It was about control as well as New Age religion and socialist redistribution. Unfortunately for those who want power, there are outposts of freedom like the United States (its people, at least) who put the brakes on this puppy before it was whelped.

This was a farce, and to describe it as anything less is a lie. Even our left-wing media couldn’t work up a good narrative for the charade, which was the total madness in the end.

The Copenhagen failure was this year’s Christmas present for the world.

Relocating heavy industry to 3rd world nations may improve the appearance of our backyards, but it’s still taking a toll on the planet. It’s also taking jobs (i.e., prosperity) away from needy Americans — especially the lower class. (How many more people can McDonald’s employ?) And since hungry, 3rd world nations are not nearly as squeamish about impacting the environment, the toll on the planet for relocating industry is arguably larger.

I think leaders of China and other developing nations understand this. They are not deluded by Western fantasies of restoring the earth to some pristine, paradisaical state. They’ll be more than happy to accept hard cash in exchange for hollow promises. I suspect much of that cash will end up in personal bank accounts, but even if it doesn’t I doubt few recipient nations have serious intentions of following through. They will simply follow Iran’s example with regards to its nuclear weapons programs — stall, obstruct verification, demand more money, promise whatever Westerners want to hear but ultimately do whatever they want anyway. (If I were a 3rd world leader, I would view the whole AGW premise as a crock promoted by the West intended to keep the rest of mankind from developing wealth.)

Western leaders are desperate for a world-wide green economy while 3rd world leaders are desperate for prosperity. Put the two together and we have: A. More manufacturing jobs move to the 3rd world. B. Poverty continues to rise in America. C. The ecological state of the world does not improve.

If I end up misrepresenting your position with what I’m about to say, I apologize. I’m simply trying to think outside the box (that is, the topic) for a moment to compare your position versus a different “threat” than AGW; in this case technology.

Suppose that in time one or more clean, scientifically proven energy technologies came along (maybe super solar cells or limited forms of fusion) that if rapidly implemented would have the same net negative effect on jobs in the oil/gas/utility/coal business as Obama’s emissions reduction proposals.

Despite these consequences, would you support funding such technological innovations? That is, in the sense that something new replaces something old and that’s just life when it comes to business? Or would you still oppose new tech on the grounds that people will lose jobs and local economies will falter if the new stuff is implemented?

In this scenario, do we still declare it impossible to retrain the long-time coal miner or the offshore oil rig deckhand? I know you weren’t saying it’s impossible in your post, but the tone -as far as I can tell- implies such people are SOL if they ever go out of work for any reason.

If business grabs the tech and runs with it, do we implement legislation to slow them down? Or since its new business and not government that’s causing the major job losses, do we accept any large scale job losses as part and parcel of living in a capitalist society?

In my opinion, that the AGW science isn’t 100% sound is a good plank in an argument against imposing disruptive economic change for the sake of AGW, but it’s not a good argument against aggressively moving forward with innovation and technology.

Again I don’t think you’re specifically arguing this in your post, but the way the issue is presented it’s as though you’re saying if there’s no proven risk from AGW then we shouldn’t move forward with renewables or other tech like solar at all, because there are too many jobs at stake and because we (well, liberals only if I read you right) supposedly are not capable of handling the infrastructure changes.

By my way of thinking, if AGW-imposed economic changes don’t shake things up for our established energy industries then in a short time a spate of newer technologies will. Thus it makes sense for the country and for our industry to start the changeover process now at a measured, sane pace.

I’d rather us all get used to gradual change rather than wait for AGW or tech to force a far more abrupt and disruptive set of changes on the country.

Happy Holidays everyone and thanks for writing, Rick!

If the more industrialized countries are to subsidize poorer more, with funds for “going green”, what do these countries get in return?

What do we get in return? The question should be, what DON’T we get in return.

The United States is like the giant floating party in The Douglas Adams book; “Life, The Universe, and Everyting.”

Every time the party needs to be resupplied, we find a third world nation that has what we need and get to work. We swoop in under the cover of good will, then raid the cheese factories and vineyards for everything we need.

After a bit of romancing, we leave the floundering third world country like it was a mistaken one night stand.

Then, debt ridden and beholden to our corporations, they watch as the party takes off without them in search of whatever other resources are needed to keep the party going.

The system works like a charm, as long as you’re a guest at the party. I never want to stop being a guest at this party. As long as you don’t look down, and continue drinking, it’s an incredibly good time.

In the NY Times article cited I found the following: “Maria de Fatima Monteiro Jardim, environment minister of Angola, noted that African countries suffer dire poverty.”

Angola is one of the more corrupt countries on the planet, no easy distinction to accomplish due to a lot of competition. After a 27 year Civil War, the management of the country is a bit disheveled, to put it kindly. Billions of aid dollars remain unaccounted for and it’s “great poverty” continues despite being a major producer of oil and diamonds, generating tens of billions of dollars each year.

What guarantees can Angola and other “poor” nations offer to protect investing one hundred billion dollars for non-carbon based energy support? If history teaches us anything, there are no protections for the money.

The while notion of a “green” economy has the same feel as getting rich selling Amway products or investing with Bernie Madoff. If your bulls**t detector is not going off at full alert, it should be. The demand for “green” is ginned up at best; using the same emotional appeal of feeding a child for $5.00 a month.

And while we are at it, if one more person states that we must “save the planet” I will barf. The planet is in no danger. People may possibly be, but not the damn planet.

It is absolutely self evident that if warming continues, mass migration of people will need to occur. Let’s save our money for that problem, not wreck Western (and Eastern) civilization with draconian fixes to what are only possible problems.

At 9pm and again at 1am CST
http://www.trutv.com/schedule/index.html?tempDate=3&nextWeek=yes

(On dishnetwork, TruTV is on channel 204.)