Open mike 19/12/2009

7 comments on “Open mike 19/12/2009 ”

• Comments are now closed

1. Jenny 1

   19 December 2009 at 6:11 am

   Money can’t buy you love.

   Tuvalu rejects trickle down.

   From Radio Australia News:

   “Tuvalu says it’s been offered money by Australia to water down it’s draft proposal at the climate change conference, but it’s rejected the offer.”

   http://www.radioaustralianews.net.au/stories/200912/2774445.htm?desktop

   In effect Australia is trying to bribe the people of Tuvalu give up their homeland for money.

   Is this an example of how the trickle down theory for dealing with climate change, is to be worked out in practice? Big wealthy nations will continue to pollute recklessly, while paying off poorer nations to accept the effects of climate change?

   Yesterday the Prime Minister of Tuvalu, Apisai Ielemia, rejected the offers of Australian money to “water down” his country’s draft proposal to limit temperature rise to below 1.5 degrees. To have accepted this bribe, in effect would mean agreeing to his country’s extinction.

   A Washington lobbyist, an attendee at Copenhagen who was reported last week as saying that the trickle down theory would be used to deal with the effects of climate change, These guys aren’t kidding, and are in deadly earnest.

   If they think that a little of their wealth can ameliorate some of the effects on those worst affected by climate change, do they also think that because they are able to use even more of this wealth to protect themselves, that they are hoping that their own families could be spared?

   It seems to me that the rich rulers of the planet may be prepared to take this gamble, rather than let their privileges and power be cut back.
2. andy 2

   19 December 2009 at 8:25 am

   Audrey Young tells us a month later that, Key steps in to save Hides Job.

   Oh and “And it is believed that at the height of controversies in the two support parties – the Act leadership and the Maori Party’s turmoil over MP Hone Harawira – Mr Key briefly considered a snap election to gain National an outright majority.”

   Would have been nicer to know at the time that Rodney is the lynch pin to holding this government together.

   I am sure its just me but didn’t we get the live blogging of the ‘challenge to Goffs leadership non event’ in real time, but nearly calling a snap election is so yesterday.

   /sigh
   • Tigger 2.1

     19 December 2009 at 10:09 am

     So Key’s not as ‘relaxed’ as he makes out clearly. I mean, a snap election? Overraction much?
3. Draco T Bastard 3

   19 December 2009 at 3:38 pm

   An interesting item from Darien Fenton over at Red Alert: A Bit Rich?
   It seems that some think tank decided to see who was actually more valuable to society – cleaners or bankers (and a few others) and it turns out that the cleaners are.

   The research examined the contributions these jobs make to society, and found that it was the lower paid jobs which involved more valuable work. For example, for for every £1 bankers make, they destroy £7 of social value. Whereas for every £1 childcare workers are paid, they generate between and £9.50 worth of benefits to society. For every £1 a hospital cleaner is paid they generate over £10 in social value, but an advertising executive destroys £11 for every £1 in value they generate.

   Capitalism: the biggest misallocation of resources known to man.
4. gingercrush 4

   19 December 2009 at 4:13 pm

   I see Fitzsimons is all upset over Copenhagen calling it a disgrace. I’m not sure what they were expecting. But there was never going to be some mass agreement. More ludicrous is this piece by her, “The purpose of the meeting was to agree on a second commitment period for the Kyoto protocol. That has not been achieved.”

   So in other words the whole point of one meeting was another meeting. That is great thinking there Fitzsimons. She need further opens up: We came here wanting an ambitious, fair and binding agreement. The talks have failed on all three counts. There are no country targets, only an appendix where countries offer non-binding reductions which collectively will not stop warming of two degrees. As it is not ambitious or binding, it cannot be fair to the developing countries that are already suffering from climate change.

   Did she really expect the United States to be ambitious. Did she really expect other developed countries to be ambitious. No amount of wanting things will actually achieve things. As it is, for a long time there was never an expectation that there would be a binding agreement at Copenhagen.

   She then launches an attack on New Zealand’s position and misses the point. They don’t think a further meeting should go ahead if its just going to be the same set of things that happened at Copenhagen. Therefore, what needs to happen is for countries to reach some agreement of what needs to be done so something can actually happen. She hasn’t actually said it, but I suspect she doesn’t want New Zealand to sign anything here as she thinks what has been agreed is bullshit. Certainly Idiot/Savant feels that way. Then what was the point of Copenhagen in the first place if you have something that has been agreed shouldn’t be signed.

   The far-left and the environmentalists were always going to be disappointed with the outcomes of Copenhagen. When you have major countries responsible for most of the world-wide emissions. Any agreements were bound to be on their grounds. To think otherwise is naive. That and what you desire hasn’t been considered by many countries whatsoever.

   I still think the day the Greens actually have a proper coalition relationship with Labour is the day they realise they won’t get most of what they want and they’ll have far less influence on policy and what can be achieved in a government. Until then they can remain their ever optimistic selves at what is possible when you’re a minor party.

   http://blog.greens.org.nz/2009/12/19/copenhagen-diary-it-is-a-disgrace/#comments
   http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=10616514&pnum=2
   http://norightturn.blogspot.com/
   • felix 4.1

     19 December 2009 at 7:03 pm

     “So in other words the whole point of one meeting was another meeting. “

     How do you get that from:

     “The purpose of the meeting was to agree on a second commitment period for the Kyoto protocol.”

     Have I missed something or did you paste the wrong quote or something?

Links to post

1. Government barely survives first year « The Standard: posted on 19 December 2009 at 10:23 am

• Comments are now closed

• Log in
• Donate
• Contribute post

• Articles RSS