UN Summit Strikes Climate Deal Promising "Damage Aid" To Poor Nations 212
Hugh Pickens writes writes "BBC reports that UN climate talks in Doha have closed, with a historic shift in principle agreed to by nearly 200 nations, extending the Kyoto Protocol through 2020 and establishing for the first time that rich nations should move towards compensating poor nations for losses due to climate change. Until now rich nations have agreed to help developing countries to get clean energy and adapt to climate change, but they have stopped short of accepting responsibility for damage caused by climate change elsewhere. 'It is a breakthrough,' says Martin Khor of the South Center — an association of 52 developing nations. 'The term Loss and Damage is in the text — this is a huge step in principle. Next comes the fight for cash.' U.S. negotiators made certain that neither the word 'compensation,' nor any other term connoting legal liability, was used, to avoid opening the floodgates to litigation – instead, the money will be judged as aid. Ronny Jumea, from the Seychelles, told rich nations earlier that discussion of compensation would not have been needed if they had cut emissions earlier. 'We're past the mitigation [emissions cuts] and adaptation eras. We're now right into the era of loss and damage. What's next after that? Destruction?' While the United States has not adopted a comprehensive approach to climate change, the Obama administration has put in place a significant auto emissions reduction program and a plan to regulate carbon dioxide from new power plants. 'What this meeting reinforced is that while this is an important forum, it is not the only one in which progress can and must be made,' says Jennifer Haverkamp, director of the international climate programs at the Environmental Defense Fund. The disconnect between the level of ambition the parties are showing here and what needs to happen to avoid dangerous climate change is profound.'"
Ah, so there we go.... (Score:5, Insightful)
With this, we see their real purpose.
Climate change.... Well, it's always changing, so the money will always have to flow. Another unending stream.
What a shock.
Re: (Score:2)
There was last-minute drama as the talks were thrown into turmoil by the insistence of Russia, Ukraine and Belarus that they should be allowed extra credit for the emissions cuts they made when their industries collapsed.
After a long delay, the chairman lost patience, re-started the meeting and gavelled through the agenda so fast there was no chance for Russia to object.
A cheer exploded into prolonged applause. Russia bitterly objected at what it said was a clear breach of procedure, but the chairman said he would do no more than reflect the Russian view in the final report.
What kind of agreement is that??
Re:Ah, so there we go.... (Score:5, Interesting)
It's always, nakedly, been about wealth redistribution.
Why do you think India and China - the fastest growing (and now largest) emitters of CO2 - were omitted from the original Kyoto accord?
Oh, there's a pastiche of 'let's save the planet' but then the road to hell has always been paved with what, again?
There's a reason they so bitterly hate the term ecomarxists....it strikes waaay too close.
Go ahead mod me down as 'flamebait' and 'troll'. As the 'climate changers' keep telling everyone, truth isn't based on popular opinion.
Re:Ah, so there we go.... (Score:4, Insightful)
It's always, nakedly, been about wealth redistribution.
Oh, the humanity! Those nasty, wicked, impoverished nations teeming with starving people who have all the money and social rank and political power and weapons will force - at gunpoint, even! or maybe just with their hectoring, angry words! or their faces! - a tiny beseiged elite of virtuous billionaires to solve a problem facing everyone and which just drowned New York. But the problem can't be solved, because drowning countries is right and just and honourable and we all know it. And yet they pass bad laws like this. It's horrible, that's what it is. But oh well. It's not like educated billionaires who own mega-corporations have any power in the world, is it? Always they're the ones who get downtrodden and stepped on by the naked jackboot of the filthy masses. All those poor people, swarming everywhere! Eating and breeding and voting! Every day, vote vote vote! Like it's a democracy or something! Filling the world's governments with twisted, perverse policies that benefit the middle-class! Don't the billionaires get any say at all? Those long-suffering saints! One day things must change! One day, just once, a billionaire will stand up and say "No!" to a poor person! One day Atlas must shrug!
Yeah, I don't think that's how the balance of social power actually works anywhere outside Ayn Rand or Paul Ryan's mind.
Re: (Score:2)
We've known this purpose for a long time (Score:2)
It's one of the reasons I remain skeptical. Where there are billions, or trillions, of dollars to be made, you can be fairly sure the motives aren't going to be pure.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Do you seriously think that these negotiators are so stupid that they cannot distinguish between natural and anthropomorphic climate change?
Well, a large portion of them probably are that stupid. Most of the rest are looking for loot.
The only shock here is that one individual believes that they are more intelligent and have a better grasp of the environment, economics, and politics than the thousands of people who (directly or indirectly) contribute to these negotiations.
What's sad here is that the individual is probably right. When you have a revenue stream of tens to hundreds of billions per year, then that's plenty of incentive to be as wrong as you can get away with. It's interesting how this move followed a round of discoveries which claim harm of global warming is worse and more urgent than first claimed,
Maybe there's a real threat from AGW, but this looks to me more like
Re:Ah, so there we go.... (Score:4, Insightful)
"this looks to me more like a bunch of corrupt scientists sexing up their research (and possibly just making stuff up) in order to justify a transfer of wealth large enough to make the oil industry envious."
As you evaluate the various competing claims before you, consider that perhaps laymen swayed by appearances and compelled to impute motives on strangers might not have the intellectual high ground over people who have studied and debated the topic for decades and live by the scientific method.
Re: (Score:2)
As you evaluate the various competing claims before you, consider that perhaps laymen swayed by appearances and compelled to impute motives on strangers might not have the intellectual high ground over people who have studied and debated the topic for decades and live by the scientific method.
Nobody "lives" by the scientific method. And $100 billion a year (or whatever it ends up being) could easily buy the entire realm of climatology. I believe such money already has made significant progress on that as witnessed by the scare stories that came out over the past couple of weeks. The politicians needed cover, particularly, authoritative claims of urgency, some climatologists delivered.
My view is that nobody in this game has the high ground. The pro-AGW side is just making a huge argument from
Re: (Score:2)
And by what standard do you judge corruption?
Re: (Score:2)
And by what standard do you judge corruption?
Dishonest or fraudulent actions by those in positions of power and trust.
Re: (Score:2)
Scientists have precious little power and as to trust, why would you trust the likes of the Heartland Institute over almost ever climatologist in the world? What's more, considering which side benefits the most here, who has the greatest benefit; deniers or scientists?
Re: (Score:2)
Scientists have precious little power
They have the power to justify a $100 billion a year or so revenue stream plus all the other revenue streams that have come out of this, such as renewable energy, electric cars, carbon markets, etc. That's a lot more power than you're implying.
why would you trust the likes of the Heartland Institute over almost ever climatologist in the world?
I don't. But the bill of goods they're trying to sell me is a whole lot cheaper than the bill of goods that the AGW-oriented politicians are trying to sell me. As I see it, the AGW thing slid into scam territory, when they rushed through all these astoundingly expensi
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Your paranoia is kinda cute.
What I'm hearing is that there is hundreds of billions of dollars per year (from the sort of thing I mentioned in my previous post) on the table. But only if you can convince the developed world that there is a near future problem. Now to me, that's a lot of money.
And I'm seeing symptoms of classic con games such as urgency (it has to be done now, we're already too late (which is a new story that came out in the last year), etc), people making decisions on shaky evidence (untested computer models, temper
Re:Ah, so there we go.... (Score:5, Funny)
And by what standard do you judge corruption?
As a Chicago resident, by the number of Democrats involved.
Re: (Score:3)
It's interesting how this move followed a round of discoveries which claim harm of global warming is worse and more urgent than first claimed,
This "move" was a key part of the Kyoto treaty and was the stated reason why the USA didn't join, that makes it at least 15yrs old, the yearly conferences have only been going for 18yrs in total so it's a pretty good bet this "move" started before the talking. The rest of your post is just an irrational anti-science rant that does not belong on a geek site.
Re: (Score:2)
This "move" was a key part of the Kyoto treaty and was the stated reason why the USA didn't join, that makes it at least 15yrs old, the yearly conferences have only been going for 18yrs in total so it's a pretty good bet this "move" started before the talking.
A "move" can be planned well in advance. I'm not asserting that they just decided to do it on the spur of the moment. It'd be hard to coordinate your pet scientists on that short a notice.
The rest of your post is just an irrational anti-science rant that does not belong on a geek site.
You want to talk about anti-science? Then what's the justification for this fund that was just created? What damage has been done by AGW that requires any money?
Re: (Score:2)
Do you seriously think that these negotiators are so stupid that they cannot distinguish between natural and anthropomorphic climate change?
Well, a large portion of them probably are that stupid. Most of the rest are looking for loot.
This most certainly applies to the people from Maldives, who are obviously unable to distinguish between natural and theomorphic Universe. Why should they be able to grasp the nuances of climate science, when they struggle with basic issues?
Re: (Score:2)
Maybe there's a real threat from AGW, but this looks to me more like a bunch of corrupt scientists sexing up their research (and possibly just making stuff up) in order to justify a transfer of wealth large enough to make the oil industry envious.
I really wonder how dumb people are.
In my world scientists are not payed according to "research results". If that is the case in your world I would challenge you to change something.
Re: (Score:2)
In my world scientists are not payed according to "research results". If that is the case in your world I would challenge you to change something.
I am changing something by advocating wait and see. A lot of these paid for results lose their punch when things aren't rushed along. And there really isn't a good reason not to wait a couple of decades and see what sticks and what doesn't. Despite panicked claims to the contrary, there isn't urgency to AGW. Whatever happens isn't going to be significantly changed or cost more by another couple decades of waiting.
Re: (Score:2)
A lot of these paid for results lose their punch when things aren't rushed along.
That is how it should be, you don't pay scientists for results. And if a scientist is i would call that fraud or corruption.
And there really isn't a good reason not to wait a couple of decades and see what sticks and what doesn't.
We already waited 5 decades, how long do you still want to wait?
Despite panicked claims to the contrary, there isn't urgency to AGW. Whatever happens isn't going to be significantly changed or cost m
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
That's like asking someone to name one person killed by cigarette smoke
How about David McLean [wikipedia.org]? Lifetime smoker who died from lung cancer and had suffered from emphysema. Both illnesses highly correlate with smoking in the developed world.
It's deceptive to claim that uncertainty associated with linking weather disasters to AGW is in any way comparable to the uncertainty of linking lung disease cases to particularly heavy smoking. The evidence supporting health consequences of tobacco smoking is well documented, has huge data sets (something like millions to hundreds of milli
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
In Tuvalu, sea level rises of an average of 5mm/year [skepticalscience.com] over the last 60 years have now resulted in regular tidal flooding of low-lying areas like the main airport. Inland salt water seeps are destroying their coconut and taro crops [guardian.co.uk]. Tuvalu's vulnerability to strengthening tropical cyclones is significantly increased, as in the case of Tropical Cyclone Bebe [janeresture.com], which in 1972 sent a storm surge right over the entire main island, destroying many buildings and uprooting 90% of the trees.
There is now a regular exodus
Re: (Score:2)
Tuvaluans are generally quite very nice Islanders. But in fairness, we pretty much take everyone from the Pacific and are happy to pay all their hospital bills.
Re: (Score:2)
Something similar to the original Kyoto Treaty might have a chance of passing
Do Americans actually have a clue what there government does? The reason the US congress rejected Kyoto is exactly the same as the reason they will reject this, compensation to developing nations. Are some nations more interested in cash than solutions? - Sure, the US is just one of them.
Re: (Score:2)
The UN will stop at nothing to achieve its true goal of wealth redistribution. Environmental programs could be the most effective ways to achieve this, which is why they are hell-bent on hyping up "climate change" at every opportunity. It has nothing to do with the environment, and everything to do with social justice.
Re: (Score:2)
If they can still print the email (Score:5, Funny)
We are sincerely sorry that your small island nation has been covered over by the Indian Ocean.
Attached is a coupon for 10% off any Boeing or Raytheon product. Simply print the coupon and present it at your local dealership to redeem.
Best wishes,
The United States of America
Re: (Score:3)
So . . . what will actually, legally, happen when the Seychelles go under? I mean, no land, no country, right? Or will they have some legal entity elsewhere that represents the waters over the islands? Another empty seat at the UN? What about long term debt? Can you still own land underwater? Maybe real estate investors might want to start building under water hotels? Maybe the submerged country will be a scuba divers' paradise?
Re: (Score:2)
So . . . what will actually, legally, happen when the Seychelles go under?
See the Scarborough Reef for an example of a couple rocks barely above sea level. You'll have a lot of whining about who owns it, and ham radio guys will visit every once in a while.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scarborough_Shoal [wikipedia.org]
Note that its probably not going to collapse under the sea in moments... for years they'll just be less and less above high tide, then the day will come when there's only a couple rocks above average high tide, then finally those rocks will occasionally go under, then ...
Re: (Score:2)
They can use the aid money to ship trash consisting mostly of cheap junk items manufactured in China and used once or twice before they broke in the United States to the Seychelles, where they can pile them on top of the island, creating a new surface a few meters higher.
Re: (Score:3)
Most of the islands of the Seychelles are coral islands and atolls, which means they will always look like they are on the verge of becoming inundated, no matter what the sea levels do. Sealevel rises measured in millimeters per decade just don't seem that scary, hasn't been any significant warming for 16 years; these people are more worried about the gravy-train ending than anything else.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
It would help if the food programs were aimed at purchasing from the local farmers *before* shipping food from the US.
Re: (Score:2)
It would help if the food programs were aimed at purchasing from the local farmers *before* shipping food from the US.
It seems beggars can be choosers. Or at least petulant whiners.
Re: (Score:2)
The point that you don't understand is that the "food aid" is actually just a new name for farm subsidies. The government buys food from American farmers and gives it away for free in the target country. If it weren't "food aid" it would be called "flooding the market" and "illegal subsidies". However, it still has the effect of undermining local food production and increasing the need the more "food aid".
It's actually much more effective to use the money to buy local food first and then import any short
Re: (Score:2)
Also, if the US stopped buying/subsidizing food, the prices would drop and the poor would be able to afford to eat with less money.
LOL (Score:2, Informative)
I want to know where all of this "compensation" is going to come from. Our debt to gdp ratio is approaching 100 percent and rising, and the Europeans aren't exactly in good shape either. I don't know how Europeans feel, but I think when there is a choice between maintaining social security, medicare, and the military or giving money to brown people in a foreign country, Americans will choose the former.
Re: (Score:2)
It doesn't really commit anyone to anything. It's mostly so they could get something out and not look like they'd just had a junket.
Seems like (Score:4, Informative)
There are two different stories here. One says that wealthier nations will offer humanitarian aid to disaster struck areas, the other claims that general compensation is due for damages. Two completely different things, and the actual facts of the matter seem to be more towards humanitarian aid.
Re:Seems like (Score:4, Informative)
If you pay attention, you'll see when a disaster strikes a country, hundreds of countries around the world promise millions, or even billions, in aid to the affected country. As time passes and the world news stops focusing on the disaster, everyone forgets, and most of those countries that promised aid don't actually deliver. I suspect here is nothing different.
Re: (Score:2)
As time passes and the world news stops focusing on the disaster, everyone forgets, and most of those countries that promised aid don't actually deliver.
This is nonsense.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
What do you expect? Should I shout "yes it is"?
Sorry, you are an complete idiot ... just forget it.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
But very often those who promise, don't deliver. ... sorry, did not want to mess up your day. No need to google.
And how would a mere layman like you know that? You have a secret access to the bank accounts?
Sorry, you are dreaming and making stuff up, thats qualifies you as an idiot.
Perhaps you have one small insignificant example of an incident where a country assured help but did not deliver?
Oh
Claims like yours are not only nonsense but jsut bullshit. Dream on.
Re: (Score:2)
Annnnnd.... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
Re:Annnnnd.... (Score:5, Informative)
Perhaps, since garbage can always be carted away later.
Maybe a better analogy would be a government that decides not to compensate residents when it builds a dam to make a reservoir out of a valley where people were living.
Re: (Score:2)
First of all, when a dam is built the consequences for the upstream residents are pretty easy to determine. A better analogy would be like building a dam and a fish hatchery and then refusing to compensate some tribe a hundred miles downstream because they don't consider hatchery fish to be actual fish.
With dams, we compensate all the property owners upstream (or none). So, what will we be paying The Netherlands for sea level rise due to AGW? Or all the residents on Long Island when the hurricanes wash the
Re: (Score:2)
No, from the article, I think this is mainly what to do about the most accute cases - tiny island nations that will be underwater 50 years from now.
This has nothing to do with the UN, but yes, to the tune of $60 BN from Sandy alone [nydailynews.com]. (Of course not all that damage is due to sea level rise).
But going forward, this is going to be a huge
Re: (Score:2)
tiny island nations that will be underwater 50 years from now.
How many meters does sea level have to rise to cause that? And what evidence is there that this will happen in 50 years?
Re: (Score:2)
For many islands, perhaps about 100 million people, 2m is enough to sink them. ... what has that to do with evidence? Simple logic, melting ice on greenland, and perhaps a few ice bergs breaking of from antarctica is enough. The former will happen if we don't change quickly, the later is a matter of chance (in the next 50 years, but not in the next 100)
What do you mean with evidence?
If it gets 5 degrees warmer they sink
Re: (Score:3)
If it gets 5 degrees warmer they sink ... what has that to do with evidence?
"If". That's what it has to do with evidence.
Plus, there's the matter of timing. You're claiming 40 years till those people have to move. If instead, it's two centuries, then that changes the strategy. It no longer is such a good idea to pile up a lot of cash flow for something that's not going to happen anytime soon.
Simple logic, melting ice on greenland, and perhaps a few ice bergs breaking of from antarctica is enough.
No evidence that stuff "will" happen like you claim to justify your concern. For example, Antartica currently is accumulating ice [nasa.gov] and Greenland is within historical range [agu.org] for melting and a l
Re: (Score:2)
No evidence that stuff "will" happen like you claim to justify your concern. ... but I find this unbelievable. Trends like this usually accelerate ... and after a while of accelerating just a little bit, they suddenly charge with immense speed.
Sorry, you don't need evidence for the laws of physic.
If you believe otherwise your school education is not very good.
OTOH, you need something more like 2 meters of rise. I doubt you'll see that by 2100, much less 2050.
This is what everyone is claiming right now
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Ah... so disbelieving AGW has nothing to do with scientific evidence. Thank you for clearing that up once and for all.
Would that be the same scientific evidence that's been claiming that the end of the world is neigh for the last 20 years? I'm seeing similarities to this and doomsday cults too. Then again a lot of environmentalists are in the malthusian camp anymore too.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Greed (Score:2)
'We're past the mitigation [emissions cuts] and adaptation eras. We're now right into the era of loss and damage. What's next after that? Destruction?'
Obviously, the ultimate answer to this question is the same as for the Fermi paradox: greed.
Sounds like a bad version of emission credits (Score:2)
Countries paying an undefined compensation in proportion of their wealth won't solve anything. If we want to incentivize emission cuts, we should require countries to pay up (or receive aid) in proportion of their emissions. That's what the old emission credit system did, and while it wasn't perfect it was still much better than the current treaty. But that wasn't good for the radical greens, now look at what we've got as a result.
So, much ado about nothing? (Score:2)
200 nations... but all the major ones will either be exempted by the new treaty (China, India) or won't accede to it (US, Russia).
Draft IPCC Report of 2013 Circulating (Score:2)
More precise modeling alows IPCC climate report to backstep from previous hysterical claims and hoopla that every recent unusual weather event was a harbinger of doom to come.
Sea level rise in next century, not even a meter. Hurricanes & sever storms, somewhat LESS of them. Arid areas, become slightly more arid and areas with frequent precipitation have somewhat more rain. Total temperature rise in next 100 years, 2 degrees C on top of the 1 degree C rise over 20th century.
In short, not a doomsday sc
Just create a fiat currency to pay for it (Score:2)
All we need to do is invent a new fiat currency, convince the third world that it has value, and pay them in that. Problem solved.
US bribes help stop climate action (Score:5, Interesting)
The cable in question (Score:2)
is here [guardian.co.uk]. Maldives encouraged to request assistance with infrastructure projects worth $50M, in exchange for supporting the US climate agenda.
Re:Get the Koch brothers to pay (Score:5, Insightful)
hypocrite. the use of coal and oil fueled western civilization and increased average human lifespan by over two times, Modern material, medicine, health, food, all the blessing of hydrocarbon fuel. you are alive and well fed because of it. without it you would likely be dead already.
yes, we need to go to something else with little pollution, like well designed nuclear power reactors. but the planet has been made better for humans by fossil fuel
Re:Get the Koch brothers to pay (Score:4, Insightful)
A short term improvement that directly leads to long term devestation is not a benefit. At any rate, the benefits of cheap hydrocarbons are now being outweighed by the dangerously ill effects.
Re: (Score:2)
A short term improvement that directly leads to long term devestation is not a benefit.
And what does that observation have to do with fossil fuels? Let us keep in mind that catastrophic AGW remains an unfounded fear and nothing else about AGW generates long term devastation.
already given... (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Actually, you have that reversed: even more people would be alive today without the fossil fueled economies. You seem to have forgotten that birth rates are inversely related to prosperity. Because of prosperity in the West created by fossil fuel exploitation untold millions of lives were never started.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
People don't deserve a horrible death just because they disagree with you. I find the sort of advocacy that the Koch brothers do, with their own wealth no less, to be admirable.
Re: (Score:3)
Better translation: Fuck you, I got mine ... and yours.
Re: (Score:2)
Assuming it was anything but a control ploy anyway.
If they gave a damn about environmental concerns they would do something themselves rather than forming a club to agree that someone else should do it for them. Doesn't work in real life, ridiculous to assume it would work in their fantasy land.
Israel is already dead (Score:4, Interesting)
Israel will die within 100 years. An average increase of 4 degrees C translates into a much greater increase over land because the earth is 70% covered by water and the temperature won't change as much over water. In the Mediterranean, that average 4C increase should translate into a 9C overland increase. Israel routinely hangs out above 36C during the summer. Israel routinely has 98% humidity in the summer. Humans cannot survive 100% humidity at 45C. I'd therefore expect that Israel will be effectively uninhabitable by humans in 2100, although obviously their humidity might change before then.
Re: (Score:2)
I truly hope Israel has destroyed itself long before that. If the US wouldn't pump billions of dollars into their 'economy' every year (billions they could use better for themselves) they would have ceased to exist long ago. I completely agree with Anonymous Coward above. Hopefully Netanyahu and his cronies will be voted out of the government soon and then the peace process can start for real.
Re: (Score:2)
Humans cannot survive 100% humidity at 45C.
Good luck then for the Arabs further to the east, where the climate is even more continental. But I would have thought that the proximity of the Mediterranean Sea, acting as an accumulator, keeps the temperature changes close to the global level.
Re: (Score:2)
Third, what 4C change in global mean temperature? The Earth isn't heating up that much now despite how much CO2 has
Re: (Score:2)
I'm thankful for them for several reasons, the least not being the burr they figuratively place under the saddle of certain mid-east nations.
The maintenance of a beautiful country that keeps it friendly for me as a u.s. American to visit. Krav Maga, small machine guns and sexy women. These are a few of my favorite things...
I agree what happens to Israel is karma, but for disobeying YHVH when originally told to eliminate those inhabiting the promised land to the last breath. In retrospect this would probably
don't forget Algore (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
What an idiotic comment. Rich countries have generally contributed to the problem far more than the rest, but the rest will (and are) facing the brunt if the problems. Sandy was bad, but others have had it worse. This principle has been around for decades but rich countries have dragged their feet in doing anything I even this latest deal doesn't amount to much. The charade is the rich countries pretending that they are concerned.
The charade... (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
We always judge others by ourselves. I suppose.
Re: (Score:2)
science can be and has been "wrong", scientists welcome a better model or falsification of an accepted one. Letting scientifically ignorant politicians use science to push an agenda invoving restribution of wealth, that is folly.
Re: (Score:2)
Letting scientifically ignorant politicians use science to push an agenda invoving restribution of wealth, that is folly.
Redistribution of wealth has nothing to do with AGW.
On the other hand having 99% of the resources and wealth of the planet in 1% of the planes populations hands makes no sense either.
Re: (Score:2)
On the other hand having 99% of the resources and wealth of the planet in 1% of the planes populations hands makes no sense either.
When you count debt, it's more like 150% of the "worth" of the resources in the hands of the top 1%. The poor would have to work 1000 years to get back to even. And bankruptcy won't wipe out much anymore, even if Trump finds it so convenient he's declared bankruptcy 5 times to protect his billions.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
These countries need to be dissolved and integrated with another. Things are just going to get worse. What's better, preserving a nations identity or preventing the inevitable extinction of it?
Oh, that works out all the time. Look at the history of, say, the Middle East and Africa. Historical political boundaries chopped up by England and France (with a little help from other largely European countries) starting before WWI and going on to the present day. Trying to make larger political entities from little ones doesn't actually usually work. The US, India and China appear to be the major 'success' stories using this schema. Russia, not so much.
It's a pretty slow, messy process and nobody ha
Re: (Score:2)
You seriously need to learn some history, Germany and Italy would be a good place to start.
Also the origins of the word 'balkanization'.
There is only so long the third world can blame the Brits, especially if they are still using the British built railways.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
What a hideous distortion. First of all the "First World" has been plundering sub-Saharan Africa for over five centuries, and second of all a good deal of the economic woes of the region are due directly to those policies.
Third; you're an ignoramus (and probably a crypto racist). There were sub Saharan kingdoms of a fairly sophisticated nature.
Re: (Score:2)
(and probably a crypto racist)
Probably? Crypo? You are being way too generous.
Re: (Score:2)
You can find a list here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_kingdoms_in_pre-colonial_Africa [wikipedia.org]
"Fairly sophisticated" compared to what? Large cities, writing, legal codes, democracy, entire empires existed in the Mediterranean and Asia for thousands of years BC. The Olmec empire in the Americas started in 1500BC. What has sub-Saharan Africa produced that comes even close?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Well, it might give the countries who produce the most emissions an incentive to tax emissions, if they are eventually required to pay based on their level of emissions. And, of course, taxing emissions would pass the incentive on to privately owned corporation and individuals. So it could eventually help reduce emissions.
On the other hand, giving money to the people who are suffering the consequences could help them mitigate or repair the damage. For example, the money might be put to use building a dyk