BBC News – Climate talks end with late deal, from BBC

Picture of anti-CAFTA graffiti

: Map for your perusal

The following article is from BBC News and concerns UN climate talks held in Durban, South Africa. Please read this article to update your knowledge of what the impact of climate change related international laws could be on industrialized countries like the United States. There is some serious stuff in this article that is advocated by China and other developing countries.

My opinion is that if developing countries need help improving the statuses of their countries they should ask for it and make the environment in their countries conducive to sharing from countries that have the knowledge and skills they are looking for. Forcing countries that have achieved a good degree of success in the development of technology and manufacturing resources to pay fines for being successful is absolutely ridiculous and stupid. Any developed country that agrees to cooperate with such a plan is out of their mind. We know that Obama is out of his mind and that those behind him are as well. That is why he has helped finish the destruction of manufacturing and development in the United States started by Bill Clinton when he got NAFTA and CAFTA up and running.

These programs weren’t started to help Mexico and Canada, they were made to meet goals of the Socialist agendas of New World Order elites around the World. Ever heard the term Zionists? I firmly believe that Zionists from around the World are behind what is happening in America today and has being going on since Jimmy Carter got elected and before.

Wall Street demands for continually increasing demands for profits to pay investors placed upon public companies coupled with the requirements of NAFTA and CAFTA and other trade regulations that interfere with companies’ abilities to do business in America and realize profits have driven the sources for jobs for Americans out of America.

Wall Street has the power to take a profitable and growing business and totally destroy it and the people that built it from the ground up. All because that company didn’t show profits for investors. What are investors? Investors are individuals looking to place their savings in an investment where they will be safe and hope that their money will grow based on the success of the company(ies) in which they invested. Investors are also large capital investment firms that control billion/trillions of dollars, amounts representing nearly 60 percent of our GDP

Its the large investment firms that buy up large blocks of shares of companies with good growth potential. When these companies grow the investment firms make a whole lot of money and all is well. When these companies fail to make profits the investment firms lose a whole lot of money and that makes them unhappy. Unhappy to the point where the firms will pull their money out of entities that cost them returns.

When investment firms own nearly as much stock in a company as the company itself and the investment firms dump the company stock because the company doesn’t make investors returns on their investments, that will cause the company to become insolvent and it will probably have to close its doors and send its employees off to the unemployment lines.

Can you imagine working all of your life to build your business from scratch, achieving success with the help from years of dedication from your employees and then losing the business? All of your dreams for the future would come tumbling down because you made the choice of going public and gaining the use of investor funds.

Of course those funds allowed you to make improvements in your physical plant, grow your product(s), and increase returns on investments. The problem is that those things take some time to happen. During that time the profits realized by your business would probably decrease and may even go away while the changes you made for the long term settle in and meld into your new business model. Up pops a big problem.

Investment firms don’t give a hoot about anything but the returns they get, and continue to get. They don’t tolerate interruptions in their cash flow. There is nothing in place to protect public companies from investors pulling their funds out; from total devastation just because investors don’t like loss of income.

Its pretty poor that the actual fate of our economy rests on the whims of people that have absolutely no ownership in the growth and development of companies in which they invest. I am convinced that this must change. Companies that go public must have protections from investor whims and lack of willingness to own some of the processes of operating businesses.

Protections in the form of time limits from the time of investment to the time that investors can sell their stock after that would help. Also, providing periods within a year that companies can go public, say the end of each calendar quarter, would make it to establish times for investing and times for withdrawal. Letters of intent to withdraw to include the desired time of withdrawal would help companies with planning for changes in their financial model.

Other such changes could be made to help minimize the shock of loss of financial resources and enable companies to remain in business. Also, this type of planning would help prevent businesses from having to move out of the United States.

Then, in steps our Government, run amok, that wants to allow our technology and resources to be drained right out from under us on the ruse that our carbon emissions since we entered the industrial age until the present have impacted global warming. The ploy that making us pay fines for emissions made in the past to enable countries that did not make the efforts for growth that America made, will enable them to grow and prosper
at our expense is absurd and ridiculous.

The whole global warming scheme is aimed at leveling the World into one big Socialist empire where one percent are rich and powerful and the rest are slaves to their whims.

Read the followng and enjoy. I would appreciate your comments.

________________________________________________________________

11 December 2011 Last updated at 02:10 ET

Comments (409)

By Richard Black Environment correspondent, BBC News, Durban

espondent, BBC News, Durban

Delegates and negotiators discuss the latest draft report in Durban, 10 December

Elements of the draft text caused much discussion

Continue reading the main story

“Start Quote

While they develop, we die; and why should we accept this?”

Karl Hood Foreign Minister of Grenada

Reaction to UN climate deal

India did not want a specification that it must be legally binding.

Eventually, a Brazilian diplomat came up with the formulation that the deal must have “legal force”, which proved acceptable.

The roadmap proposal originated with the EU, the Alliance of Small Island States (Aosis) and the Least Developed Countries bloc (LDCs).

They argued that only a new legal agreement eventually covering emissions from all countries – particularly fast-growing major emitters such as China – could keep the rise in global average temperatures since pre-industrial times below 2C (3.6F), the internationally-agreed threshold.

“If there is no legal instrument by which we can make countries responsible for their actions, then we are relegating countries to the fancies of beautiful words,” said Karl Hood, Grenada’s Foreign Minister, speaking for Aosis.

“While they develop, we die; and why should we accept this?”

Impassioned arguments

Maite Nkoana-Mashabane, president of the talks: “No one can walk out of this room and say we don’t care about climate change”

Delegates from the Basic group – Brazil, South Africa, India and China – criticised what they saw as a tight timetable and excessive legality.

“I stand firm on my position of equity,” said an impassioned Jayanthi Natarajan, India’s environment minister.

“This is not about India, it is about the entire world.”

India believes in maintaining the current stark division where only countries labelled “developed” have to cut their greenhouse gas emissions.

Western nations, she said, have not cut their own emissions as they had pledged; so why should poorer countries have to do it for them?

Xie Zhenhua, head of the Chinese delegation, agreed.

Apparently trembling with rage, he berated the developed countries: “We are doing things you are not doing… we want to see your real actions”.

However, Bangladesh and some other developing countries weighed in on the side of Aosis, saying a new legally-binding deal was needed.

Aosis and the LDCs agree that rich countries need to do more.

But they also accept analyses concluding that fast-developing countries such as China will need to cut their emissions several years in the future if governments are to meet their goal of keeping the rise in global average temperature since pre-industrial times below 2C.

Once the roadmap blockage had been cleared, everything else followed quickly.

Continue reading the main story

Action that helps cope with the effects of climate change – for example construction of barriers to protect against rising sea levels, or conversion to crops capable of surviving high temperatures and drought.

Glossary in full

There were some surreal moment of confusion, but few objections, except from members of the Latin American Alba group, who said the developed world was not living up to its promises.

Green fund

A management framework was adopted for the Green Climate Fund, which will eventually gather and disburse finance amounting to $100bn (£64bn) per year to help poor countries develop cleanly and adapt to climate impacts.

There has also been significant progress on Reducing Emissions from Deforestation and forest Degradation (REDD).

Environment groups were divided in their reaction, with some finding it a significant step forward and others saying it had done nothing to change the course of climate change.

Many studies indicate that current pledges on reducing emissions are taking the Earth towards a temperature rise of double the 2C target.

Michael Jacobs, visiting professor at the Grantham Research Institute on Climate Change and the Environment in London, said the agreement could bring real changes.

“The agreement here has not in itself taken us off the 4C path we are on,” he said.

“But by forcing countries for the first time to admit that their current policies are inadequate and must be strengthened by 2015, it has snatched 2C from the jaws of impossibility.

“At the same time it has re-established the principle that climate change should be tackled through international law, not national, voluntarism.”

Your comments (409)