is rather absurd. Where is all the money going in your example? They're making money hand-over-fist. Who is benefitting? If it's not the shareholders, then your hypothetical corporation is in trouble.
Your example is a typical straw man or bogey man that guess who would construct? A LIBERAL! Liberals hate and envy corporations (which, by the way, are legal fictions. There's no big bad wolf, Tom). You have swallowed the leftist propaganda whole. That is my diagnosis. My prescription: Listen to the Rush Limbaugh program until the symptoms subside. If symptoms persist, tune into Mark Levin.
Finally, you have ignored my fact relating to your hypothetical corporation: If the corporation is profiting, the shareholders will also. When they do, they pay taxes. And that should be enough for any legitimate government. The corporation itself is a fiction; it exists to facilitate the aggregation of capital and produce profits for the investors. And I have some more news for you: This legal fiction has NO "SOCIAL RESPONSIBILITY." Your view of corporations was concocted by the socialist FDR in the 1930s because he needed somebody else to raid for taxes to pay for his socialist utopia. It might even go further back, to the progressives of the late 19th and early 20th centuries.
You have just received an education that students at the top schools are paying thousands of dollars for, if they can even get it.
So we just allow business to burn the Cuyahoga river, poor phospherous into our waterways, bury carcinogens in neighborhoods, cut down trees and not replant all for the good of our society.
Sounds like a plan to me.
What are you smoking? Did you even read what I said? You need to organize your mind. Read back over your comments to Dave's post, and tell me how your wild contradictions make any sense whatsoever. It's funny how a guy who's not a liberal has a textbook "knee-jerk" response, as if a doctor were hitting under his knee with a rubber hammer.
Post a Comment