UN: delegates set to sign historic climate change deal

[thaibeachlovers]

A prime example of the moronic and destructive way these international bureaucrats pursue their vanity projects is the decade-long biofuels debacle.

2003: Biofuels good. All EU countries to replace 5.75% of all transport fossil fuels (petrol and diesel) with biofuels by 2010. Greenpeace calls for subsidies for bio-diesel.

2007: The UN special rapporteur on the right to food, Jean Ziegler, calls biofuels "a crime against humanity" for diverting arable land to the production of crops which are then burned for fuel, pushing staple food prices to record highs. A direct consequence was an increase in malnutrition, especially in underdeveloped countries dependent on staple food imports, affecting tens of millions of people.

2007: Greenpeace belatedly discovers that biofuels are not the magic solution, and changes its stance.

2008: Biofuels doubleplusgood. Each EU member state to have at least 10% renewable energy used in transport by 2020 from biofuels and other sources like "green electricity."

2008: EU Environment Commissioner Stavros Dimas announced the EU is rethinking its biofuel program due to environmental and social concerns.

2016: Biofuels finally ungood. Directive scrapped in order to sidestep criticism surrounding the appalling environmental damage caused by biofuels.

Result: More dead people in the Third World, pristine rainforests razed by the megahectare, tens of billions of dollars p**sed away, and the EU bureaucracy strokes its collective ego and tells us that we, the people, are the ones causing global warming and must change our ways.

That's what happens when you trust self-appointed elites to run your life.

That's why discussions among experts and interested parties should be vigorous and on-going. that's part of climate meetings are about. There no perfect solution on either side. Sometimes a technology (or fuel) comes along and experts are full of praise, .....then the same tech might be found to be problematic later. Several decades ago, it was thought that electric shocks to the body were health promoting. Doctors would get on TV and say smoking tobacco was good for health. People downwind from N bomb testings were told there's nothing to worry about. Things change.

I don't like the idea of Hydrogen for power, but maybe I'll change my opinion on that in the future. Same for fusion, when one considers the investment for trying to get it to work (for decades). The concept of American farmers growing corn for biofuel was thought, until recently, to be a great idea. then it was found it cost more than a gallon of gas to make a gallon of ethanol. Brazilians are doing it smarter, using sugar cane. Discussions are what's needed - to find best and lowest cost solutions. The alternative is the status quo, and that's obviously bad. I can't help but think the people who are adamantly against any improvements, are the people who are involved with fossil fuel-related businesses. Why else would they be so vociferously opposed to seeking solutions?

Erm. I haven't noticed anyone opposed to the self appointed ( and wrong ) saviours of the world being "adamantly against any improvements". However, the so called "improvements" being touted are not going to do anything significant to reduce overall pollution. Making New Zealand with 4 million people abide by some dictat to reduce pollution is meaningless when measured against the over 4 million cars driving daily in London alone, never mind Bkk and Beijing etc etc.

This debate has been going on for many years and I'm still waiting for something to happen that would actually make a change. So far nothing, nada, zero.

When they announce plans for a giant factory to suck the CO2 out of the atmosphere and bury it where it can't escape I'll get interested, when they announce the banning of all private cars in cities I'll be happy, when they announce the end of mass air travel I'll be joyful, when they plan to reduce the world's population to 1950 levels I'll be orgasmic, when they ban all international meetings ( other than by VDO conferencing ) I'll be ecstatic.

However, I don't expect to be getting interested anytime soon.

[boomerangutang]

A prime example of the moronic and destructive way these international bureaucrats pursue their vanity projects is the decade-long biofuels debacle.

2003: Biofuels good. All EU countries to replace 5.75% of all transport fossil fuels (petrol and diesel) with biofuels by 2010. Greenpeace calls for subsidies for bio-diesel.

2007: The UN special rapporteur on the right to food, Jean Ziegler, calls biofuels "a crime against humanity" for diverting arable land to the production of crops which are then burned for fuel, pushing staple food prices to record highs. A direct consequence was an increase in malnutrition, especially in underdeveloped countries dependent on staple food imports, affecting tens of millions of people.

2007: Greenpeace belatedly discovers that biofuels are not the magic solution, and changes its stance.

2008: Biofuels doubleplusgood. Each EU member state to have at least 10% renewable energy used in transport by 2020 from biofuels and other sources like "green electricity."

2008: EU Environment Commissioner Stavros Dimas announced the EU is rethinking its biofuel program due to environmental and social concerns.

2016: Biofuels finally ungood. Directive scrapped in order to sidestep criticism surrounding the appalling environmental damage caused by biofuels.

Result: More dead people in the Third World, pristine rainforests razed by the megahectare, tens of billions of dollars p**sed away, and the EU bureaucracy strokes its collective ego and tells us that we, the people, are the ones causing global warming and must change our ways.

That's what happens when you trust self-appointed elites to run your life.

That's why discussions among experts and interested parties should be vigorous and on-going. that's part of climate meetings are about. There no perfect solution on either side. Sometimes a technology (or fuel) comes along and experts are full of praise, .....then the same tech might be found to be problematic later. Several decades ago, it was thought that electric shocks to the body were health promoting. Doctors would get on TV and say smoking tobacco was good for health. People downwind from N bomb testings were told there's nothing to worry about. Things change.

I don't like the idea of Hydrogen for power, but maybe I'll change my opinion on that in the future. Same for fusion, when one considers the investment for trying to get it to work (for decades). The concept of American farmers growing corn for biofuel was thought, until recently, to be a great idea. then it was found it cost more than a gallon of gas to make a gallon of ethanol. Brazilians are doing it smarter, using sugar cane. Discussions are what's needed - to find best and lowest cost solutions. The alternative is the status quo, and that's obviously bad. I can't help but think the people who are adamantly against any improvements, are the people who are involved with fossil fuel-related businesses. Why else would they be so vociferously opposed to seeking solutions?

Erm. I haven't noticed anyone opposed to the self appointed ( and wrong ) saviours of the world being "adamantly against any improvements". However, the so called "improvements" being touted are not going to do anything significant to reduce overall pollution. Making New Zealand with 4 million people abide by some dictat to reduce pollution is meaningless when measured against the over 4 million cars driving daily in London alone, never mind Bkk and Beijing etc etc.

This debate has been going on for many years and I'm still waiting for something to happen that would actually make a change. So far nothing, nada, zero.

When they announce plans for a giant factory to suck the CO2 out of the atmosphere and bury it where it can't escape I'll get interested, when they announce the banning of all private cars in cities I'll be happy, when they announce the end of mass air travel I'll be joyful, when they plan to reduce the world's population to 1950 levels I'll be orgasmic, when they ban all international meetings ( other than by VDO conferencing ) I'll be ecstatic.

However, I don't expect to be getting interested anytime soon.

The longest journey begins with the first step. When M.L. King began organizing a march from Selma to Montgomery Alabama, it would have been easy for people to say, "Oh yea sure. You're going to change hundreds of years of white folks' attitudes and their laws against negroes, just by walking on a road? Good luck with that, ha ha ha."

Edited May 11, 2016 by boomerangutang

[up2u2]

Erm. I haven't noticed anyone opposed to the self appointed ( and wrong ) saviours of the world being "adamantly against any improvements". However, the so called "improvements" being touted are not going to do anything significant to reduce overall pollution. Making New Zealand with 4 million people abide by some dictat to reduce pollution is meaningless when measured against the over 4 million cars driving daily in London alone, never mind Bkk and Beijing etc etc.

This debate has been going on for many years and I'm still waiting for something to happen that would actually make a change. So far nothing, nada, zero.

When they announce plans for a giant factory to suck the CO2 out of the atmosphere and bury it where it can't escape I'll get interested, when they announce the banning of all private cars in cities I'll be happy, when they announce the end of mass air travel I'll be joyful, when they plan to reduce the world's population to 1950 levels I'll be orgasmic, when they ban all international meetings ( other than by VDO conferencing ) I'll be ecstatic.

However, I don't expect to be getting interested anytime soon.

So another 'lets do nothing approach' just ignore the problem and it will go away or suggest ridiculous solutions that no one is actually advocating.

[thaibeachlovers]

Erm. I haven't noticed anyone opposed to the self appointed ( and wrong ) saviours of the world being "adamantly against any improvements". However, the so called "improvements" being touted are not going to do anything significant to reduce overall pollution. Making New Zealand with 4 million people abide by some dictat to reduce pollution is meaningless when measured against the over 4 million cars driving daily in London alone, never mind Bkk and Beijing etc etc.

This debate has been going on for many years and I'm still waiting for something to happen that would actually make a change. So far nothing, nada, zero.

When they announce plans for a giant factory to suck the CO2 out of the atmosphere and bury it where it can't escape I'll get interested, when they announce the banning of all private cars in cities I'll be happy, when they announce the end of mass air travel I'll be joyful, when they plan to reduce the world's population to 1950 levels I'll be orgasmic, when they ban all international meetings ( other than by VDO conferencing ) I'll be ecstatic.

However, I don't expect to be getting interested anytime soon.

So another 'lets do nothing approach' just ignore the problem and it will go away or suggest ridiculous solutions that no one is actually advocating.

Not at all. I have suggested many things that would work. Whether you consider them ridiculous is neither here nor there, but I have yet to hear of any solution from those conferences that would make a difference, so in fact it is THEY that advocate doing nothing ( adding taxes is not a solution ).

I produce very little pollution myself, because I consume very little. If everyone did so the western economies would collapse as they depend on waste and obsolescence. If everyone drove a 20 year old car as I do, there would be few car industries, if everyone used an old CRT tv as I do there would be no flat screen tv industry, if people used an ordinary phone as I do there would be no smart phone industry.

So, who is part of the solution? Me, or those that consume and throw away?

Cutting pollution in our personal lives may not solve the problem, but it would make everyone's life better.

Up to me, car ownership would be banned in cities, which would not only make cities less polluted, but would lead to more enjoyable city life.

[thaibeachlovers]

A prime example of the moronic and destructive way these international bureaucrats pursue their vanity projects is the decade-long biofuels debacle.

2003: Biofuels good. All EU countries to replace 5.75% of all transport fossil fuels (petrol and diesel) with biofuels by 2010. Greenpeace calls for subsidies for bio-diesel.

2007: The UN special rapporteur on the right to food, Jean Ziegler, calls biofuels "a crime against humanity" for diverting arable land to the production of crops which are then burned for fuel, pushing staple food prices to record highs. A direct consequence was an increase in malnutrition, especially in underdeveloped countries dependent on staple food imports, affecting tens of millions of people.

2007: Greenpeace belatedly discovers that biofuels are not the magic solution, and changes its stance.

2008: Biofuels doubleplusgood. Each EU member state to have at least 10% renewable energy used in transport by 2020 from biofuels and other sources like "green electricity."

2008: EU Environment Commissioner Stavros Dimas announced the EU is rethinking its biofuel program due to environmental and social concerns.

2016: Biofuels finally ungood. Directive scrapped in order to sidestep criticism surrounding the appalling environmental damage caused by biofuels.

Result: More dead people in the Third World, pristine rainforests razed by the megahectare, tens of billions of dollars p**sed away, and the EU bureaucracy strokes its collective ego and tells us that we, the people, are the ones causing global warming and must change our ways.

That's what happens when you trust self-appointed elites to run your life.

That's why discussions among experts and interested parties should be vigorous and on-going. that's part of climate meetings are about. There no perfect solution on either side. Sometimes a technology (or fuel) comes along and experts are full of praise, .....then the same tech might be found to be problematic later. Several decades ago, it was thought that electric shocks to the body were health promoting. Doctors would get on TV and say smoking tobacco was good for health. People downwind from N bomb testings were told there's nothing to worry about. Things change.

I don't like the idea of Hydrogen for power, but maybe I'll change my opinion on that in the future. Same for fusion, when one considers the investment for trying to get it to work (for decades). The concept of American farmers growing corn for biofuel was thought, until recently, to be a great idea. then it was found it cost more than a gallon of gas to make a gallon of ethanol. Brazilians are doing it smarter, using sugar cane. Discussions are what's needed - to find best and lowest cost solutions. The alternative is the status quo, and that's obviously bad. I can't help but think the people who are adamantly against any improvements, are the people who are involved with fossil fuel-related businesses. Why else would they be so vociferously opposed to seeking solutions?

Erm. I haven't noticed anyone opposed to the self appointed ( and wrong ) saviours of the world being "adamantly against any improvements". However, the so called "improvements" being touted are not going to do anything significant to reduce overall pollution. Making New Zealand with 4 million people abide by some dictat to reduce pollution is meaningless when measured against the over 4 million cars driving daily in London alone, never mind Bkk and Beijing etc etc.

This debate has been going on for many years and I'm still waiting for something to happen that would actually make a change. So far nothing, nada, zero.

When they announce plans for a giant factory to suck the CO2 out of the atmosphere and bury it where it can't escape I'll get interested, when they announce the banning of all private cars in cities I'll be happy, when they announce the end of mass air travel I'll be joyful, when they plan to reduce the world's population to 1950 levels I'll be orgasmic, when they ban all international meetings ( other than by VDO conferencing ) I'll be ecstatic.

However, I don't expect to be getting interested anytime soon.

The longest journey begins with the first step. When M.L. King began organizing a march from Selma to Montgomery Alabama, it would have been easy for people to say, "Oh yea sure. You're going to change hundreds of years of white folks' attitudes and their laws against negroes, just by walking on a road? Good luck with that, ha ha ha."

I agree. Unfortunately, the "first step" has yet to emerge from any of those conferences.

Can anyone, anyone, tell me a single thing that has emerged from any of those conferences that would make any, any, difference to the levels of CO2 or methane in the atmosphere in either the short or the long term?

Has a single car not been sold or a single tree not been felled because of the millions of litres of fuel consumed travelling to and from those talkfests?