Science & Technology

Rant

Clinton vows 100 billion a year...

Posted 26 months ago|7 comments|531 views
Written by
scotmanster
The climate summit comes closer to a decision. Though reporters are calling it democracy. How is behind closed door bartering considered democratic? The climate summit has done everything in its power to silent small countries as well as demonstrators for and against the summit.

To top it all off with Hillary decides now is a good time to vow 100 billion a year of United States Taxpayer money if the summit reaches a deal. In one our worst economic downturns in history and she is vowing to spend money we obviously don't have. Maybe she should vow her own money instead.

"US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton said her administration was prepared to help establish funding of $100bn a year for developing countries if a deal emerges here that meets US requirements.

"In the context of a strong accord in which all major economies pledge meaningful mitigation actions and provide full transparency as to those actions, the US is prepared to work with other countries towards a goal of mobilising $100bn a year to address the needs of developing countries." "
EMAIL|FLAG THIS POST
COMMENTS
scotmanster
scotmanster
26 months ago: "provide full transparency"

Who has heard this lie before?
scotmanster
scotmanster
26 months ago: The sources are to the left in the external link. I should have posted them in the topic.
scotmanster
scotmanster
26 months ago: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/8419578.stm
Altruist
Altruist
Eugene, OR
26 months ago: I agree that the rich nations are not listening as much as they should to the smaller nations. As a matter of fact the G77 nations walked out and boycotted the talks for a day for that reason. All of the rich nations should have made firm commitments to cut their CO2 emissions. Investing $100B to save the planet is a pittance compared to what it will cost if we do nothing.
If this was done correctly a simple carbon tax would have been much more effective at preventing the disaster, and would have provided the money so it didn't have to come out of our treasury, but the big money corporate interests and their lobbyists preferred a cap and trade system that they could game and get rich on.
Still it is a lot better than when the oil boys were in charge of things.
26 months ago: Al.
There is no impending disaster. Did you ever wonder why these guys solution is to hurt free markets and capitalism?

Let's stop pollution together. Taxes don't help stop pollution. Fines and penalties for pollution do.

Reborn:
You intrigue me. I agree with your statement here.

Post a Comment
Sign in or sign up to post a comment.