[Sixstrings]

A new global body dedicated to environmental stewardship is needed to prevent a repeat of the deadlock which undermined the Copenhagen climate change summit, Gordon Brown will say tomorrow.

The UN’s consensual method of negotiation, which requires all 192 countries to reach agreement, needs to be reformed to ensure that the will of the majority prevails, he feels.

The Prime Minister will say: “Never again should we face the deadlock that threatened to pull down those talks. Never again should we let a global deal to move towards a greener future be held to ransom by only a handful of countries. One of the frustrations for me was the lack of a global body with the sole responsibility for environmental stewardship.

“I believe that in 2010 we will need to look at reforming our international institutions to meet the common challenges we face as a global community.” The summit failed to produce a political agreement among all the countries. Delegates instead passed a motion on Saturday “taking note” of an accord drawn up the night before by five countries: the US, China, India, Brazil and South Africa.

Despite being the first world leader to join the summit, Mr Brown was excluded from the key meeting where the compromise was decided.
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/article6963482.ece#cid=OTC-RSS&attr=3392178

Yikes, this is chilling. I think maybe this is the meaningless prattle of a man who wasn't even invited to the meetings that mattered.

And, if China won't even agree to any independent verification of emissions reductions (because in reality they have no intention of reducing their pollution), I certainly can't see China ever ceding over all authority to a worldwide Green Police.

So I guess this is just meaningless crazytalk. And yet even talk like this is highly disturbing. Essentially, he's saying that democracy is just too inconvenient and so we need a worldwide governing panel with ultimate authority (dictatorship) over all environmental issues. ::Shudder::

[mos6507]

Yikes, this is chilling.

What's chilling is the planet facing a mass extinction, which requires a global response, and all we can do is fearmonger about one-world-government.

National sovereignty isn't going to count for much when the planet up and dies on us, man.

Get your priorities in order.

[Jotapay]

This whole thing of the planet dying is a bit overblown, especially when climate scientists are freaking out (in their own emails) about how they are seeing global cooling instead of the warming they need to push their freak-out panic agenda.

You saw the TV program recently about Chernobyl? It showed that in 20 years the area has virtually completely re-wilded itself. You can't even tell that towns were there 20 years ago. Wildlife has completely taken over the area and is flourishing. Mother Nature is pretty resilient.

We can just pollute less. We don't need a global gestapo. We don't need to pay $3000 per year per family in the USA to fund a global bureaucracy that will supersede national sovereignty and our own congress. These are unelected globalists and we will have no say or control over the decisions they make that will rule our daily lives. This will create a global dictatorial body that we are going to fund with our own climate taxes.

It baffles me how some people can seemingly hate democracy and the idea that citizens should control their own fate, while loving what are apparently dictatorial regimes. Unbelievable.

[Pretorian]

I heard in some African natural reserves rangers shoot withoiut warning anybody who has anything that looks like a weapon. Woudlnt it be nice to have something like that on a global scale?

[rangerone314]

I thought the unelected globalists were the ones exerting the primary influence through money on our Congress? Its nice to know I was wrong about that.

Its also nice knowing that I have so much say and control over the decisions Congress makes that will rule our daily lives.

Ooops, that's right, my address isn't on K-Street.

Spengler asserts that democracy is simply the political weapon of money, and the media is the means through which money operates a democratic political system.

[Jotapay]

I heard in some African natural reserves rangers shoot withoiut warning anybody who has anything that looks like a weapon. Woudlnt it be nice to have something like that on a global scale?

Coming soon to your neighborhood.

(But not to the Globalists' gated and guarded neighborhood: they get to live in enormous mansions like Al Gore, fly 150 private CO2-puking jets to Copenhagen, and consume 100 times the resources of us little people.)

[hillsidedigger]

Biodiverity loss is already well along and rapidly accellerating even without human caused climate change.

There's no denying it. There's not much way to stop it either.

[Pretorian]

You saw the TV program recently about Chernobyl? It showed that in 20 years the area has virtually completely re-wilded itself. You can't even tell that towns were there 20 years ago. Wildlife has completely taken over the area and is flourishing. Mother Nature is pretty resilient.

One more proof that 100 000 people with a consumption level of a Bangladeshi or so are much more dangerous than 500 Hiroshima bombs.

We can just pollute less.

yeah. Good luck with that.

[mos6507]

Biodiverity loss is already well along and rapidly accellerating even without human cause climate change.

There's no denying it. There's not much way to stop it either.

What makes you think the biodiversity loss has nothing to do with AGW? And of the portion that doesn't, it's certainly due to habitat loss and general pollution from man. Or haven't you ever watched any nature specials in the last, oh, 40 years that have been documenting this process in mind-numbing detail?

But no, it's much easier to throw your hands up and say "there is nothing we can do". If there is nothing we can do, it's because we already struck a mortal wound to the patient, not that we didn't have anything to do with it.

[pablonite]

So I guess this is just meaningless crazytalk

I don't think so. Just reaffirming the future plan for his handlers. He is referring to NATO of course.

His suggestion that the few should rule the many is the way it is and always has been, the hard part is convincing the masses it works but he doesn't have much material to work with so he constantly relies on the fear card. The real problem now is that these people can manufacture realities to justify almost every fear card pulled out. It looks bad.

National sovereignty isn't going to count for much when the planet up and dies on us, man.

You never know, if you believe the planet is about to "up and die" perhaps we should try something that's never been done before. Empowering individuals to make their own decisions instead of relying on a bunch of inbred royalty and old money to decide what is best for all of us?

Just as a sidenote, you will notice a loophole large enough to drive millions of tanks through in "climate change law", there is no accountability for the military industrial complex, the biggest single polluter and destroyer of worlds ever created. Wake Up, if they really thought climate change is a problem this would be addressed.

[Pretorian]

I heard in some African natural reserves rangers shoot withoiut warning anybody who has anything that looks like a weapon. Woudlnt it be nice to have something like that on a global scale?

Coming soon to your neighborhood.

(But not to the Globalists' gated and guarded neighborhood: they get to live in enormous mansions like Al Gore, fly 150 private CO2-puking jets to Copenhagen, and consume 100 times the resources of us little people.)

to each his own.

[Jotapay]

We can just pollute less.

yeah. Good luck with that.

You must not have gotten the memo. In the USA, we cause much less damage to the environment that we did 30-40 years ago. Smog levels in Los Angeles are lower than they were 20 years ago. It is places like India and China that you need to worry about. China's atmosphere is so polluted that you can't even see more than a half-mile in most cities. They can learn to pollute less, same as we did.

[Jotapay]

Biodiverity loss is already well along and rapidly accellerating even without human cause climate change.

There's no denying it. There's not much way to stop it either.

What makes you think the biodiversity loss has nothing to do with AGW? And of the portion that doesn't, it's certainly due to habitat loss and general pollution from man. Or haven't you ever watched any nature specials in the last, oh, 40 years that have been documenting this process in mind-numbing detail?

But no, it's much easier to throw your hands up and say "there is nothing we can do". If there is nothing we can do, it's because we already struck a mortal wound to the patient, not that we didn't have anything to do with it.

Ha! Mos, scientists were predicting disaster from global cooling thirty years ago. So which is it then, can we get the drama llamas to make up their mind already?

[EnergyUnlimited]

UK's Brown calls for new group to police global environment

Not feasible at the moment.
World is too fragmented and too conflicted for that to succeed.
Globalization is failing.
International organizations are in retreat and losing influence as we speak.
We are living in era of unilateralism.
Climate related issues will also be subjected to unilateral actions of various nations.

[Lore]

Biodiverity loss is already well along and rapidly accellerating even without human cause climate change.

There's no denying it. There's not much way to stop it either.

What makes you think the biodiversity loss has nothing to do with AGW? And of the portion that doesn't, it's certainly due to habitat loss and general pollution from man. Or haven't you ever watched any nature specials in the last, oh, 40 years that have been documenting this process in mind-numbing detail?

But no, it's much easier to throw your hands up and say "there is nothing we can do". If there is nothing we can do, it's because we already struck a mortal wound to the patient, not that we didn't have anything to do with it.

Ha! Mos, scientists were predicting disaster from global cooling thirty years ago. So which is it then, can we get the drama llamas to make up their mind already?

Actually more papers were written during the 70s about global warming, with a larger consensus, then by scientist about cooling. Possibly your just confused by another FOXNOISE media myth.

[pablonite]

What makes you think the biodiversity loss has nothing to do with AGW? And of the portion that doesn't, it's certainly due to habitat loss and general pollution from man. Or haven't you ever watched any nature specials in the last, oh, 40 years that have been documenting this process in mind-numbing detail?

You see this "lumping in" all the time?. From what I understand there has been no drastic climate change since the mini ice age hundreds of years ago.

Hunting to extinction is popular with humans though. For instance I can go out right now and shoot a black bear and sell it's balls to a Chinese guy for a healthy profit - the bear is not factored into the monetary system obviously. In fact I could go so far as to say extinction is good for business. Would it horrify you to learn there are people in "the conservation business" who think this way?

The mind numbing detail you describe being documented in "nature specials" is spot on unfortunately, people will never understand much sitting in front of a flickering tube. It goes something like this, the cat handler guy heads out with the camera man and they shoot a "female mountain lion stalks white tailed deer to feed cubs" scene. In the guys backyard they just use a male cougar that actually sits in a cage all day because TV people are too stupid to even tell the difference...

Attenborough is half decent though. The bottom line is the people who watched a lot of nature specials growing up are the rabid recruits sucked into the new green religion, all by design IMO. David Suzuki is one of many who were groomed from the get go to recruit these people enmasse whether he realizes that or not is completely irrelevant but it works better if he doesn't ask where all his money comes from.

[Jotapay]

Actually more papers were written during the 70s about global warming, with a larger consensus, then by scientist about cooling. Possibly your just confused by another FOXNOISE media myth.

As the world has been cooling for 15 years, who was correct then?

[Lore]

Actually more papers were written during the 70s about global warming, with a larger consensus, then by scientist about cooling. Possibly your just confused by another FOXNOISE media myth.

As the world has been cooling for 15 years, who was correct then?

Already discussed here many times, do a search. You're wrong and just another denial myth.

[Sixstrings]

National sovereignty isn't going to count for much when the planet up and dies on us, man.

Get your priorities in order.

Yeah, and Mussolini made the trains run on time.

I'll say it again, all these proposals coming from the elites seem to entail massive taxes on Europeans and Americans, and boondoggle giveaways to China, India, Brazil, and of course the bankster class who will take their big cut in the new carbon markets.

The only thing I'd be in favor of is a team of inspectors consisting of representatives from all nations. If we can verify that China and India are making REAL cuts in emissions, then I don't mind us making cuts as well. But, as was made clear in Copenhagen, China will not tolerate any real inspections. The Chinese say they're perfectly capable of inspecting themselves. Well, sorry China, this Joe Sixpack just doesn't trust you.

As Reagan said, trust -- but verify.

[rangerone314]

National sovereignty isn't going to count for much when the planet up and dies on us, man.

Get your priorities in order.

Yeah, and Mussolini made the trains run on time.

I'll say it again, all these proposals coming from the elites seem to entail massive taxes on Europeans and Americans, and boondoggle giveaways to China, India, Brazil, and of course the bankster class who will take their big cut in the new carbon markets.

The only thing I'd be in favor of is a team of inspectors consisting of representatives from all nations. If we can verify that China and India are making REAL cuts in emissions, then I don't mind us making cuts as well. But, as was made clear in Copenhagen, China will not tolerate any real inspections. The Chinese say they're perfectly capable of inspecting themselves. Well, sorry China, this Joe Sixpack just doesn't trust you.

As Reagan said, trust -- but verify.

Considering the #*&% is going to hit the fan no matter WHAT we do now, and we're probably past the tipping point, I say let reality do its thing.

As oceans rise and deserts expand, the third world will see its overpopulation problem solved.

Peak oil will solve the first world's energy usage issue.

The world would be lucky to agree to a treaty that even reduces the damage, let alone "fairly" whatever that means.

The Age of Consequences is upon us, so maybe it is time to start thinking about long-term mitigation, especially at the national and local levels, since you don't need a treaty for that.

Like what areas are going to shift from zone 7 to zone 8 agriculture-wise, how to deal with more malaria, etc. Where would be a good place for new harbors as the oceans rise, that sort of thing.